ConflictClarifier

متتبع أزمة إيران-الخليج 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeApr 12, 2026

The art of the table: Pakistan’s history of making adversaries talk | The Express Tribune

Summary

The art of the table: Pakistan’s history of making adversaries talk Fifty years of brokering peace for others, can the 'Islamabad Talks' mark a turning point for Pakistan’s diplomacy? For a country long typecast as a source of regional instability, Pakistan pulled off something for the books. After almost six weeks of conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran, it was Islamabad that brokered a two-week ceasefire – maintaining a careful balancing act throughout, avoiding alignment with either side while quietly working to open channels for de-escalation. With less than two hours before US President Donald Trump's deadline for Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, who warned “a whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again”, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced that both sides had agreed to an immediate ceasefire. The praise that followed was swift and global, with world leaders lined up to congratulate Pakistan. The Malaysian prime minister called Islamabad's efforts "tireless and courageous" while Kazakhstan's president attributed the agreement directly to the mediation of Prime Minister Shehbaz and Chief of Defence Forces and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir. However, for those who have watched Pakistan's diplomatic history closely, it is not the first time Pakistan has found itself at the centre of a geopolitical breakthrough – and that pattern, as much as the ceasefire itself, is worth examining. We’ve been here before "Pakistan's peace initiative will go down in diplomatic history as a milestone," said Masood Khalid, former ambassador of Pakistan to China. "The international community is fully supportive of Pakistan's peace efforts," he stated. He added, "Pakistan wants the two parties to realise the cost of their failure to reach a modus vivendi" but said that regardless, Pakistan would not be a loser "as it has made sincere efforts to provide a platform for Iran and the US to resolve their issues." However, the former ambassador remains measured regarding what comes next. "As regards the future trajectory, that depends on the US and Iran to find a middle ground, which is no doubt challenging, but still doable. Flexibility, maturity and rationality is needed in these talks to avoid a future crisis from erupting," he noted. Meanwhile, major general (retired) Inam ul Haque urges restraint in how the moment is interpreted. "We should not be too early to jump to conclusions," he said. "We should wait for the process to run its full course and then make an opinion as to where it is leading," he stated before the talks ended without an agreement on Sunday. Responding to whose diplomatic achievement it was, he remained cautious. "We should not give verdicts like whose big diplomatic achievement this is. It is the diplomatic achievement for peace, for Pakistan, for the US, for Iran, for all the stakeholders," Haque maintained. The quiet facilitator Brokering peace in a time of heightened global tensions is, in many ways, a familiar role for Pakistan. The country has a quiet but consequential history of making itself indispensable at moments when the world's great powers cannot, or will not, talk to each other directly. One such example was in 1971, when Washington and Beijing had not spoken in over two decades. It was through Islamabad that the first signals were passed – Pakistan's back channels to China gave then-US secretary of state Henry Kissinger a secret route to Beijing. His covert flight, routed through Islamabad, made Nixon's historic 1972 visit to China possible. This led to Nixon's famous handshake with Mao Zedong and the broader detente between the two countries, accompanied with the US' recognition of communist China. Pakistan hadn't just facilitated a meeting, it had helped rewire the global order. Read More: One message tipped the scales According to Ambassador Khalid, "In 1971, Pakistan played a seminal role in bringing about a rapprochement between the USA and China, and that changed global politics." He added, "Chinese leaders even today acknowledge our contribution. American leaders like Dr Kissinger also acknowledged our role." Major general Haque went further: "Pakistan was instrumental in patching up between China and the US in the 1970s. As far as our balancing act between China and the US is concerned, our foreign office and our establishment is very experienced in doing that. We have been walking this tight diplomatic road for a long time and we have been doing it very successfully." A decade and a half after aiding the US-China rapprochement, Pakistan was again at the centre of history. The 1988 Geneva Accords, which ended the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, were made possible in large part by Pakistan's role as a key conduit for the Afghan mujahideen and key interlocutor between Washington and the Afghan factions. The accords, a bilateral agreement between Afghanistan and Pakistan, included the US and the Soviet Union as guarantors. It laid out the terms and timeline for the return of refugees and the withdrawal of Soviet forces from Afghanistan. Although Afghan unrest continued after the Soviet withdrawal, Pakistan, through strategic maneuvering of its diplomatic relationships, had managed to bring together the US and Soviet Union during the tense Cold War period, with both powers remaining guarantors of non-interference and non-intervention. The cost Pakistan paid for that role was concrete and lasting. Pakistan's economy was burdened by feeding millions of Afghan refugees for nearly a decade, while the country absorbed the narcotics trade and arms factionalism that the war had seeded across its western border – consequences that would define Pakistani society for a generation. Then came Doha in 2020, when Pakistan was again quietly instrumental in bringing the Taliban to the table, facilitating the agreement that was celebrated internationally as a landmark diplomatic achievement. The Doha Accords, known also as the Agreement for Bringing Peace to Afghanistan, saw Pakistan leverage its relationship with Washington and its influence with Taliban leadership to help end the long-running war. The agreement laid out fighting restrictions for both parties as well as the withdrawal of all NATO forces from Afghanistan in return for counter-terrorism commitments from the Taliban. "Be it the Geneva Accords or the Doha Accords, Pakistan has shown its commitment to peace and its capacity to deliver," said Ambassador Khalid. Also Read: How Pakistan brokered a two-week ceasefire deal between US, Iran? Pakistan's former permanent representative to the United Nations Dr Maleeha Lodhi, in a 2021 interview, also credited Islamabad for its role in the negotiation process. She stated that Pakistan kept the channel of communication open with the Taliban, adding, "If we hadn't, Pakistan would not have been able to play the constructive role it played in helping in the sequence of events that led to the Doha agreement between the US and the Taliban." The commitments of the accords, however, did not hold. Part of the Doha pact was an assurance that Afghanistan would not allow any terrorist group to use its soil to attack a foreign country, yet in the years that followed, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan grew stronger, not weaker, operating from Afghan territory with training camps across Kunar, Nangarhar and Khost. Pakistan had helped broker a deal whose blowback landed squarely on itself. The dividend question Three moments, three generations, a strikingly consistent pattern – and a question that refuses to go away: what has Pakistan actually walked away with? The Geneva Accords left Pakistan managing millions of Afghan refugees and a narco-arms economy that would haunt it for decades. Doha produced neither security nor economic reward, only a more emboldened Taliban on its border and a deepening insurgency at home. By 2025, Pakistan was experiencing six times as many terrorist incidents as it did in 2020, the year the Doha Accords were signed. Nixon's opening to China also reshaped the world, but Pakistan remained on the margins of what followed. According to Khalid, "Whether Pakistan reaped strategic dividends or not is debatable." "I don't think it can be gauged in net loss or gain, it depended on the obtaining situation and geopolitical dynamics of the time," he said. In the current context, he argued, the measure should be different. "The biggest dividend would be if Pakistan's peace efforts are crowned with success. Pakistan is not a party in this conflict. Pakistan is a facilitator, mediator, and an honest broker." Haque, meanwhile, rejected the premise of the question: "I don't agree that Pakistan could not reap the strategic dividends of earlier diplomatic achievements," he said, adiing, "The mere fact that you are acknowledged as a big player which is influential at the global stage, that is important." He also draws a pointed analogy: "When Norway goes for mediation on the Afghanistan issue, it doesn't expect any diplomatic dividends or windfalls." For Haque, the recognition itself is the reward. "Pakistan is one of 200 United Nations members singly handling a very complex issue on which global peace is dependent. The mere fact that Pakistan is in the limelight for the right reasons globally; that is a great achievement," he maintained. The "Islamabad Talks" What makes Pakistan's brokering between Tehran and Washington different from its past endeavours is not just what Pakistan did – it is what everyone else didn't. Major powers including Russia, China, the European Union, Egypt, and Turkiye had resigned to fate and taken a backseat, leaving a vacuum that Islamabad chose to fill. In previous episodes, Pakistan was a corridor through which great powers moved. This time, it moved on its own. That movement did not happen overnight. Two turning points had rebuilt Pakistan's trust with Washington in the years prior: the capture of a suspect linked to the 2021 Kabul airport bombing, which prompted public thanks from President Trump, and the four-day war with India in May of 2025, which analysts said gave Pakistan's military leadership a significant boost in diplomatic credentials. By the time the Iran war began, CDF Munir, whom Trump had taken to calling his "favourite field marshal", had become the only serving military chief at the World Economic Forum in Davos, and had spoken with Vice President JD Vance multiple times since hostilities began. The groundwork for Pakistan's emergence as a key channel for peace was, thus, laid carefully. Before the "Islamabad Talks" even began, Islamabad had hosted a quadrilateral foreign ministers' meeting with representatives from Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, building a regional coalition behind its mediation efforts rather than simply offering itself as a venue. The role itself had also changed in kind. Islamabad transitioned from crisis mediator to host of high-stakes negotiations, with Vance travelling alongside senior envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, and Iran sending Parliament Speaker Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi to negotiate on Pakistani soil. What followed were the highest-level direct talks between the US and Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution – 21 hours of negotiations that the world watched. However, they ended without a deal. Vance departed, crediting Pakistan directly, saying, "whatever shortcomings of the negotiation, it wasn't because of the Pakistanis who did an amazing job and really tried to help us and the Iranians bridge the gap and get to a deal." Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, in the aftermath of the talks, urged both sides to uphold the ceasefire and maintain the talks' positive spirit. "Pakistan has been and will continue to play its role to facilitate engagement and dialogue," he said. It was a sentence Pakistan has, in different words, said before; after Geneva, after Doha, after 1971. What Pakistan has consistently demonstrated is its ability to bring adversaries to the table. Where it has struggled, over decades of quiet diplomacy, is sustaining influence once the talks move beyond the room. That, perhaps, is the question the “Islamabad Talks” leave behind: not whether Pakistan can convene dialogue, but whether it can shape what endures after it.

Actors involved

USIsraelIranUNRussiaChina

Sources

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranUN
1 source

The US and its allies Britain, France and Germany are pushing other countries on the UN nuclear watchdog's board to pass a resolution next week reporting Iran to the UN Security Council for the first time in 20 years, diplomats said on Friday. If passed, the resolution would follow up on one adopted on June 12 of last year declaring Iran in breach of its non-proliferation obligations for not fully cooperating with an investigation into uranium traces found at undeclared sites.

The US launched an air war against Tehran on February 28 in which, together with Israel, it destroyed or badly damaged Iran's uranium-enrichment facilities. Iran has not let International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors return to the bombed sites since then or verify what remains of its stocks of enriched uranium, some of which was enriched to up to 60% purity, a short step from weapons grade.

Resolution would be culmination of standoff over IAEA's access to nuclear sites A resolution by the IAEA's 35-nation board reporting Iran to the Security Council would also be the culmination of a standoff over IAEA access to those sites, since the board has passed two resolutions in the past year demanding Iran declare its enriched uranium stocks and grant the IAEA full access to verify them.

A draft text for the resolution has yet to be formally submitted to the board and negotiations between countries over the exact wording are ongoing, diplomats said. A draft is usually formally submitted early in the week of a board meeting. As a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has the right to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes.

Iran says it would never produce nuclear weapons. It is, however, the only country to enrich to 60% without making a bomb. The amount it has enriched to that level is "a matter of serious concern" to the IAEA. The IAEA believes well over 200 kg of that highly enriched uranium has survived the bombardments and is held in a tunnel complex at Isfahan and at the Natanz facility.

Location: Jerusalem
strikeUnverifiedUSIranChina
1 source

The U.S. Treasury imposed sanctions on the Turkish bank Golden Global Yatirim Bankasi Anonim Sirketi, alleging it facilitated the transfer of Iranian oil revenues into cash and gold. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent stated these measures are part of "Operation Economic Outcast," an initiative launched following more than six months of conflict to pressure Iran.

Location: Iran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranEURussiaChinaUkraineHamas
1 source

Rabobank reported that geopolitical developments, including Russian statements regarding potential peace talks in Ukraine and US-Iran hostilities, continue to dominate market sentiment, though analysts noted these claims remain unverified. The bank also cited unconfirmed reports that South Korea may deploy forces to the Strait of Hormuz and that Israel has stated regime change in Tehran is a primary objective, while noting that Ukrainian media reports of an impending northern Russian offensive lack independent verification.

Location: Tehran
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranRussiaUkraine
1 source

The White House is now apparently using Russian tactics to convince the American public that the war in Iran is not, in fact, a war. When asked by reporters at the White House on Thursday whether the most intense sustained air campaign by American forces since the invasion of Iraq would be over by the midterms, Vice President JD Vance replied: “I wouldn’t call it a war.

” Vladimir Putin said much the same thing when he invaded Ukraine. Russia was not fighting a war either, the Kremlin insisted; it was merely conducting a “special military operation.” If that comparison strikes you as shocking, consider the contours of the two conflicts.

A vastly more powerful military launched a punishing offensive against a smaller, less well-equipped adversary, inflicted enormous damage without achieving a decisive resolution, and then found itself drawn into a longer, grinding conflict with no clear way out.

The motivations behind the wars may be different, and they’re playing out in different theaters, but the pattern is eerily similar. Now, so too is the attempt by those in power to control how the public understands, and even what it is allowed to call, the obvious war unfolding in front of them.

If This Isn’t a War, What Is? Let us take a moment to assess what exactly has happened since February 28, when the U.S. launched Operation Epic Fury. The opening U.S.-Israeli attack killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, along with the commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the defense minister and various other senior officials.

According to the U.S. military’s own accounting, the first 38 days of major combat operations involved more than 10,200 sorties and 13,500 strikes. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) says those attacks damaged or destroyed more than 85 percent of Iran’s ballistic missile, drone and naval defense industrial base, while knocking out 82 percent of its air-defense missile systems.

The U.S. sent carrier strike groups and warships into the region, later imposing a military blockade on Iranian ports. Meanwhile, American and allied air defenses intercepted more than 6,000 Iranian attack drones and 1,500 ballistic missiles fired at U.

S. forces, Israel and American partners across the Middle East. More than 50,000 U.S. service members remain deployed across the region. The fighting has killed 18 U.S. service members and at least 8,000 people across Iran, Lebanon, Israel and the Gulf states.

More than 750 U.S. service members have been wounded. Last month, during a lull in the fighting, the U.S. Treasury unveiled a sanctions package likened to an “economic D-day” that is designed to make Iran an “economic outcast” and cut the adversary off from all available forms of economic support.

In the announcement, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent openly declared that Iran had been “at war against America” for 47 years. This week, the shooting resumed; the U.S. hit targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran blasted missiles at targets in Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Iraq.

All this from an administration that almost exactly a year ago launched a rapid rebrand of the Defense Department into the “Department of War”. No boots on the ground, though, so it’s not a war, right? Tell It Kind of Like It Is Even the very best snake-oil salesman would have a hard time convincing people that the war in Iran isn’t a war.

So why is JD Vance even trying? Well, if there’s one thing politicians understand better than anyone, it’s the importance of language and rhetoric. Words have immense power; a well-written speech can unite millions of people, and a catchy slogan like Make America Great Again can come to represent an entire political philosophy.

But war is a pesky word. For one, it implies there will eventually be a winner and a loser. It also brings with it certain expectations—and some very difficult questions. What is the objective? How many people will die? When will it end? And, perhaps most dangerously of all: was it worth it?

Those are not questions the White House wants Americans to be asking. Trump built a substantial part of his political identity around ending, rather than beginning, America’s “endless wars.” When Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding in June, the White House presented it as proof that Trump’s America First approach could deliver peace without another prolonged Middle Eastern conflict.

Then the hostilities started again. Earlier this week, Trump shared a Truth Social graphic declaring that “Hormuz Oil Volumes are BACK!”, saying 18 million barrels a day were once again leaving the Strait, compared with 20 million before the war. No independent commodity tracking company or energy analyst appeared to verify Trump’s claims.

But most Americans won’t be checking tanker-tracking dashboards. What they’ll care about is the cold, hard fact that diesel hit a new record price this morning, soaring to an average of $5.85 a gallon for the first time ever. Gasoline is $4.15 a gallon on average, compared with $3.

20 at this time last year, according to AAA. The numbers on the sign at the gas station and the price on the grocery receipt aren’t affected by Trump’s tall tales, but they’ll surely affect how Americans vote at the midterms. When viewed in this light, Vance’s attempt to discourage reporters from “call[ing] it a war” begins to make sense.

A war is something that we want to end. It tends to result in a winner and a loser. And its worth is up for debate at all times. A different kind of engagement that doesn’t quite meet the threshold of war—say, a special military operation—is not exposed to the same kind of scrutiny.

Vance effectively made that case himself. “When you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” he said. By that logic, there is no American war—only recurring Iranian provocations that require American military responses.

That’s exactly the logic applied by Putin to Ukraine and supposed expansion of NATO. Putting the Toothpaste Back in the Tube U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly invoked the War Powers Resolution to challenge Trump’s authority to keep fighting Iran without specific congressional authorization.

The law generally gives a president 60 days after U.S. forces enter “hostilities” to secure congressional approval or bring those hostilities to an end. That makes the pauses in fighting hugely important. When the original 60-day deadline arrived in May, Trump told Congress that the temporary ceasefire reached in April meant the hostilities that began on February 28 had ended.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth argued that the War Powers clock could “pause, or stop” when the shooting did. That position is disputed by legal experts, but its political utility is obvious. If every new outbreak of fighting can be treated as a separate skirmish, rather than part of one continuous war, the administration can argue that a fresh 60-day clock starts each time.

Vance’s insistence that there is no continuing “war” fits neatly for an administration that has already tried to divide six months of conflict into separate periods of hostilities, interrupted by ceasefires and pauses. This brings us back to Moscow.

The Kremlin’s own linguistic trick was also about making one sprawling war sound smaller, more limited and more manageable than it really was. From the very beginning of the invasion, Putin described the war as a special military operation. Only after two years of grinding warfare did Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov openly declare Russia to be in a “state of war”—and even then, he said the transformation had occurred because the “collective West” had joined the fight against Russia.

Vance is playing a similar game, but in reverse. Only now—with soaring fuel prices, mounting casualties, concerns over the military’s munitions stockpiles, and midterm elections on the horizon—is the conflict no longer a war. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle, though, and the American people aren’t stupid.

Vance and the White House may discover in November that voters are perfectly capable of recognizing a war, even when the vice president doesn’t want to call it one.

Location: Iran