Regional quartet offer Trump a final off-ramp

The four-way foreign ministers’ meeting held in Islamabad on Sunday may be the region’s best — and last — chance to arrest the slide toward full-scale war in the Arabian Gulf and beyond. Bringing together Saudi Arabia, Turkiye, Egypt and Pakistan, the gathering represented a genuine opportunity for countries directly impacted by the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran to forge a unified front and present a credible initiative for de-escalation and an eventual peaceful resolution.

In a video statement, Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said the foreign ministers discussed “possible ways to bring an early and permanent end to the war” in the Middle East. He added that all sides had expressed confidence in Pakistan’s facilitation and that China “fully supports” the initiative to host potential US-Iran talks in Islamabad.

Pakistan has emerged as a key mediator between Tehran and Washington since the US and Israel attacked Iran on Feb. 28, prompting counterattacks from Tehran on American interests, as well as oil and other infrastructure in Gulf Arab countries.

Pakistan’s unique standing — maintaining ties with both the Iranian leadership and the White House — gives it leverage

Osama Al-Sharif

Gulf Cooperation Council countries, having condemned Iran’s unprovoked attacks on energy, civilian and military targets, stressed the need to find a diplomatic solution to the crisis, while calling for efforts to consolidate their common defense.

Pakistan has earned a valuable role in this crisis that no other regional actor currently plays: a communication channel between Tehran and Washington. Its unique standing — maintaining ties with both the Iranian leadership and the White House — gives it leverage that could translate into real diplomatic movement. That potential is reinforced by the backing of the three other powers at the table: Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkiye. Together, they carry the political weight to make Washington listen.

Riyadh, Ankara and Cairo have already staked out a principled and consistent position: while they have condemned Iran’s attacks against Gulf states, they have firmly opted for a political resolution over military escalation. That stance reflects both strategic calculation and regional responsibility — and it gives the Islamabad meeting a solid foundation on which to build a unified regional initiative.

The message from Islamabad dampens calls for a US ground incursion against Iran. Any such move would not only extinguish whatever diplomatic prospects remain but also dramatically raise the stakes for Gulf states that have so far managed to stay on the sidelines. The message also calls for an immediate ceasefire and a return to negotiations — giving both Washington and Tehran a face-saving framework to step back from the brink.

There has not yet been a clear reaction from Washington on the Islamabad meeting and statement. President Donald Trump sent mixed messages over the weekend and into Monday, saying that talks are ongoing with an Iranian leadership that wants a deal but then warning on social media that if a deal is not reached, “we will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their electric generating plants, oil wells and Kharg Island.” In an interview with the Financial Times on Monday, Trump said he would like to “take the oil in Iran,” while not ruling out a ground operation.

Iranian officials were quoted as saying that America’s 15 conditions for an end to the war were one-sided, unrealistic and served only American and Israeli interests. Tehran formally conveyed this assessment to Pakistan without issuing an official reply directly to Washington. While there was no formal American response to Iran’s five-point demands, US analysts said they could never be accepted by the White House. Iran had denied that direct talks were being conducted with the US but welcomed the Pakistani initiative.

A negotiated deal remains possible. Both sides will have to make compromises but that route must be explored extensively

Osama Al-Sharif

Trump had given Iran until April 6 to reach a deal or else he would carry out his threat. Meanwhile, global financial and energy markets are fluctuating amid uncertainties over how the conflict will end. More than a month of heavy strikes against Iran’s nuclear and industrial base has weakened the country considerably, but Tehran’s ability to launch drones and missiles against its Gulf neighbors and Israel does not appear to have been completely degraded. In fact, both the US and Israel have suffered serious shortages in missile interceptors. Added to this, the war is costing the US billions of dollars and it now appears it will last for at least a few more weeks.

What Gulf countries should make clear is their rejection of any US escalation in the form of a ground invasion or the destruction of Iranian power, oil and desalination plants. A desperate Iranian retaliation would almost certainly target Gulf power and desalination infrastructure, with catastrophic consequences. Possible US and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities — particularly those near the Arabian Gulf coast — could also unleash deadly radiation clouds that would affect the region for decades.

After a month of heavy bombardment of Iranian strategic sites, the priority now is to reach a deal that will reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran has effectively shut down. Iran’s nuclear program has been either destroyed or rendered offline for many years — that objective of the war has largely been achieved. The program’s future can be settled through negotiations.

The war has also dealt a serious blow to the global economy, especially the economies of the Gulf. Trump must take the interests of these countries into account as he ponders his next move. A takeover of Kharg Island or an attempt to loosen Iran’s grip on the Strait of Hormuz would almost certainly prove inconclusive and militarily uncertain — and its effects on the Gulf, the region, and the world would be devastating.

A negotiated deal remains possible. Both sides will have to make compromises but that route must be explored extensively, with the interests of all parties taken into consideration. One important caveat: what the US and its regional allies seek may not align with the objectives of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The statement from Islamabad challenges Washington’s current trajectory and Israel’s maximalist war aims. It may not be welcomed by either. But it may also be the only credible off-ramp left — and the region’s most powerful states owe it to themselves, and to the broader Middle East, to take it.

• Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman. X: @plato010