It is interesting to observe how Pakistan has attempted to turn an international relations crisis into an opportunity by acting as a mediator in the conflict between the United States and Iran. This move has been widely discussed and, in many quarters, appreciated by political commentators and analysts across the globe.

The major players in the wider US–Israel–Iran conflict include the United States, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states, all of whom except Israel share important ties with Pakistan. This places Pakistan in a difficult position, as it faces the challenge of deciding which side, if any, it should support.

Pakistan has significant obligations toward several countries. It has relied on financial bailouts from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and China, while also maintaining reasonably stable relations with Iran, which is both a neighboring country and an Islamic nation. In addition, Pakistan has a defense pact with Saudi Arabia that ensures mutual defense, where aggression against one is considered an attack on both. At the same time, Pakistan and Iran have often shared anti-Zionist positions.

China, meanwhile, is Iran’s largest trading partner and one of its key allies, along with Russia, offering diplomatic and military support. Therefore, Pakistan cannot isolate itself from this conflict and is compelled to balance its obligations toward Saudi Arabia, the United States, China, and Iran, all of whom are entangled in this complex geopolitical situation.

While China and Iran appear to be aligned, at least covertly, on one side, the United States and Saudi Arabia are on the other side with Isreal. Under such circumstances, taking sides would impose a huge cost on Pakistan. Consequently, Pakistan took the initiative to facilitate negotiations between Iran and the United States. Despite its comparatively limited stature in relation to these major powers, this may have been the best available option for Pakistan to avoid being drawn deeper into the conflict.

At present, both the United States and Iran seem weary of prolonged hostilities and may be seeking an honorable exit from the conflict. Pakistan, acting as a messenger and negotiator, initially succeeded in helping establish a ceasefire between the two countries. This is a significant achievement for a country like Pakistan, which faces economic fragility and has often been criticized internationally over issues related to terrorism.

Although a ceasefire was achieved, negotiations between the United States and Iran reportedly failed in the first round, and a second round could not begin. Pakistan claims to have earned the trust of both parties, but both countries, particularly Iran, appear to remain extra cautious.

If Pakistan succeeds in helping end the conflict and establish lasting peace, it would mark an important diplomatic achievement for the country, especially given its global image challenges. Even if it does not succeed in fully resolving the conflict, its mediation efforts may at least help prevent itself from becoming directly entangled in the war.

However, if the ceasefire collapses and hostilities resume, and if Pakistan loses the trust of either side being betrayed, the consequences could be adverse. Only time will reveal what lies ahead for Pakistan in its role as mediator and negotiator.

Pakistan also appears to have aligned certain economic interests with the conflict. By opening six overland routes linking Karachi and Gwadar ports directly to Iran, it aims to bypass blockades and facilitate cargo movement, which could help Iran and other countries including Pakistan in the event of disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. In addition, these ports may generate higher revenue for Pakistan, while also easing its own oil supply concerns.

Unfortunately, many analysts and commentators have been comparing India and Pakistan on this issue, which may not be entirely justified. Relations between India and the United States have reportedly been strained following Operation Sindoor and tariff-related issues. Moreover, India’s relationship with Israel is strategic and strong, while its ties with Iran are largely economic.

Under these circumstances, India should not aspire to act as a mediator unless explicitly requested or encouraged by both parties involved in the conflict. Instead, India should carefully monitor the situation and avoid becoming unnecessarily entangled.