ConflictClarifier

Rastreador de la Crisis Irán-Golfo 2026
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 25, 2026

Why Pakistan’s US-Iran mediation offer is joke of the year

Summary

Why Pakistan's US-Iran mediation offer is joke of the year Pakistan, a country struggling to contain violence within and around its own borders, now wants to broker peace between the US and Iran. The contradiction is glaring. Pakistan, which escaped India’s wrath over its terror attacks very recently, is already at war with Afghanistan, has repeatedly violated the ceasefire along the LoC, provides safe harbour to terrorists and their camps, has been called out multiple times at the UN, and even invites terrorists to officials’ funerals. The same Pakistan has now offered to mediate peace talks in the US-Iran conflict. That’s it. That is the joke. On March 23, when Reuters reported that Pakistan was among the three countries offering to mediate the US-Iran conflict, it raised eyebrows. It was hard to believe. Then Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif tweeted, "Pakistan stands ready to negotiate." Social media dismissed it as audacity, not diplomacy. The idea that a country accused of exporting terror could present itself as a peace messenger seemed absurd. That is, until Donald Trump retweeted it. Not only this, Trump chose Pakistan to hand over his 15-point truce proposal to Iran. And Pakistan, which has been under attack by the Taliban, is offering Islamabad as the venue for negotiations. A country struggling to contain violence within and around its own borders now wants to broker peace elsewhere. The contradiction is glaring. WHY PAKISTAN CAN’T BE A PEACE NEGOTIATOR They say practice what you preach. In Pakistan’s case, it should be practised before you preach. Pakistan hosts terror bases. Its military has long been accused of maintaining links with extremist outfits. Its relations with neighbours remain fraught. And it has faced serious allegations over strikes in Afghanistan, including the bombing of a Kabul hospital that killed over 400. How does such a country position itself as a mediator? Shouldn’t peace begin at home? The Global Terrorism Index 2026 ranks Pakistan as the most terrorism-affected country in the world, with a score of 8.574, overtaking Burkina Faso. This is not a perception problem. It is a reality problem. Beyond Islamist militancy, Pakistan is also dealing with separatist violence, particularly from the Balochistan Liberation Army. Incidents such as large-scale hostage situations underline how deep the instability runs. From Al-Qaeda, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Taiba to Jaish-e-Mohammad, all major terror networks have operated from Pakistani soil. Pakistan’s role in fuelling extremism in Jammu and Kashmir has also been widely documented, including in past US State Department reports. Besides, the timing is also ironic. Pakistan is offering to negotiate at a time when it is embroiled in a deadly war with Afghanistan. The strikes went parallel with the West Asia conflict and the intensity of Pakistan's strikes in Afghanistan increased as the Middle East conflict escalated. It culminated with Pakistan bombing of a drug rehab hospital in Kabul that left over 400 dead. How can the country that killed 400 innocents be a messenger of peace? Peace abroad, conflict at home. That is the contradiction Pakistan has yet to resolve. US’S DOUBLE STANDARDS Trump’s retweet did more than just amplify a message. It exposed what can be seen as Washington’s double standards. This comes days after Trump loyalist Laura Loomer openly criticised Pakistan, calling it a hub of Islamic terrorism and questioning any US engagement with it. Yet, when strategic convenience demands it, those concerns appear to take a backseat. "Pakistan's biggest export to the world is Islamic terrorism," she said at India Today, adding, "I don't believe the US should be cosying up to the Pakistani government at all." But why Pakistan? The answer lies in geopolitics. Islamabad maintains working ties with both Washington and Tehran. It also enjoys close relations with Saudi Arabia, a key player in any regional equation. There is also the Trump factor. Pakistan has invested in maintaining access and relevance. High-level contacts, including outreach involving army chief Asim Munir, suggest a relationship built on utility. But utility is not credibility. And mediation demands credibility. SOCIAL MEDIA ERUPTS The internet wasted no time calling it what it saw. A joke. “Noble Peace Prize... saving millions people. Joke of the century,” one user wrote. Another pointed out the irony of a country at war with its neighbour offering to mediate conflicts elsewhere. “Ah yes, Pakistan, a country famed for its pursuit of peace,” another user remarked sarcastically. The ridicule reflects a deeper scepticism. People are not just reacting to the offer. They are reacting to the mismatch between Pakistan’s record and its claim. SHEHBAZ SHARIF PULLING A TRUMP? Sharif’s move also mirrors a familiar style of politics. His praise for Trump, including endorsing his claims of having stopped an India-Pakistan war, fits into a pattern. Statements that amplify, flatter, and align. At public events, Sharif has credited Trump with preventing escalation between two nuclear powers. Trump, in turn, has welcomed such praise. "Suffice to say, had it not been for this gentleman who knows, India and Pakistan are both nuclear powers... had he not intervened, along with his wonderful team during those 4 days, the war could have escalated to a level...who would have lived to tell what happened?" Sharif said. The arrow landed as planned and Trump, visibly glowing with pride after the set-up before a line-up of regional leaders, joked, “Wow I didn’t expect that. Let’s go home. There’s nothing more I have to say, Goodbye everybody. That was really beautiful. And beautifully delivered. Wow. Thank You very much.” At Gaza Peace Summit, Sharif said he would like to again recommend the name of “this great president” for the Nobel Peace Prize on the occasion. "I genuinely feel that he [Trump] is the most genuine and most wonderful candidate for the Peace Prize because he has brought not only peace in South Asia, saved millions of people And today, here in Sharm el-Sheikh, achieving peace in Gaza, is saving millions of lives in the Middle East," he had said. Now, the roles appear to be evolving. By stepping into the mediator’s role, Sharif positions himself to claim diplomatic success if talks ever materialise. And will Trump nominate Sharif as a return of favour because he nominated the US President. Not once, but twice. There is a limit to boot polishing but clearly none for bootlicking and Pakistan knows that. Mediate first. Claim credit later. Perhaps even aim for a Peace Prize narrative. The internet has already connected the dots. Many now wonder whether this is less about peace and more about perception. "Now Shahbaz Sharif will say that 16 planes were destroyed in the war, I stopped the war, I should get the Nobel Prize," an X user wrote. Another wrote, "Will Trump be nominating Shahbaz Sharif for the Nobel Peace Prize then. Jokes apart, it may not be about the Peace Prize so much. Pakistan, who has admitted to holding a begging bowl amid its economic crisis, is motivated by its economic necessity, geopolitical positioning, and national security concerns. But mediation is not a PR exercise. It requires trust, neutrality, and a consistent commitment to peace. Until Pakistan addresses the contradictions within its own policies and conduct, its ambitions to act as a global peacemaker will continue to invite scepticism and outright ridicule.

Actors involved

USIran

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