By Agha Iqrar Haroon
As expected by me, the United States negotiation team left the negotiating room without reaching any truce. As expected, the Islamabad Talks failed. Why did I have such strong expectations?
There are historic, social, ethnic, religious, and economic reasons for my expectations that can be concluded in simple words: several Middle Eastern countries wish to see a totally destroyed Iran due to ethnic and religious (sectarian) reasons as well as economic motives. Israel, since ages, has had a one-point agenda: the destruction of Iran. Since the war was waged by Israel, it will decide when to stop it and how to stop it, while Iran has long been antagonizing Middle Eastern countries with its Axis of Resistance that the US, Israel, and certain Middle Eastern countries call the Axis of Evil.
The Middle Eastern situation is very complicated and complex. The majority of countries recognize Israel, do business with it, and some of them have 100-plus flights a week to Israeli cities. On the other hand, Iran, for political and religious reasons, calls Israel evil. Whatever Israel and the United States did in Gaza failed to changed relations of Middle Eastern countries with Israel, so how can and why should Israel stop bombing Lebanon and Iran? This is the time for Israel to get dividends from the Gaza genocide, and why should Israel stop this religious war on everybody who denies what Israel plans for Middle Eastern harmony through the Abraham Accord?
“What matters is that Pakistan delivered where it mattered, proved its credibility on the global stage, and stood tall as a force for regional and global peace”
The question arises, then, why did the US accept Pakistan’s initiative for peace talks when the scene is so gloomy? This question has multiple answers, but it will still remain unanswered for many. The main reason for accepting these talks was the “off-ramp” of the opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran was, is, and will never accept this “off-ramp” because it would be strategic suicide for Iran. Iran has run out of options—it has to fight till the end—“Death with the US, Death for US or death from the US”—Iran looks ready for all options.
“In a world fractured by mistrust and confrontation, Pakistan stepped forward not with noise but with purpose. Through relentless, sincere, and highly competent diplomacy, Pakistan achieved what many thought was impossible”
Pakistan, which is a peacemaker and always tries to cool down war-like situations in the region, does not want a lingering, unending, costly war in its neighborhood, and it tried its best. Although I believe that Pakistan’s seasoned diplomatic cadre knew that nothing would come out of the talks, even then Pakistan gave peace a chance when all powers were standing as bystanders and were not ready to take the initiative for peace. Pakistan played a great inning as Islamabad made hectic, sincere, and highly competent efforts, got a ceasefire done, and brought both sides to sit together after decades.
Led by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, both sides (US–Iran) appreciated this initiative, and 31 hours of continuous diplomacy involved multiple sessions. A lot of ground was covered and there were many positives; however, a complex, complicated, and enduring conflict, having multiple divergences and external spoilers and detractors, also played a role in the talks’ failure.
To my understanding, what has been achieved or not was therefore a play between the two, with both also burdened by their domestic audiences and long-term standing, but surely Pakistan made an unprecedented effort for global and regional peace. A statement by US Vice President JD Vance offers a glimmer of hope, as he mentioned the offer made during mediation. Pakistan provided an opportunity for both sides to understand where they stand, and both should only move forward from there.
Moreover, these talks explained many points, including that the US and Iran wished to have talks without the involvement of any third party such as China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. To my understanding, there is a possibility that the United States does not want Russia and China involved, while Iran expressed no for Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey. This is also good because these windows remain open for future talks, and these opportunities (countries) have not already been exhausted.
My more than four years of working with Arab media outlets in the past enabled me to understand that the Middle East (including Iran) is too complex to understand and too complicated to work with. Countries look ‘brotherly,’ but they have deep-rooted revulsions, and only Washington can direct them when to sit ‘friendly’ and when not to. No other country (China, Russia, EU, etc.) has any leverage on them, and the majority do not like Iran. So their internal rivalries are one factor, while their dislike of Iran is another reason.
Navigating among them is like navigating shark-infested waters while having high expectations, because they can promise you something in the evening and take a completely different position in the morning. They remain strangers to those who do not accept what they say.
I have reasons to say that in a world fractured by mistrust and confrontation, Pakistan stepped forward not with noise but with purpose. Through relentless, sincere, and highly competent diplomacy, Pakistan achieved what many thought was impossible: a ceasefire and direct engagement between adversaries after decades of hostility.
This historic effort was led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir, whose mediatory role has been openly acknowledged by both sides—a rare and powerful testament to credibility and trust.
For 31 continuous hours, diplomacy did not sleep. Multiple rounds, intense negotiations, and back-channel engagements pushed the boundaries of what was possible. And while the conflict remains complex, layered, and influenced by external spoilers, what Pakistan achieved is nothing short of extraordinary.
Let’s be clear:
This was never about forcing outcomes. It was about creating space for dialogue where none existed. Both sides came with their own burdens—domestic pressures, historical positions, and long-standing grievances. Yet Pakistan ensured that they sat, spoke, and understood each other’s positions.
Pakistan has played its role—not as a party, but as a bridge. The substantive details remain confidential, as they should. Because true diplomacy isn’t performed for cameras; it is conducted in trust.
What matters is that Pakistan delivered where it mattered, proved its credibility on the global stage, and stood tall as a force for regional and global peace.
This was not just diplomacy. This was a great inning. And history will remember who chose peace when it mattered most.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in this article/Opinion/Comment are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk (DND). Assumptions made within the analysis are not reflective of the position of the DND Thought Center and Dispatch News Desk.
