Pakistan seeks to prove it can be a peacemaker

Long viewed through the lens of instability and internal crisis, the Islamic republic has emerged as a key mediator between the United States and Iran.

As the war involving the United States, Israel and Iran reshapes the strategic landscape of West Asia, an unexpected diplomatic shift is also unfolding.

Pakistan, long viewed through the lens of instability and internal crisis, has emerged as a key mediator leading the efforts to end the ongoing war in the Middle East.

After U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to destroy Iran’s entire civilization, and dozens of national politicians and some key conservative influencers called for him to be removed from office, the White House stepped back and announced that peace talks between the United States and Iran would begin in Pakistan 10 April.

Despite a political system widely seen as being steered by its military establishment under Asim Muneer, Pakistan’s chief of defense forces, Pakistan has positioned itself as a crucial intermediary between Washington and Tehran.

Through quiet backdoor channel engagement, Pakistan appears to facilitate limited communication between Washington and Tehran, at times shaping the contours of de-escalation by preserving the possibility of negotiations, even as formal diplomacy remains stalled.

Shifts in South Asian politics

This evolving role signals a notable shift for a country more often associated with regional volatility and its historically hostile relationship with India. But whether this new role reflects durable transformation or a fleeting moment of opportunism remains an open question.

In contrast, India, long projected as a rising global power with deep ties across the region, has remained noticeably absent from any meaningful mediation efforts.

With strong economic leverage, longstanding relationships with both Iran and the United States, and expanding regional influence, New Delhi appeared better positioned to play a stabilizing role. Instead, analysts suggest, India has been effectively sidelined.

Political experts across South Asia believe that India’s increasingly visible alignment with Israel, reinforced by high-profile political signalling shortly before the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran, has complicated its image as a neutral actor.

In a statement, the Indian government said it welcomes the latest Pakistan-mediated, two-week ceasefire between Iran and the United States.

“As we have continuously advocated earlier, deescalation, dialogue and diplomacy are essential to bring an early end to the ongoing conflict,” said in a statement issued by India’s Ministry of External Affairs hours after the announcement of the ceasefire.

India doesn’t want to lose its perceived leadership in the region, said strategic affairs expert Ashok Swain.

“India, particularly its Prime Minister Narendra Modi, wants the prestige of global mediator,” Swain said.“But it lacks the diplomatic deftness and willingness to take the political risks that mediation demands.”

While Indian leadership may be visibly aligned with Israel, domestic realities are more complex, he said.

“Indian society is far more diverse and not uniformly invested in that position,” Swain said. “At the same time, that very tilt has eroded trust; Tehran no longer sees India as an independent actor, which fundamentally undercuts its credibility as a neutral intermediary.”

A diplomatic opening

Pakistan’s mediation push had appeared to be faltering. What initially had looked like diplomatic openings seemed to collapse after some 3,500 U.S. Marines arrived in the Middle East. Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, rejected preparations for negotiations in Pakistan as a “cover” for an invasion, threatening to “set it on fire.”

Pakistani mediators had reportedly delivered a U.S. peace proposal earlier but Iran rejected it as excessive, unreasonable and unrealistic. The proposal allegedly included demands to cease nuclear enrichment, demolish nuclear facilities and permit travel via the Strait of Hormuz, conditions Iran has long opposed.

Iran had begun to publicly distance itself from Pakistan. In a statement, Iran’s Consulate General in Mumbai said there had been no direct negotiations with the United States and dismissed the idea of participating in Pakistan-led initiatives. “Iran did not participate in Pakistan’s forums,” the statement said.

Instead of appreciating any such move, India has opposed any peace mediation on the part of Pakistan. India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar said in a statement that India can’t act as a “dalal nation” in global geopolitics.

These developments showed that while Pakistan had succeeded in inserting itself into the diplomatic conversation real progress remained a far more difficult task.

Still, said Swain, Pakistan showed up when it mattered. “And that’s what counts,” Swain said. “It acted early, quietly and flexibly, while India hesitated, calculated and ultimately stayed irrelevant.”

Regional calculations

Geopolitical analysts believe Iran’s reluctance to engage through Pakistan has been shaped by broader regional dynamics, including Islamabad’s ties with Saudi Arabia and historic alignment with the United States.

Tehran-based political analyst Syed Sarbaz Ruhullah had suggested that the timing itself was unfavorable for negotiations.

“No one believes this is a moment for talks,” Ruhullah said.

Pakistan may not be seen as a credible venue given its current geopolitical positioning, Ruhullah said. China’s entry into mediation further complicates the diplomatic efforts. Beijing has backed Pakistan’s mediation efforts. Before the latest escalation, officials in Beijing and Islamabad had submitted a joint five-point plan to establish a truce and reopen the crucial Strait of Hormuz.

For China, the move aligns with its broader strategic interests. It has been positioning itself as a stabilising force while countering U.S. influence ahead of critical global negotiations.

“China supports Pakistan’s mediation effort morally, politically and diplomatically in this war,” says Zhu Yongbiao, the director of the Center for Afghanistan Studies at Lanzhou University.

Opposing and overlapping roles

Due to their geopolitical ambitions and strategic alignments, both India and Pakistan have played opposing but often overlapping roles in discussions during significant regional and international conflicts.

The two countries gained independence from Great Britain in 1947 and, since then, India has presented itself as a voice of non-alignment and peaceful resolution, especially in the early decades.

It has frequently served as a facilitator rather than a formal mediator in diplomatic attempts during wars such the Korean War and the Russia-Ukraine war.

Pakistan’s involvement in discussions, on the other hand, has been more strongly linked to its geopolitical posture in Islamic and regional blocs as well as its ties with Western powers.

Its own security concerns and its ties to powerful nations like China and the United States have frequently tempered its involvement. India has accused Pakistan in the past of sponsoring terror groups in the subcontinent.

India’s relative absence in current conflicts raises questions about whether its foreign policy is becoming constrained by its own strategic alignments. Meanwhile Pakistan’s diplomatic attempts could either mark the emergence of a new diplomatic strategy or prove to be merely a moment shaped by circumstances.

But in a region where perception often shapes power, even a limited diplomatic step can carry lasting implications.

Iran’s response

Iran’s initial rejection of Pakistan’s meditation effort appears rooted in a deep credibility deficit. Because of statements by Pakistani leaders and social media messaging by Trump, Iran questions Pakistan’s neutrality and worries instead that it is aligned with the United States.

Further complicating its position of neutrality are Pakistani strikes in Afghanistan that allegedly targeted hospitals and other civilian infrastructure, killing over 400 people.

Pakistan is also facing mounting financial pressure in the region, particularly from the United Arab Emirates, which is pushing for billions in loan repayments at a critical juncture even as Pakistan’s economy is fragile and it heavily relies on external support.

Still, says Radha Kumar, an Indian academic and former Indian mediator in conflicts in Kashmir, any peace-making efforts should be always welcomed.

“We should welcome it if a neighbor is mediating for an end to the U.S.-Israel-Iran war,” Kumar said. “It is a pity that Pakistan does not, at the same time, act in good faith to stop attacks from its soil on India.”

Questions to consider:

1. Why might Iran be leery of Pakistan’s role as a peace mediator?

2. What advantage does Pakistan have over India as a mediator that can be trusted by both Iran and the United States?

3. What might make it difficult to mediate between any two parties who have deep disagreements?