Can Pakistan deliver a US-Iran deal – or will another power take the lead?

As Washington and Tehran test fragile diplomatic channels, regional powers are competing for the right to shape the future of Middle East negotiations After threatening to destroy Iran’s “whole civilization” a few hours before the deadline he set for Iran, US President Donald Trump suddenly announced a two-week ceasefire that continues to this day, though it remains fragile. Throughout this time, the White House has been urgently pushing the narrative about an active negotiation process with Iran, which is supposedly yielding results. Washington still talks about progress and work on a framework agreement, though Tehran has accused Washington of violations and the US military remains ready to resume combat operations at any moment. Tehran’s skepticism is understandable: On two previous occasions, negotiations with the Trump administration only brought about an escalation of the conflict. During the hot phase of the war, Tehran publicly refuted Trump’s claims about forthcoming negotiations, labeling the reports misleading and false. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has frequently been mentioned in the Western media as a negotiator on the Iranian side, said Washington used fabricated reports of talks to manipulate the oil markets. This is difficult to dispute; indeed, as soon as Trump mentioned negotiations with Tehran, oil prices began to drop. While they didn’t return to the $72 per barrel mark seen just before the start of the conflict on February 28, they demonstrated a positive trend. According to Tehran, Trump’s repeated statements about negotiations serve not to initiate dialogue with Iran but rather to project an image that the White House is in control of the escalation, holds the diplomatic initiative, and if necessary, can present any interim outcome as the president’s personal success. In other words, the public emphasis on negotiations appears to be an effort to create a political exit strategy – essentially a way to emerge unscathed, even if no significant strategic breakthrough occurs.

This interpretation aligns with how the Trump administration intensifies its rhetoric while simultaneously speaking of productive contact. The international media quickly picked up on this. However, the question of who could become a mediator between Washington and Tehran is no longer a priority. Most media outlets have agreed that the talks will probably be held in Pakistan. And indeed, Islamabad mediated the ceasefire, which considerably increased Pakistan’s political weight. As a result, the focus of the discussion has shifted. Instead of wondering whether negotiations are possible, the media is preoccupied with a more practical question: Will they be held in Pakistan, and will Islamabad be an effective mediator? Read more The war on Iran may become a turning point in the post-Cold War order Why Pakistan? In early April, reports emerged that Pakistan is one of the most probable venues for future negotiations. Around the same time, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry officially announced negotiations between Iran and the US, which were indeed held on April 11. They ended without results, while no resumption of hostilities was reported, but the US began a blockade of Iranian ports. At present, according to media reports, the US and Iran continue to exchange proposals for a final settlement specifically through Pakistani diplomatic channels. Pakistan’s role as a mediator in this conflict is far from coincidental. As the only Muslim nuclear power, Pakistan holds exceptional symbolic and strategic weight in the Islamic world. This status lends Islamabad additional legitimacy as a mediator in security-related matters and issues of regional balance. Moreover, Pakistan possesses a crucial asset that many other regional states lack: It can maintain working relationships with