Pakistan and the rewriting of crisis diplomacy

It has probably been said many times over the past few weeks, but it still bears repeating. The world is living through unprecedented times, in more ways than one. In trying to navigate a way out of the US and Israel’s war on Iran, we are charting unknown waters, boldly going where no one has gone before, to borrow from Star Trek. It is 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. It is the nature of the challenge itself. This is a war that began with the decapitation of a country’s leadership at the very moment it appeared ready to accept its adversary’s demands at the negotiating table — an ultimate act of bad faith. Layer onto that the leader of a global superpower led who seems to view the world through the logic of WWE or The Apprentice, conducts ‘diplomacy’ through bombastic posts on social media, while remaining beholden the ultimate bad-faith actor in Israel. It is no wonder that Pakistan’s efforts to bridge the gulf to peace have seemed — still seem — so improbable. And yet, against all odds, with the clock running down on Donald Trump’s ultimatum, Islamabad helped deliver a breakthrough: a fragile ceasefire that, for now, 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 deadlock, with both Tehran and the Trump administration once again digging in their heels. Since then, all eyes have been on Pakistan’s leadership as it mounted an unprecedented diplomatic push this week ahead of a potential second, and possibly decisive, round of negotiations between Iran and the United States. The country’s top civilian and military leadership fanned out across key regional capitals to build momentum for a breakthrough, with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif visiting Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkiye, while Chief of Defence Staff and Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir undertook 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. “Thank you to Pakistan and its great prime minister and field marshal, two fantastic people!” he wrote in a recent post on Truth Social. Earlier in the week, Vice President Vance, in an interview with Fox News, credited both leaders for their role in mediating between Washington and Tehran, calling them exceptional hosts who demonstrated real statesmanship. From Tehran, too, the response has been notably warm. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has commended 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 hosting of dialogue.” The United Nations, too, has taken note. Secretary-General António Guterres, in a call with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, 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,” wrote Indian defence analyst Pravin Sawhney in a post on X, adding that Islamabad could assume a significant security role in West Asia if talks progress further. Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar described Pakistan’s diplomacy in the crisis as “a very clever way of maneuvering a situation that is practically impossible from any point 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 anytime he wants, and at the same time be received as a brother in Tehran,” he said in a podcast with Mario Nawfal. Across the world, the burgeoning 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 over two decades, in a post on X. As this chorus of praise grows louder, it is worth pausing to interrogate what, exactly, Pakistan has achieved. To reduce its role to mere logistics would be to miss what is genuinely novel 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 backchannels. Those models were designed for slower, more predictable crises, not for a war unfolding in real time, under the pressure of imminent escalation and the constant threat of miscalculation. What is emerging instead is something closer to crisis intermediation under fire: a form of diplomacy that blends access, leverage, and, crucially, the implicit backing of hard power. Pakistan’s selection as the venue for talks was not accidental. It reflects a convergence of strategic realities. Tehran views Islamabad as a neighbor with which it shares not just geography, but deep societal linkages, including one of the largest Shia populations outside Iran. At the same time, Pakistan’s longstanding ties with Saudi Arabia, recently formalized through a mutual defence pact, grant it credibility in Riyadh. Overlaying this is China’s quiet but decisive endorsement, rooted in its own strategic partnerships with both Pakistan and Iran. On the American side, the calculus is more personal, but no less significant. Donald Trump’s well-documented rapport 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 stymies diplomacy in moments of urgency. In a crisis defined as much by personalities as by policy, 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 around the first round of talks. As Iranian negotiators travelled to and from Islamabad amid fears they could be targeted en route, Pakistan mounted a large-scale aerial escort operation, deploying fighter jets alongside airborne early warning systems to ensure their safe passage. This was not neutrality in the classical sense. It was an assertion of responsibility, blurring the line between diplomatic facilitation and military guarantee. Meanwhile, Islamabad’s decision to deploy fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia under the framework of its newly signed mutual defence pact around the same time points to a broader strategy. On one level, the move served as a guardrail for the ceasefire, signaling to Tehran that any expansion of the conflict toward Saudi territory would carry consequences. On another, it sent a message to Israel that the regional balance was not entirely permissive. In both cases, Pakistan was not merely hosting dialogue; it was actively shaping the strategic environment in which that dialogue was unfolding. This is a fundamentally different model of engagement, reflecting Pakistan’s own geopolitical realities. Unlike European mediators such as 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 constraint and leverage. In stepping into this role, Islamabad is testing the boundaries of what middle powers can achieve in an era where traditional diplomatic frameworks are ill-suited to the pace and complexity of modern conflict. If the current ceasefire holds, and if subsequent rounds of talks produce even incremental progress, Pakistan will have demonstrated that influence in today’s world does not necessarily flow from neutrality alone. It can also emerge from a more complex interplay of proximity, access, and controlled assertiveness. From the ability to operate simultaneously as host, stakeholder, and, when necessary, guarantor. For now, Pakistan has done something few thought possible: it has inserted itself into 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 scholar who writes about politics, security, technology and media narratives All facts and information are the sole responsibility of the author

from Latest News, Breaking News & Top News Stories | The Express Tribune https://ift.tt/maqCAeK