Pakistan’s quiet gambit in a volatile US-Iran crisis

As the dark shadow of recession looms across the globe, and through the billowing smoke of US-Israeli strikes and Iranian counter-attacks, a murky path to diplomacy has begun to emerge. Reportedly, at the center of these backchannel efforts is Pakistan — a country that, over decades, has learnt to function through the fog of war.

Pakistan occupies a unique geopolitical intersection that few nations can claim. As a nuclear-armed power with the world’s second-largest Shiite population, it shares a border and historic ties with Iran. It also facilitates Iran’s consular services in the United States through the Pakistani embassy, as Tehran and Washington have no diplomatic relations.

At the same time, Pakistan maintains storied, if complex, military ties with the United States as a strategic partner — from the Soviet-Afghan war to the hunt for the Taliban. Pakistan’s most influential figure, Field Marshal and Chief of Army Staff General Asim Munir, enjoys a personal rapport with President Donald Trump, who has praised him on several occasions.

Pakistan also has an ideological bond, defense cooperation, and economic reliance on Saudi Arabia, alongside deep-rooted ties with Gulf states, particularly the UAE and Qatar. This places Islamabad in a position few others occupy — able to speak, however cautiously, to all sides.

That positioning is now being put to the test.

 Islamabad is in a position few others occupy — able to speak, however cautiously, to all sides.

-Owais Tohid

The warming of ties between Islamabad and the West, particularly during the Trump administration, has gained momentum in recent months. Leveraging this positioning, Pakistan has placed itself at the center of diplomatic efforts alongside Turkiye and Egypt. Islamabad is preparing the ground for high-stakes talks between the arch-rivals, with potential plans to host negotiations. There is also a suggestion for Turkiye as an alternative venue for these possible talks.

In a post on X, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif stated that Pakistan stands ready and honored to host and facilitate a meaningful and conclusive settlement of the conflict. Soon after, he spoke with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman to brief him on Pakistan’s “constructive diplomatic outreach to all parties.”

These efforts, though still fragile, appear to have yielded early results. In a notable shift, President Trump — whose rhetoric had previously leaned toward the “obliteration” of Iran — announced a five-day pause in hostilities. On the same day, Trump and General Asim Munir reportedly discussed ongoing diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions. Turkiye and Egypt too have worked in parallel to widen the corridor for peace.

So far, US–Iran engagement has remained indirect, conducted through intermediaries, with Pakistan playing a leading role. This explains why Tehran continues to deny direct negotiations. While no official announcement has been made, reports suggest talks could take place in the coming days, possibly in Islamabad, provided current efforts do not stall.

Names circulating in diplomatic corridors include Vice President JD Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff for the United States, and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi for Iran. Diplomatic efforts remain largely backchannel and indirect — for now.

At the same time, both Washington and Tehran are staking out maximalist positions, signalling their conditions through intermediaries and the media. Reports suggest the US has presented a detailed ceasefire plan through Pakistan. Its core demands reportedly include curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, halting its ballistic missile program, limiting regional proxy activity, ensuring the security of Gulf energy infrastructure, and safeguarding navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran, meanwhile, has confirmed receiving proposals but insists that the exchange of messages does not constitute negotiations. Its demands are rooted in decades of sanctions and isolation since 1979. Tehran is expected to seek sanctions relief, compensation for wartime losses, and guarantees against future attacks. It may also push for access to frozen financial assets held abroad.

These maximalist positions are not accidental. They are aimed as much at domestic audiences as at negotiating tables. Both sides are signalling strength, even as they quietly test the boundaries of compromise. Ultimately, each will seek to claim victory, regardless of what a final agreement may actually contain.

Iran maintains that it has stood firm against the combined pressure of the US and Israel. It points to its ability to strike sensitive targets, maintain control over the Strait of Hormuz, and preserve regime stability. At the same time, it has suffered heavy losses, including significant casualties, infrastructure damage, and economic strain. Inflation and public discontent remain pressing concerns that will not disappear when the guns fall silent.

The United States, too, faces mounting pressure. There are growing concerns that deeper involvement could lead to another prolonged and costly conflict. With domestic scrutiny intensifying ahead of elections, Washington has strong incentives to avoid escalation while maintaining its regional influence. 

For Gulf states, the stakes are equally high. While they have largely exercised restraint, retaliatory actions have disrupted energy markets and strained oil-dependent economies. Stability in the Strait of Hormuz — through which a significant share of global oil flows — remains critical.

Pakistan, meanwhile, continues to tread carefully. It must balance its ties with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, its relationship with Washington, and its historical links with Iran. That balance is not without risk. There are concerns about potential domestic repercussions should regional instability deepen or spill over.

Adding further complexity is Israel’s continued military activity in Iran and southern Lebanon, which risks widening the conflict and undermining diplomatic efforts. Continued escalation threatens to destabilize an already fragile region, raising fears of a broader conflagration.

For those closely watching these developments, the road to peace remains uncertain and fraught. It requires navigating decades of mistrust, competing interests, and active conflict dynamics. The slightest misstep could derail progress.

For now, both the battlefield and the diplomatic chessboard to end it remain volatile.

- Owais Tohid has reported extensively on war and conflict in Asia for 30 years and witnessed the rise and fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan. He has also covered the Palestinian conflict in the Occupied Territories and worked for the BBC World Service, AFP and CS Monitor. X: @OwaisTohid