PUBLISHED April 19, 2026
KARACHI:
It’s probably been said many times over the past few weeks, but it still bears repeating. The world is going through unprecedented times in more ways than one. Trying to navigate a way out of the US and Israel’s war on Iran, we chart uncharted waters, boldly going where no one has gone before, to borrow from Star Trek.
It’s not just the stakes that are unprecedented – with the global economy, the specter of nuclear holocaust and the possibility of another world war hanging in the balance. That is the very nature of the challenge. This is a war that began with the beheading of a country’s leadership at the very moment it appeared prepared to accept its adversary’s demands at the negotiating table – the ultimate act of bad faith. Add to that the leader of a global superpower led who seems to see the world through the logic of WWE or The Apprentice, carrying out ‘diplomacy’ through bombastic posts on social media while remaining the ultimate malevolent actor in Israel.
No wonder Pakistan’s efforts to bridge the gap to peace have seemed – still seem – so unlikely. And yet Islamabad helped deliver a breakthrough, against all odds, as the clock ticked down on Donald Trump’s ultimatum: a fragile ceasefire that so far continues to hold, albeit tenuously.
The first round of talks in Islamabad between Iran’s leadership and a US delegation led by Vice President JD Vance ended in a deadlock, with both Tehran and the Trump administration again digging in their heels. Since then, all eyes have been on Pakistan’s leadership as it launched an unprecedented diplomatic push this week ahead of a potential second, and possibly decisive, round of talks between Iran and the United States. The country’s top civilian and military leadership spread across key regional capitals to build momentum for a breakthrough, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif visiting Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkiye, while Chief of the Defense Staff and Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir made a surprise trip to Tehran.
Regardless of how the next phase unfolds, Pakistan’s nimble and tireless diplomacy has already won it rare recognition from world leaders and geopolitical observers alike. Trump himself has repeatedly singled out Prime Minister Shehbaz and Field Marshal Munir for praise. “Thanks to Pakistan and its great Prime Minister and Field Marshal, two amazing people!” he wrote in a recent post on Truth Social. Earlier this week, in an interview with Fox News, Vice President Vance credited both leaders for their role in mediating between Washington and Tehran, calling them extraordinary hosts who displayed true statesmanship.
The reaction from Tehran has also been remarkably warm. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has praised Islamabad for its role in mediating and helping establish a ceasefire in the US-Israeli war, according to the state-run IRNA news agency. Welcoming Field Marshal Munir to Tehran, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who was part of the Iranian delegation in Islamabad, expressed “gratitude for Pakistan’s gracious host for dialogue.”
The UN has also taken note of this. In a call with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, Secretary-General António Guterres appreciated Pakistan’s constructive role in convening the Islamabad talks and expressed the UN’s full support for its continued efforts in the peace process.
For analysts and observers, Pakistan’s role borders on the extraordinary. “Tireless efforts by Pakistan have brought hope to the world,” Indian defense analyst Pravin Sawhney wrote in a post on X, adding that Islamabad could assume a significant security role in West Asia if the talks progress.
Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar described Pakistan’s diplomacy in the crisis as “a very clever way of maneuvering a situation that is practically impossible no matter where you look at it.”
“Munir is probably the only person on the planet at this moment who can pick up the phone and talk to Trump whenever he wants and at the same time be received as a brother in Tehran,” he said in a podcast with Mario Nawfal.
Around the world, the growing consensus is that few countries could have threaded this needle.
“Pakistan brings a different set of assets to the table. Its established military-to-military channels worldwide, regional familiarity and tactical flexibility are useful in facilitating sensitive dialogue. Like Norway, Pakistan also contributes troops to peacekeeping missions,” wrote Tanya Goudsouzian, a Canadian journalist who has covered Afghanistan and the Middle East for two decades in the Middle East.
As this chorus of praise grows louder, it is worth pausing to inquire what exactly Pakistan has achieved. To reduce its role to mere logistics would be to miss what is truly new about this moment. This is not traditional mediation, of the kind long associated with Oman or Qatar — small, wealthy, neutral states that have built reputations on quiet facilitation and discreet back channels. These models were designed for slower, more predictable crises, not for a war that unfolds in real time, under the pressure of imminent escalation and the constant threat of miscalculation.
What emerges instead is something closer to crisis management under fire: a form of diplomacy that mixes access, leverage and, crucially, the implicit backing of hard power.
The choice of Pakistan as the venue for the talks was not accidental. It reflects a convergence of strategic realities. Tehran considers Islamabad a neighbor with which it shares not only geography but deep societal ties, including one of the largest Shia populations outside of Iran. At the same time, Pakistan’s long-standing ties with Saudi Arabia, recently formalized through a mutual defense pact, give it credibility in Riyadh. Overlaying this is China’s quiet but decisive support, anchored in its own strategic partnerships with both Pakistan and Iran.
On the American side, the calculation is more personal, but no less significant. Donald Trump’s well-documented relationship with Field Marshal Munir — forged during last year’s war with India — has created an unusual channel of access that bypasses the bureaucratic inertia that often hinders diplomacy in moments of urgency. In a crisis defined as much by personalities as by politics, that matters.
But if Pakistan’s comparative advantage lies in access, it is its willingness and ability to operate in the shadow of coercive power that sets it apart.
Consider the events surrounding the first round of interviews. As Iranian negotiators traveled to and from Islamabad due to fears they might be targeted en route, Pakistan launched a large-scale aerial escort operation, deploying fighter jets along with airborne warning systems to ensure their safe passage. This was not neutrality in the classical sense. It was an assertion of responsibility that blurred the line between diplomatic relief and military guarantee.
Meanwhile, Islamabad’s decision to deploy fighter jets to Saudi Arabia under its recently signed mutual defense pact around the same time points to a broader strategy. On one level, the move acted as a safeguard for the ceasefire, signaling to Tehran that any expansion of the conflict into Saudi territory would have consequences. On the other hand, it sent a message to Israel that the regional balance was not entirely complacent. In both cases, Pakistan did not simply host dialogue; it actively shaped the strategic environment in which this dialogue unfolded.
This is a fundamentally different model of engagement that reflects Pakistan’s own geopolitical realities. Unlike European mediators like Norway, whose success was built on decades of cultivated neutrality and institutional depth, Pakistan is deeply embedded in the very conflicts it seeks to de-escalate. Its proximity is both limitation and leverage.
By stepping into this role, Islamabad is testing the limits of what middle powers can achieve in an era where traditional diplomatic frameworks are ill-suited to the pace and complexity of modern conflicts. If the current ceasefire holds, and if subsequent rounds of negotiations produce even incremental progress, Pakistan will have shown that influence in today’s world does not necessarily come from neutrality alone. It can also arise from a more complex interplay of proximity, access and controlled assertiveness. From the ability to act simultaneously as host, stakeholder and, when necessary, guarantor.
For now, Pakistan has done something few thought possible: it has placed itself at the center of one of the most dangerous geopolitical crises of our time, not as a bystander, but as an active participant in the search for an exit. What comes next will require a delicate balancing act that will test its diplomatic capacity, internal coherence and ability to navigate competing external pressures.
Zeeshan Ahmad is a freelance journalist and media researcher who writes on politics, security, technology and media narratives
All facts and information are solely the responsibility of the author
