The world witnessed on June 15 the initial conclusion of the war of aggression between the United States and Israel against Iran. Although there are still no winners or losers, the United States has been deeply humiliated – in its military power, technology, strategy and evaluations; therefore, it has lost in strategic terms. Iran has gained a lot. Excluded for 45 years, it now dominates the global strategic scene. And in this context, Pakistan, the skillful geostrategic mediator and strategist, who has achieved a compromise around the war, emerges as the master of classical diplomacy.
The United States has gained little and lost considerably. Its direct military involvement did not produce strategic submission on the part of Iran. It did not break Iran’s will. It did not generate a new regional order in American or Israeli terms. Instead, it pushed the world to the brink of a broader war, threatened the security of the Strait of Hormuz, destabilized global energy markets, and exposed the limits of military coercion when it comes to a state that cannot be excluded from any serious regional security framework. Israel, the main driver of this US-Israel aggression, failed to achieve its strategic goal of devastating Iran and trapping the region in a logic of war while expanding its control in pursuit of its diabolical dream of Greater Israel.
The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding marks the end, for now, of a dangerous cycle of war and opens the door to the next round of talks on the nuclear issue, uranium enrichment, sanctions relief and the reduction of tensions. Iran appears to have secured commitments for the reduction of tensions, the gradual easing of sanctions pressure and the move for the release of frozen Iranian assets, including those located in Qatar and even in the United Arab Emirates.
For the world, the most immediate benefit is the opening and protection of the Strait of Hormuz. Its closure had caused energy price shocks, inflation, uncertainty in shipping, pressure on oil-importing economies and broader economic instability. For now, the Memorandum of Understanding has brought the world back from that brink. The 107-day mistake did not continue into a protracted Vietnam-like disaster for the United States, Iran, or the region. This was made possible by Pakistan’s sustained, credible and multifaceted commitment and its diplomacy in keeping communication channels open throughout the war.
Pakistan’s message from day one was that war is not an answer; dialogue is essential; and weapons do not generate real security. This was Pakistan’s overall message. Compromise, recognition of the interests of all parties and a regional commitment to peace and stability are. Pakistan made this happen. The irony is that Pakistan’s chief diplomat in this crisis was COAS-CDF Field Marshal Asim Munir. In a classical diplomatic sense, he became the key Pakistani figure who led a complex process in which war, deterrence, regional politics, great power pressure and secondary negotiations converged. Pakistan’s decades of experiential wisdom in handling complex security crises through dialogue, compromise and restraint came to the fore.
Significantly, the April 11 meeting in Islamabad was a turning point. The conversations were substantive. A deal was close, or at least the architecture of a deal was within reach. Pakistan’s groundwork and multiple incessant dialogues had worked. Then came the disruptive factor: Israel. Threats of imminent military action created panic and talks collapsed. Trump had less to do with it and Netanyahu more. There was intelligence and concern that Israel could target senior Iranian figures, including Iran’s military leaders and foreign minister. It was an immediate security threat that could have completely destroyed the negotiation path.
It was in this environment that Pakistan’s role became crucial. Pakistan did not allow the diplomatic space to collapse. He kept the channels open. He helped manage security concerns surrounding Iranian officials and supported the safe movement of senior Iranian leaders at a time when the threat of Israeli action was real.
Pakistan was managing a broader regional crisis involving anxieties in the Gulf, tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia and Iran and the UAE, maritime security, Hormuz and the fear that a single spark could spark a much wider war. It involved Iran and the United States while keeping an eye on Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkiye, Egypt and other interested states. He had to understand Iran’s legitimate security concerns while managing Arab fears of escalation. It had to oppose Israeli aggression and genocide and at the same time press for moderation.
Beijing publicly supported Pakistan’s initiatives and subsequently joined Pakistan. As a global power, it advocated more substantively for dialogue.
As the war developed, a new pattern of regional consultation also emerged. Pakistan, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and Egypt (an emerging R4 of regional powers) actively participated and assessed the crisis. This was important because the region could not afford to leave its destiny entirely in the hands of external powers or Israel’s war agenda. Regional security must be owned by regional states, and Pakistan’s role within this consultation was strengthened by its unique position: a Muslim state with nuclear weapons, military clout, diplomatic experience and credible channels through multiple capitals.
In the last 107 days, Pakistan has clearly emerged as a middle power with impactful convening and engagement capabilities. It has shown that classic diplomacy still matters: calm talks, strategic security, crisis management, staying away from exaggerated statements, credible intermediaries, protecting the negotiation space and the ability to persuade adversaries that dialogue serves their own interests.
A recent example of Pakistan’s growing credibility was the Lebanese army chief’s visit to Pakistan and his meeting with Pakistan’s air chief. This is another sign of Pakistan’s growing relevance beyond the immediate US-Iran track. From Iran to Lebanon and from the Gulf to the rest of West Asia, Pakistan is increasingly seen as a country that can convene, advise, engage and mediate.
Meanwhile, the Iran-US MoU has created an opening, but Israel is desperate to disrupt it, whether through Lebanon or through its occupation and assassinations in Palestinian lands. The talks are vulnerable to continued mistrust between Iran and the United States, as well as domestic American politics. And Pakistan’s role remains fundamental. The ceasefire is also vulnerable, as is the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s economic relief must be real enough to keep diplomacy alive. Furthermore, within the broader regional context, including Israeli aggression, Iran-Gulf relations, Yemen dynamics, maritime security, and Israeli aggression, challenges will remain active.
However, after 107 days, the scorecard says clearly: Iran’s achievements are the recognition that, despite sanctions, attacks and pressure, it cannot be left aside. Iran is an integral part of any framework that seeks regional stability, prosperity or development. A policy based solely on isolating Iran has failed. A policy based solely on military pressure has failed. Compromise is not a favor to Iran; It is a requirement for peace.
And finally, Pakistan’s achievement: it helped the bruised and clumsy United States and the region understand again that only dialogue works. He helped contain the war when escalation was possible. He demonstrated that a state can be pragmatic and principled at the same time.
For Pakistan, the task is clear: continue to actively facilitate the ceasefire in a negotiation process that allows for an agreement between Iran and the United States. Indeed, it is time to recognize that Pakistan’s quiet, steady and sustained diplomacy has helped shape one of the most consequential diplomatic openings in contemporary global history.
The writer is an expert in foreign policy and international security. Post on X @nasimzehra.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of PakGazette.tv.
Originally published in The News
