The fiction that diplomacy can proceed on one track while missiles travel on another is becoming harder to sustain. US forces on Saturday night conducted a third round of strikes this week on Iran, this time in retaliation for an Iranian attack on a container ship in the Strait of Hormuz.
Meanwhile, Iranian missiles and drones have been directed at sites in Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Oman. As Oman summoned the Iranian ambassador, the UAE condemned the attacks as violations of the sovereignty of Gulf states.
Quite interestingly, the Iranian delegation had travelled to Oman earlier in the day to continue negotiations. Between President Trump threatening to “decimate and destroy” Iran if the regime made an attempt on his life and Iran’s supreme leader vowing revenge for his father’s death, the Strait of Hormuz has become the centre of yet another military contest.
For now, Iran says the passage is closed and insists ships require its permission. It has even warned vessels against relying on Centcom’s assurances of secure navigation, as well as those regarding an expanded southern route near Oman.
Shipowners, insurers and energy markets cannot operate on rival declarations of access. Nor can commercial vessels be turned into instruments of coercive diplomacy.
By expressing concern, backing the sovereignty and territorial integrity of regional states and calling on all parties to honour the Islamabad MoU, Pakistan has very responsibly moved beyond a generic appeal for calm. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar’s exchanges with the Saudi ambassador and his Iranian counterpart should now be followed by a meeting of the mediators.
That meeting must seek a verifiable pause covering attacks on commercial shipping, US strikes and Iranian action against Gulf territory. It must also establish a joint mechanism determining the facts of each maritime incident before retaliation becomes automatic.
The Islamabad MoU cannot survive as a document invoked after every breach. Its credibility depends on whether mediators can impose discipline and whether violations carry diplomatic consequences.
The gravest development is not the collapse of the ceasefire. It is that talks are still being advertised while the conditions that made them possible are being dismantled. Without enforcement, diplomacy becomes an interval between strikes. *