Following the precepts of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the Founder of Pakistan, ‘Peace Within and Peace Without’, Pakistan’s politico-military leadership wisely intervened in a deadly war between Israel, the U.S., and Iran. This war, which was rapidly expanding across the region and beyond, had the potential to drag on for months, if not years. Because Iran had solid defensive plans well supported by its people, and the U.S. did not have an exit strategy.
Pakistan stepped in time, making some bold moves, and hosted the stakeholders in Islamabad.
The Iranian delegation was led by the Parliament Speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf; the Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi; the Secretary of the Supreme National Council, Bagher Zolghadr; and Majid Takht. At the same time, the U.S. delegation was led by Vice President J.D. Vance, with Jared Kushner, Steven Witkoff, and Brad Cooper as important members.
In this unnecessary war on Iran, what Pakistan did must go down as a case study of positive diplomacy
True that no agreement was signed during the Islamabad meetings, but it laid a solid foundation for the continuation of the dialogue process, and finally, a positive outcome is visible from that effort, and an important document, perhaps leading to lasting peace, will be signed on Friday, the 19th of June 2026, in Geneva.
Back to the title: it is necessary to understand that diplomacy is a process that goes through various stages. As I always maintain, diplomacy never sleeps, even if the leadership is on vacation. Diplomacy works before, during, and after crises and wars; no matter how long it takes, diplomacy prevails in the end. One thing that is needed to ensure a positive outcome after the diplomatic efforts is that the warring parties or all the stakeholders sit across the table with a sincerity of purpose. Otherwise, it will only be a photo session.
In this unnecessary war on Iran, what Pakistan did must go down as a case study of positive diplomacy. I have published an international book titled Diplomacy and Deterrence, and I discussed in detail what positive diplomacy is.
The big question is how Pakistan did it at a time when the stakeholders were talking about erasing the civilisations from the surface of the earth?
In my opinion, Pakistan first built its credibility as a neutral and a true peacemaker and then ensured that none of the stakeholders sees it as leaning towards either side. Pakistan not only played the role of a facilitator but also an active advisor to both Iran and the U.S. True that Pakistan could not have influenced the U.S. or Iran to accept or reject any condition that might be against their core national interests, yet its political and particularly the military leadership was able to convince the warring parties that the continuance of this war will be disastrous not for the region alone but the whole world. Perhaps, Pakistan persuaded President Trump more than the Iranian leadership to end this war because it was counterproductive for the U.S.
Therefore, the first and foremost thing that Pakistan did was to provide the enabling environment for stakeholders without giving the impression that it is itself a party to these dialogues. I was confident that Pakistan’s politico-military leadership knew its job and would do it to the best of its abilities. I say this with confidence because India has spent billions over the past two decades in an effort to isolate Pakistan, but at this, it is India that is feeling left out at every forum. It became too evident when India’s External Affairs Minister Jai Shankar spoke badly about Pakistan when it first offered to help the warring parties with a proposed peace plan. I am certain that those bad words will haunt Jai Shankar for the rest of his life. That was negative diplomacy by India when you are criticising someone for an effort to facilitate the peace efforts.
It is necessary to reiterate that for the talks to be successful, stakeholders must put forward doable demands so that visible progress is made. For instance, Iran’s demands for a permanent ceasefire and no aggression against it and Lebanon, either by the U.S. or Israel, remained a top priority. It was a legitimate one and was finally accepted by the U.S. Even though Israel’s acceptance of Lebanon’s condition remains a big question, it will now be on the U.S. to convince Netanyahu to vacate the occupied areas during the war. On the other hand, the U.S. demand that Iran not pursue its nuclear weapons programme remains a primary demand. Iran did not have an issue because it had stated several times that it was not pursuing a nuclear weapons programme.
Therefore, in my opinion, the two overriding demands by either side became doable and acceptable, but not without Pakistan’s efforts to convince them to initially accept it and then continue with further dialogue on the nuclear issue.
Next in line was the opening of the Strait of Hormuz. I think it was already open before this unnecessary war, and hence, Iran had no problem in accepting it. Importantly, what Iran gained out of it is more than it expected. The frozen funds to the tune of over USD 24 billion will be released, and perhaps Iran will get generous support for its reconstruction. The results of an expected outcome became visible when Iran’s currency made a comeback. And, for the world, the oil price crashed below USD 80 per barrel.
There is little doubt that peace brings with it numerous benefits for all, those involved in the wars and those not; however, this is what the realists do not understand or do not want to understand. For the realist, war is a continuation of policy by other means.
The writer of this article has authored four international books: Nuclear Deterrence and Conflict Management Between India and Pakistan, South Asia Needs Hybrid Peace, Understanding Sun Tzu and the Art of Hybrid War, and Diplomacy and Deterrence.