Pakistan’s Renewed Diplomatic Push: Can Islamabad Mediate Between the US and Iran?

Pakistan is actively positioning itself as a potential mediator in the escalating tensions between the United States and Iran, leveraging its unique geographic and diplomatic standing. Recent high-level engagements, including hosting indirect talks and reviving the “Islamabad Process,” signal Islamabad’s intent to play a constructive role in preventing further regional destabilization. This renewed effort comes amid fears of a broader conflict following heightened rhetoric and military posturing from both Washington and Tehran.

Why Pakistan? The Strategic Rationale for Mediation

Pakistan’s suitability as a mediator stems from several longstanding factors. It maintains diplomatic relations with both the United States and Iran, a rarity in the current polarized landscape. Islamabad shares a 900-kilometer border with Iran and has deep historical, cultural, and economic ties with the country, even as simultaneously being a major non-NATO ally of the United States. This dual relationship provides Pakistan with access and credibility that few other nations possess.

Pakistan has a track record of facilitating dialogue in South Asia, most notably through its role in the Afghan peace process. Pakistani officials argue that their experience in managing complex, protracted conflicts equips them to handle the delicate nuances of US-Iran relations, particularly concerning issues like nuclear negotiations, regional security, and maritime safety in the Gulf.

Recent Developments: Hosting Talks and Reviving the Islamabad Process

In early 2024, Pakistan hosted a series of indirect discussions between US and Iranian officials in Islamabad, according to multiple diplomatic sources cited by Dawn. While neither side confirmed direct participation, the talks were described as exploratory, focusing on de-escalation mechanisms and confidence-building measures. These meetings built upon backchannel contacts that have persisted despite the absence of formal diplomatic relations between Washington and Tehran at the ambassadorial level.

Concurrently, Pakistani foreign policy experts have revived the concept of the “Islamabad Process“, a framework first proposed during periods of heightened tension in the 2010s. The process envisions a structured, multi-stage dialogue facilitated by Pakistan, potentially involving regional stakeholders like Oman, Qatar, and Iraq, to address not only the nuclear issue but also broader concerns such as ballistic missiles, regional proxy conflicts, and the safety of shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz.

Challenges and Limitations to Pakistan’s Mediation Efforts

Despite its advantages, Pakistan faces significant constraints. Its own economic instability and internal political challenges limit its ability to sustain prolonged diplomatic initiatives without external support. Both the US and Iran remain deeply skeptical of third-party mediation, particularly when it involves nations perceived as having conflicting alliances. Washington has historically preferred direct negotiations or coordination through European allies, while Tehran often views Pakistani initiatives with suspicion due to Islamabad’s close security ties with Riyadh and its alignment with US positions on certain regional issues.

Analysts at The National Interest caution that while Pakistan can facilitate dialogue, it cannot guarantee outcomes. Success ultimately depends on the willingness of both Washington and Tehran to compromise—a commodity in short supply amid ongoing mutual distrust and maximalist demands.

Expert Insight: The Limits and Potential of Backchannel Diplomacy

Fahd Humayun, a senior fellow at the South Asian Voices program, emphasized in a recent Q&A that Pakistan’s role should be seen as facilitative rather than decisive. “Pakistan can create the space for dialogue, but it cannot impose solutions,” Humayun noted. He stressed that any meaningful progress would require concurrent changes in US and Iranian domestic politics, as well as a reduction in regional provocations from allied actors on both sides.

Humayun also pointed out that the Islamabad Process, if structured inclusively, could help address Iran’s legitimate security concerns while reaffirming the non-proliferation regime—a balance that previous negotiations have struggled to achieve.

Conclusion: A Difficult but Necessary Endeavor

Pakistan’s attempt to mediate between the United States and Iran is neither guaranteed to succeed nor devoid of risk. Although, in a region where miscalculation could trigger a wider war, the value of maintaining open lines of communication—even indirect ones—cannot be overstated. By leveraging its unique position and diplomatic experience, Pakistan is not seeking to replace principal negotiators but to reduce the chances of accidental escalation.

Whether Islamabad can become the “modern Oslo” remains uncertain. Yet, in offering a venue for dialogue and drawing on its experience managing intractable conflicts, Pakistan is fulfilling a role that the international community urgently needs: a trusted intermediary willing to attempt when others have stepped back.