Pakistan finds itself at the centre stage of world politics; it brokered a cease-fire, hosted the peace talks, and its leaders shuttled between world capitals to bring the region and the world to peace. Pakistan finds itself being squeezed by the USA on one side and simultaneously by the consequences of this war on the other. On 8 April 2026, just a few weeks ago, a nuclear war was potentially building up, only hours before President Trump had posted on Truth Social: “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again”. Pakistan, however, stepped in, negotiating a ceasefire framework based on the ten-point Iranian proposals, and it worked; temporarily, though, it worked. Four weeks down the road, the ceasefire still holds. These highest-level negotiations between America and Iran since the 1979 revolution did not happen in Geneva, not in Vienna, not in Qatar, but in Islamabad.
Why did this seem historically remarkable? Pakistan hosted these mediations despite not formally recognising Israel, the war initiator. But why Pakistan, and what could it cost Pakistan to be in this position? Let us start with “why Pakistan”. This question spells out the causes for the mediatory role. A mediator is required in any negotiation that both sides perceive as neutral and can trust. In this situation, there is almost nobody whom both the USA and Iran can trust mutually. A plausible analysis of a few likely candidates can reinforce this point. Consider Qatar as a mediator; a GCC member, it has been there before, too. It hosts an American military base and was struck by Iran earlier in this war; therefore, it is no longer neutral and is not mutually trusted. As a NATO member, Turkiye may have looked credible to the USA, but then it also maintains economic ties with Iran, making it an interested and biased party. China is Iran’s biggest oil customer and has invested heavily in Iran’s energy infrastructure. It has an obvious interest in ending this war as closure of Strait of Hormuz hurts China’s supply-chain, but China lacks the USA’s trust, which accuses it of supplying weapons to Iran in this war; China also gets ruled out. Russia, owing to the Ukraine war, is automatically struck from the mediators’ role by the USA. India finds itself at odds with the USA’s policies and has lost credibility with Tehran, too, as it proclaims Israel as “fatherland”.
Pakistan, as a Muslim-majority country, has feelings about what goes on in Iran and Gaza.
So, this is how the qualification matrix looked like for a mediation candidate. Strong diplomatic and military ties with both warring parties. A shared border, faith (preferably), cultural, and historical linkages with at least one out of the two belligerents and at least a strong regional presence owing to its military power. Despite its economic frailty, Pakistan emerged as the best fit for all stakeholders in general and the USA and Iran in particular.
But then, at what cost? This question spells the effects; consequences of war, which are interpreted on the basis of military, economic, and political dimensions. Pakistan is a nuclear power not consigning to the “no first use ” doctrine in the wake of an existential threat. How is this relevant to the USA-Iran War? Pakistan shares a long border with Iran. Any escalation of this war to the extent of employing tactical nukes against Iran by the USA or Israel, the aftermath can spill into Pakistani territory or airspace, and that can warrant an existential threat to Pakistan, too, warranting a posture change from conventional to nuclear. Pakistan is in this mediating role because it has these perceived military threats and credentials.
Then comes the economic dimension, as this is where Pakistan is most vulnerable. Pakistan imports nearly 80% of its oil, a significant portion of which comes from the Gulf region, which means it passes through or near the closed Strait of Hormuz, which has resulted in inflated energy costs for Pakistan. Transportation costs have doubled, and industrial electricity bills have surged due to inflation, which was already above 40% in Pakistan in 2025. It is getting worse as small businesses and the common man struggle. To compound it further, there is the remittances issue. Pakistan has millions of workers in the Gulf, in Saudi Arabia, in the UAE, in Kuwait and in Qatar, sending in remittances back home every month, which is the largest source of foreign exchange. These Pakistanis losing jobs there means Pakistan loses money. Pakistan’s economy, which is already fragile, becomes even more feeble.
The internal political scene in Pakistan is not rosy. Strong undercurrents of security threats shape the everyday life of people. Public opinion is starkly divided on democratic dispensation with a leader already jailed. Regardless of which political party people support, there is a strong sympathy for Iran, and for the Palestinian cause and hence a strong dissent for Israel and its recognition. Pakistan, as a Muslim-majority country, has feelings about what goes on in Iran and Gaza. The mediation role, therefore, carries a domestic political risk as public opinion is against the idea of Pakistan being used as an instrument of American pressure on a Muslim country; at the same time, Pakistan cannot afford to alienate the USA. Pakistan, therefore, had a role to play as a mediator.
Pakistan did not accept this role only out of its own military, economic, and political compulsions, or the geopolitical status that comes along as an indispensable mediator, but broadly, it did so in its own national interest. In accepting this role, Pakistan finds itself right in the middle of a conflict between an empire with a bruised ego and a resilient civilisation. Regardless, Pakistan is still engaged with the USA and Iran, on a new set of fourteen Iranian proposals keeping the ceasefire alive, likely to keep getting extended, and so are the talks, with more rounds expected. In the short term, Pakistan’s role buffers it from the consequences of this war to some extent. As long as talks are ongoing, both America and Iran need Pakistan, but the situation can drastically change if the talks completely and permanently collapse.
The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at zulfiqar.shirazi @gmail.com