Ever since the US-Israeli war on Iran broke out on February 28, Pakistan's efforts to advance mediation have been difficult to ignore.

Islamabad has shuttled multiple peace proposals between both capitals, stretched its diplomatic bandwidth to get conflicting parties to the negotiating table, and despite limited success in early April talks in Islamabad, it continues to acquire considerable support from both Iran and the United States in brokering consensus on the path to de-escalation.

The Value of Having No Skin in the Game

These dynamics merit a deeper understanding of what constitutes Pakistan's role as a pivotal mediator in the conflict, and the drivers that propel it to that status.

First, Islamabad does not carry some of the constraints associated with Gulf countries and traditional US-focused mediators. For instance, Islamabad does not host any US military bases, making it a critical player in earning the trust of Tehran -- which has attacked Middle Eastern countries, including mediators Oman and Qatar, for their perceived role in facilitating US attacks on the country. Islamabad preserves this trust by avoiding any appearance of military complicity -- even tacit support for the US -- which could bring it into the line of fire in the current war.

On the other hand, Islamabad as the destination of choice provides ample geographical safety from core conflict flashpoints. For instance, Pakistan is not in close proximity to areas in the immediate periphery of the Strait of Hormuz, where fluctuating US-Iran tensions on opening up the waterway have sent substantial alarm across Middle Eastern economies. This matters to US negotiators, who have shown sensitivity to regions that could invite Iranian attacks, and similar threat perceptions for Tehran -- which has seen much of its top leadership become the target of unwarranted Israeli-US attacks -- make Islamabad a destination offering greater security and a stronger basis for negotiating in earnest.

Gulf countries view Pakistan's role with a high degree of trust as well. This was apparent in the lead-up to the first round of "Islamabad Talks," when regional heavyweight Saudi Arabia partnered with Türkiye and Egypt to assess the contours of regional security in four way talks in Islamabad. Pakistan also maintains very close ties with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and its leadership has made the most of its multivector foreign policy by making time-sensitive visits to countries such as Qatar to gauge prospects for de-escalation. Islamabad is also among the few countries to have the ear of US President Donald Trump, who has voiced his support for the country's top leadership brass.

Energy Dependency as a Driver of Diplomacy

This proximity enables Islamabad to credibly facilitate the vital exchange of competing peace plans to the benefit of US-Iran talks, as well as account for expectations regarding an enduring de-escalation scenario, as seen through the lens of major Gulf partners, including Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait. At the same time, Islamabad's geographical proximity to Iran -- a close neighbor with a history of shared counterterrorism cooperation, support for their respective Shiite communities, and energy ties -- makes mediation a matter of strategic value to a country whose economy is already on the margins. This reality, reinforced by growth risks and limited borrowing potential, makes clear that Islamabad cannot afford to look the other way when drastic energy shocks from the Strait of Hormuz tensions affect global energy outlooks, as well as Pakistan's own energy supplies. Pakistan imports the lion's share of its gas from key Gulf countries. The energy factor lends Islamabad's mediation the additional immediacy that is central to seeing the conflict through for its domestic constituency as well.

Pakistan's iron-clad relationship with China is also a positive reinforcer. This alignment is reflected in both countries' "five-point" peace plan, which calls for de-escalation and a resumption of peace talks. Islamabad's history of opposing unilateral sanctions, firm regard for international law, and refusal to take sides in the Iran-US conflict lends its mediating potential the promise of permanence, alignment with UN-backed dialogue principles, and rare credibility in brokering consensus.

It is this practical reading of gradual but enduring peace talks momentum, geographical constraints, energy drivers, and close diplomatic proximity to both Tehran and Washington, that gives Islamabad the leverage and endurance to emerge as a major mediator in the US-Iran war.

See the original article here