It is not often that Pakistan finds itself at the centre of a global narrative in which the world says “thank you.” Yet the flurry of congratulatory messages–from Beijing to Brussels, from Ankara to Tokyo–landing at Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s desk suggests that Islamabad has stepped into a diplomatic role few predicted for it just months ago.
On Monday, Sharif announced that Pakistan will host the formal signing of a US-Iran peace memorandum in Geneva on June 19. Briefing the National Assembly, he called the accord “the success of peace and dialogue – a diplomatic success.”
In this game of chicken, Pakistan’s diplomats have served as constant shuttle mediators. They knew that waiting for a perfect alignment of interests would mean waiting for war.
The accord, reached after 107 days of war that began with US?Israeli strikes on Iran in late February, provides for an immediate and permanent ceasefire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a roadmap for further negotiations.
Sharif had earlier said in a post on X, “Peace has never been this close as it is now.”
Shortly afterwards, writing on Truth Social, US President Donald Trump declared that “The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete,” before authorising the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the removal of the US naval blockade. “Congratulations to all!” he wrote. “Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”
Later, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan thanked Pakistan for its “exceptional mediation efforts.” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer also singled out Pakistan’s mediators alongside Qatar for the breakthrough. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni described the agreement as “an opportunity for peace that must be seized,” adding that a heartfelt thanks went to the mediators and “in particular to Qatar and Pakistan”. The Dutch, Kuwaiti and Japanese foreign ministries similarly paid tribute to Islamabad’s sustained and constructive diplomacy. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, in a statement, expressed gratitude to Pakistan and Qatar for their mediation efforts. China’s Foreign Ministry publicly praised Pakistan for bringing two hostile powers back to the negotiating table, and UN Secretary?General António Guterres expressed “deep appreciation” for Pakistan’s constructive role. Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani also thanked Pakistan and other parties that “contributed to creating the conditions conducive to reaching this understanding.”
Even German Chancellor Friedrich Merz welcomed the breakthrough and said the priority was to translate the truce into a lasting peace. Such a chorus underlined that the world saw more than a routine mediation.
The sense of relief was palpable because the war had exacted a global toll. Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz had choked maritime oil flows and sent energy prices soaring. The US imposed a naval blockade that Iran interpreted as an act of war, and tit?for?tat attacks on ships heightened the risk of an accident dragging Gulf monarchies into a wider conflagration.
Global leaders have hailed the accord as a “major step towards easing tensions” and protecting global economic stability. Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, said reopening Hormuz and restoring free navigation were essential not just for the region but for the world economy.
If the diplomacy looks polished today, its origins were anything but certain. As Washington Post columnist David Ignatius observed, the US?Iran negotiations were more like the “World Series of Brinkmanship” than a normal peace process. Both sides seemed convinced that the path to agreement lay through the theatre of obstinacy – threatening to walk away, setting deadlines, then extending them, and using the Strait as leverage. President Trump boasted about “obliterating” Iran one week and offered to make it “a strong nation again” the next. The Iranian leadership responded in kind, closing Hormuz and escalating attacks. In this game of chicken, Pakistan’s diplomats have served as constant shuttle mediators. They knew that waiting for a perfect alignment of interests would mean waiting for war. Instead, they kept the door ajar by hosting back?channel meetings in Islamabad, pressing for a ceasefire, and persuading both sides to meet again even when ultimatums seemed to foreclose dialogue.
International media and think tanks have also placed Field Marshal Asim Munir at the centre of this diplomatic turn. A year ago, he was being discussed largely through the prism of Pakistan’s military confrontation with India. Today, he finds himself cited by a US president as one of the figures who urged Washington to hold its fire. On April 23, President Trump publicly said that, upon the request of Field Marshal Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, the United States had agreed to hold back further attacks.
The extension came after Pakistani leaders held intensive calls with US Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Iranian parliamentary speaker Bagher Ghalibaf. Munir then flew to Tehran – the first regional military leader to visit since the war started – to meet Iranian officials directly. He also accompanied Sharif to Saudi Arabia to brief Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and later hosted Vance and the Iranian delegation for the first direct talks since 1979.
Analysts claim that Munir’s “favourite field marshal” status with Trump stemmed from his ability to bridge militaries as well as governments.
South Asia analyst Michael Kugelman has repeatedly noted that Pakistan “achieved one of its biggest diplomatic wins in years” and had defied sceptics who doubted its capacity to broker such a complex agreement. That transformation did not happen overnight. Pakistan’s value lies in its ability to communicate with rival blocs at a time of widening diplomatic vacuums. Islamabad has long balanced security cooperation with Washington while deepening ties to China and maintaining functional relations with Iran and the Gulf monarchies. Its nuclear status and institutional military ties make it a rare actor capable of talking to Western and Middle Eastern security establishments simultaneously. In other words, what looks like an overnight success is the product of years of cultivating relationships that allow Pakistan to pick up the phone in Tehran, Riyadh, Washington or Beijing and expect an answer.
Pakistan was never targeted by Iran during the war, and it could therefore offer neutral space for talks.
It also sought to fulfil its security commitments to Saudi Arabia while avoiding an explicit choice between Riyadh and Tehran. Deploying 8,000 troops and air-defence systems to Saudi bases after the ceasefire showcased that balancing act: Islamabad remained a security provider to the kingdom even as it brokered talks with Iran.
If Pakistan’s mediation underscores a new diplomatic confidence, it also points to a broader shift in global politics. In an increasingly fragmented world, states that can talk to rival blocs – so?called “middle powers” – are in demand. This flexible diplomacy has turned a once?marginal player into a “consequential diplomatic stakeholder”. Washington-based analyst Imran Khan described Pakistan as a “nuclear-armed, Muslim-majority swing state,” capturing why Islamabad suddenly mattered to Washington, Tehran and the Gulf at once.
What, then, does the Islamabad Accord mean beyond the headlines? For one, it is not yet a peace treaty. The Washington Post warns that the negotiations have been defined by brinkmanship and that both sides may still walk away. The nuclear file has been deferred to a later stage, sanctions relief remains contested, and verification mechanisms are still to be hammered out. Israel could easily act as a spoiler.
Pakistan’s role does not end with hosting the signing ceremony. It must help shepherd the implementation process, reassure sceptics that the ceasefire is durable and maintain the trust of both Washington and Tehran as new rounds of talks tackle the hard issues. Yet the broader lesson is that middle powers can matter. In a world where great powers often behave like carpet traders – as Ignatius quipped, the best way to get a good deal is to pretend you don’t need one – a state that keeps talking when everyone else slams doors can change outcomes.
Even if the memorandum falters, Islamabad has already altered perceptions. Indian defence analyst Pravin Sawhney went even further, writing that Pakistan had emerged as “more than a credible mediator – a geopolitical asset in the New World Order.”
The writer is OpEd Editor (Daily Times) and can be reached at durenayab786 @gmail.com. She tweets @DureAkram.