On June 15, the world witnessed the first end of the American-Israeli war of aggression against Iran. Although there are no victors and vanquished yet, the United States has been deeply humiliated—in its military power, technology, strategy, and judgment; hence it has lost in strategic terms. Iran has won a whole lot. Banished for 45 years, it dominates the global strategic scene for now. And against this backdrop, Pakistan, the skilled mediator and geostrategic strategist who has delivered commitment to war, emerges as a master of classical diplomacy.
The US has gained little and lost significantly. Its direct military involvement did not lead to strategic submission from Iran. It did not collapse Iran’s will. It did not deliver a new regional order on American or Israeli terms. Instead, it pushed the world to the brink of a wider war, threatened the security of the Strait of Hormuz, unsettled global energy markets and revealed the limits of military coercion when dealing with a state that cannot be excluded from any serious regional security framework. Israel, the main driving force behind this US-Israeli aggression, failed to achieve its strategic goal of Iran’s destruction and to trap the region in the logic of war while expanding its control in pursuit of its diabolical dream of Greater Israel.
The signing of the MOU marks the end, for now, of a dangerous cycle of war and opens the door to the next round of negotiations on the nuclear issue, uranium enrichment, sanctions relief and de-escalation. Iran appears to have secured commitments on de-escalation, gradual easing of sanctions pressure and the movement of the release of the UAE, including the Iranian assets associated with the release of the UAE.
For the world, the most immediate gain is the opening and securing of the Strait of Hormuz. Its closure had led to energy price shocks, inflation, shipping insecurity, pressure on oil-importing economies and wider economic instability. The MOU has so far pulled the world back from that brink. The 107-day blunder did not proceed into a Vietnam-like protracted disaster for the United States, Iran or the region. Pakistan’s sustained, credible and multi-layered engagement, its diplomacy in keeping channels of communication open throughout the war, made this possible.
Pakistan’s message from day one was that war is no answer; dialogue is indispensable; and guns don’t really build security. This was Pakistan’s global message. Commitment, recognition of the efforts of all sides and a regional commitment to peace and stability do. Pakistan made this happen. The irony is that Pakistan’s top diplomat in this crisis was COAS-CDF Field Marshal Asim Munir. In the classic diplomatic sense, he became the key Pakistani figure managing a complex process in which war, deterrence, regional politics, great power pressure and back-channel negotiations all coalesced. Pakistan’s decades of experiential wisdom in dealing with complex security crises through dialogue, engagement and restraint came to the fore.
It is noteworthy that the April 11 meeting in Islamabad was a defining moment. The conversations were substantive. It was almost a deal, or at least the architecture of a deal was within reach. Pakistan’s groundwork and several ceaseless dialogues had worked. Then came the disturbing factor: Israel. Threats of imminent military action created panic and negotiations broke off. Trump had less to do with it, and Netanyahu more. There was intelligence and concern that Israel might attack senior Iranian figures, including Iran’s military leadership and foreign minister. It was an immediate security threat that could have completely destroyed the negotiation track.
It was in this environment that Pakistan’s role became crucial. Pakistan did not allow the diplomatic space to collapse. It kept channels open. It helped address the security concerns surrounding Iranian officials and supported the safe movement of senior Iranian leaders at a time when the threat of Israeli action was real.
Pakistan was dealing with a wider regional crisis involving Gulf anxiety, Iran-Saudi and Iran-UAE tensions, maritime security, Hormuz and the fear that a single spark could ignite a far wider war. It engaged Iran and the United States while remaining aware of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkiye, Egypt and other concerned states. It had to understand Iran’s legitimate security concerns while dealing with Arab fears of escalation. It had to oppose Israeli aggression and genocide while still pushing for restraint.
Beijing publicly supported Pakistan’s initiatives and subsequently aligned itself with Pakistan. As a global power, it most substantively advocated dialogue.
As the war progressed, a new regional consultation pattern also emerged. Pakistan, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and Egypt – a budding R4 of regional powers – actively engaged and assessed the crisis. This mattered because the region could not afford to leave its fate entirely to external powers or to Israel’s war agenda. Regional security must be owned by regional states, and Pakistan’s role in this consultation was strengthened by its unique position: a nuclear-armed Muslim state with military weight, diplomatic experience and credible channels across multiple capitals.
In the last 107 days, Pakistan has clearly emerged as a middle power with influential convening and engagement capabilities. It has shown that classic diplomacy still matters: quiet talks, strategic reassurance, crisis management, staying away from soundbite point-scoring, credible intermediaries, protection of negotiating space and the ability to convince opponents that dialogue serves their own interests.
A recent illustration of Pakistan’s growing credibility was the visit of the Lebanese army chief to Pakistan and his meeting with Pakistan’s air chief. This is another signal of Pakistan’s growing relevance beyond the immediate US-Iran track. From Iran to Lebanon and from the Gulf to wider West Asia, Pakistan is increasingly seen as a country that can meet, advise, engage and mediate.
Meanwhile, the Iran-US MOU has created an opening, but Israel is desperate to disrupt it, whether through Lebanon or through its occupation and killing of Palestinian lands. Talks are vulnerable to continued mistrust between Iran and the US as well as to US domestic politics. And Pakistan’s role remains critical. The ceasefire is also vulnerable, as is the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s economic aid must be real enough to keep diplomacy alive. Within the broader regional context, including Israeli aggression, Iran-Gulf relations, Yemen dynamics, maritime security and Israeli aggression, challenges will also remain active.
But after 107 days, the scorecard reads clear: Iran’s gains are the realization that despite sanctions, attacks and pressure, it cannot be pushed aside. Iran is an integral part of any framework seeking regional stability, prosperity or development. A policy built only on isolating Iran has failed. A policy built only on military pressure has failed. Engagement is not a favor to Iran; it is a requirement for peace.
And finally, Pakistan’s achievement: it helped bring the battered and bubbling US and the region back to the crucial understanding that dialogue alone works. It helped limit war when escalation was possible. It showed that a state can be principled and pragmatic at the same time.
For Pakistan, the task is clear: continue to actively facilitate the ceasefire into a negotiation process that enables an agreement between Iran and the United States. Indeed, it is the time to recognize that Pakistan’s quiet, steady and sustained diplomacy has helped shape one of the most consequential diplomatic openings in modern global history.
The author is a foreign policy and international security expert. She posts on X @nasimzehra.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Pakinomist.tv’s editorial policy.
Originally published in The News
