Hasan Dajah

At a highly complex regional juncture, all eyes are on the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, as a potential diplomatic arena for reshaping the balance of power between the United States and Iran. This comes amidst the intertwining paths of war and de-escalation, and the growing risk of sliding into a wider confrontation involving regional actors, most notably Israel. With the temporary truce nearing its end, Pakistani mediation appears to be a serious attempt to contain the escalation and redirect the course towards negotiation instead of war.

This mediation comes within what can be described as a “fog of peace,” where there is no clear or agreed-upon narrative regarding the future of negotiations, despite the existence of a nominal ceasefire. Contradictory American statements, coupled with conditional Iranian positions, reflect a state of uncertainty that renders any diplomatic progress fragile and liable to collapse. Nevertheless, both sides recognize that the continuation of the crisis, especially given the threat to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, could lead to serious global economic repercussions. Islamabad is a mediator of necessity, not luxury. Pakistan possesses unique advantages that qualify it to play the role of mediator. It maintains balanced relations with Iran while simultaneously having effective communication channels with Washington and the Gulf states. This neutral position grants it a relative ability to bridge the gaps, especially given the lack of direct trust between the parties.

However, Pakistani mediation is not merely a traditional diplomatic initiative; it reflects a profound understanding of the gravity of the situation. Islamabad recognizes that any large-scale military escalation will not remain confined to the Gulf but will extend to the entire international system, whether through energy or maritime security. Therefore, it has intensified its contacts with both sides to remove obstacles, foremost among them the American naval blockade, which Tehran considers a primary impediment to negotiations.

The trust dilemma and the conditions for de-escalation

The course of negotiations reveals that the fundamental problem is not the absence of channels, but rather the lack of trust. Iran refuses to negotiate under pressure and considers American statements a direct threat, while Washington insists on conditions related to the nuclear program and Tehran's regional behavior.

At the heart of this complexity, several conditions for the success of de-escalation stand out: lifting the naval blockade on Iranian ports. Reopening the Strait of Hormuz and guaranteeing freedom of navigation, along with extending the ceasefire for a longer period to create a stable negotiating environment, are steps that, while seemingly technical, represent a "test of intentions" between the two sides and may be the only way to gradually build trust.

Between war and negotiation lie two parallel paths. What is striking in the current situation is that the paths of escalation and negotiation are proceeding in tandem. While potential talks are underway in Islamabad, military movements and maritime tensions continue, clearly reflecting a strategy adopted by both sides that relies on exerting pressure to strengthen their positions and improve their negotiating terms.

Israel's entry into the crisis further complicates the situation, as it prepares for the possibility of negotiations collapsing and pushes for more hardline options against Iran. This overlap between the American and Israeli tracks on one hand, and the Iranian track on the other, makes any comprehensive settlement extremely difficult. Scenarios for the Next Phase: The outcomes of the Pakistani mediation can be summarized in three main scenarios: Partial success scenario:

The parties are likely to move towards extending the ceasefire while formulating a limited framework agreement focused on reducing tensions and ensuring maritime security in exchange for a gradual easing of sanctions. This scenario does not end the crisis, but it opens the door to longer negotiations, with the possibility of escalation remaining if trust falters or military pressure resumes.

Conditions for Verification: The success of the negotiating track requires two essential conditions: first, a mutual commitment to halt escalatory actions, especially in the Strait of Hormuz; and second, the provision of practical guarantees to build trust, such as lifting the sanctions in exchange for concrete Iranian steps on the nuclear issue.

Prospects for Verification: The prospects for success depend on the existence of genuine political will on both sides, driven by internal pressures and fear of the cost of war, along with the effectiveness of Pakistani mediation in bridging the gaps and offering viable interim solutions.

Prolonged Stalemate Scenario: The situation is heading towards a prolonged stalemate, with negotiations continuing intermittently without achieving a real breakthrough, alongside limited field tensions used as leverage. The ceasefire remains fragile and extendable, as the parties seek to manage the crisis rather than resolve it, constantly anticipating a potential escalation should the balance of deterrence shift or regional calculations intensify.

Condition for verification: The continuation of a minimum level of diplomatic communication channels without a complete collapse, coupled with an unspoken commitment to avoid full-scale escalation despite limited violations.

Probability of verification: Relatively high, given the deep mistrust between the parties and each side's desire to buy time and improve its negotiating position without engaging in open warfare.

Collapse and Escalation Scenario:The situation slides toward a large-scale military escalation following the collapse of mediation, with a return to direct strikes and a regional expansion of the conflict, especially with the direct involvement of other parties. Navigation in the Strait of Hormuz is affected, and global energy prices rise, while the prospects for negotiation diminish in favor of the logic of force, threatening a more dangerous phase and prolonged instability.

Condition for verification: The complete failure of negotiation channels, escalating military violations, the absence of any commitment to the ceasefire, and each party clinging to its maximalist demands without offering concessions. The chances of success are moderate, but remain high given the heightened tensions, the overlapping interests of regional actors, and the potential for miscalculation or an unintended slide into confrontation.

Will Pakistan succeed?

The realistic answer is that Islamabad may succeed in managing the crisis, but it will not be able to resolve it entirely. The US-Iranian crisis is not a recent development; it has been accumulating for decades and encompasses complex issues beyond the capacity of any single mediator.

Nevertheless, the value of Pakistan's role lies in preventing a major escalation by creating spaces for dialogue and offering face-saving, phased solutions for all parties. Diplomacy in such cases does not aim to end the conflict all at once, but rather to minimize its costs and prevent it from spiraling into a full-blown war.

Ultimately, Islamabad appears to be holding a tightrope between war and peace. Its success will not be measured by the signing of a historic agreement, but by its ability to keep this thread alive. In a world increasingly plagued by complex crises, this achievement alone may be enough to confirm that diplomacy, despite all the challenges, can still postpone wars, if not end them.