Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s announcement about the agreement between Iran and the US to bring a permanent end to military operations could mark one of the most consequential diplomatic breakthroughs in the Middle East in recent decades.
After years of confrontation, sanctions, military escalation, and recurring crises that repeatedly pushed the region to the brink of wider conflict, the signing of a formal understanding, electronically, between Tehran and Washington offers a rare opportunity to replace confrontation with diplomacy.
However, the euphoria and optimism created by the agreement must be tempered by caution. There is always the risk of derailment of peace agreements in the period between announcement and implementation. History is replete with examples of spoilers seeking to derail diplomatic initiatives through provocation, military escalation, or political sabotage.
Israel has already announced that it is not bound by the Iran-US agreement. The Israeli announcement came despite US President Trump’s warning against actions in Lebanon that could undermine the peace process, highlighting the fragility of the current moment.
Therefore, it would be crucial for all regional actors to exercise restraint and recognise that the stakes extend far beyond bilateral relations between Iran and the US.
The significance of the agreement lies not merely in ending the Iran-US war, but also in creating an opportunity to rethink the region’s security framework. The Middle East has suffered for decades from a lack of an inclusive security architecture to manage disputes, reduce mistrust, and prevent crises from escalating into armed conflict.
Temporary understandings can reduce tensions, but lasting stability requires institutions, mechanisms, and habits of cooperation. This is where Pakistan’s role deserves particular mention, especially in the US-Iran hostilities.
It is commonly presumed that the success of any mediation effort depends fundamentally on the mediator’s credibility. Diplomatic channels can only function when both parties trust the intermediary’s intentions, discretion, and capacity to understand their concerns.
The Iran-US peace deal appears to have uniquely positioned Pakistan as a credible partner. There is a reason for this: Pakistan enjoys a long-standing relationship with Iran, rooted in geography, history, cultural ties and shared strategic interests. At the same time, Pakistan has maintained constructive relations with the US across multiple administrations and remains an important regional partner.
Indeed, when one surveys Iran’s neighbourhood and the wider region, it is difficult to identify another country that simultaneously enjoyed the confidence of both Tehran and Washington to the same extent. Many states are perceived as being closer to one side or the other. Pakistan’s ability to maintain working relations with both countries while preserving its credibility made it particularly well-suited to facilitate dialogue during a period of extraordinary tension.
Yet Pakistan’s credibility alone did not produce the agreement. The actual process of mediation was painstaking, exhausting and often invisible to public view, during which Pakistan made neck-breaking efforts to iron out the parties’ divergent positions. Diplomatic breakthroughs are rarely achieved through dramatic gestures.
They emerge through countless meetings, careful consultations, and meticulous work on language. In negotiations involving highly sensitive political and security issues, every word matters. A single phrase can determine whether an agreement succeeds or collapses. Pakistan played the role not only of an honest broker but also helped the parties overcome the roadblocks.
Pakistan has traditionally enjoyed a strong reputation for diplomatic professionalism and negotiating skills in both bilateral and multilateral forums. Pakistani diplomats have long been recognised for their ability to craft language that bridges differences, accommodates competing interests, and creates room for compromise without forcing either side into politically difficult positions.
Such expertise becomes especially valuable in negotiations where both parties must be able to present the outcome as consistent with their national interests and domestic political requirements. Both Iran and the US appreciated Pakistan’s valuable contribution to saving the dialogue through its negotiating skills.
It is reasonable to assume that these diplomatic strengths would have played an important role in helping Tehran and Washington move from confrontation toward consensus.
If the agreement proves durable, especially if Iran’s frozen assets are released and sanctions are removed, it will stand as a reminder that diplomacy often succeeds not because of public rhetoric but because of the patient and largely unseen efforts of skilled negotiators. Pakistan prevailed upon the interlocutors to see the larger picture.
Pakistan’s contribution, however, should not end with mediation. There are numerous inter-state disputes affecting the region’s peace. The emerging diplomatic opening presents Islamabad with an opportunity to promote a broader vision for regional stability.
The Middle East and the wider Muslim world continue to face multiple security challenges, including interstate rivalries, proxy conflicts, terrorism, economic vulnerabilities and growing geopolitical competition among external powers.
Addressing these challenges requires a more comprehensive approach than crisis management alone. While Pakistan alone cannot play a role in the bilateral disputes, it can act as a mediator if the disputants so demand.
Pakistan is uniquely positioned to facilitate consultations among Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkiye, Egypt and the Gulf states to develop a regional security framework. Such a mechanism need not necessarily resemble a formal military alliance. Instead, it could focus on conflict prevention, crisis management, economic cooperation, maritime security, counterterrorism coordination and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity.
However, the regional states can opt for a security architecture to prevent external interference. The objective should be to create a system in which disputes are managed through dialogue rather than confrontation, and in which collective prosperity becomes a stronger incentive than geopolitical competition.
The diplomatic success associated with the Iran-US understanding also offers a broader lesson for South Asia. Although it may appear unconventional in the current political climate, there would be nothing unusual about Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi acknowledging Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s contribution to a diplomatic achievement that enhances regional and international stability, especially given that he has congratulated Iran and the US on signing the peace agreement.
Such a gesture would not diminish India’s interests or stature. On the contrary, it would demonstrate confidence and statesmanship.
Mr Modi should not forget that India and Pakistan remain nuclear neighbours whose futures are inescapably linked. While profound differences persist, opportunities to reduce tensions should not be ignored. Recognition of a constructive diplomatic effort could help break the ice between the two countries and reinforce the principle that cooperation for peace benefits the entire region.
Ultimately, the Iran-US agreement should be viewed not as the end of a process but as the beginning of a larger journey. A regional approach is the need of the hour. It requires effort to transform a diplomatic breakthrough into a durable peace. That will require vigilance against spoilers, such as Israel, sustained political commitment from the parties involved, and a collective effort to build institutions capable of preserving stability.
Pakistan’s role in facilitating dialogue demonstrates the enduring value of credible mediation, balanced diplomacy and professional statecraft. Pakistan has come a long way in highlighting its potential to contribute not only to crisis resolution but also to the construction of a more stable regional order. Opportunities to reshape history do not arise often. The current moment is one of them. The region should seize it.
