• Analysts see Islamabad’s mediator role as strategically significant
• Debate grows in US over legality, consequences of war
WASHINGTON: Between the steady drumbeat of military escalation and the fragile stirrings of diplomacy, Pakistan has positioned itself as a rare and consequential channel of engagement in a crisis that threatens to widen into a full-scale regional war.
By late Monday, speculation in the US capital had shifted towards the possibility of American ground operations in Iran.
Yet, even as military contingency planning intensifies, diplomatic channels remain active.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, US President Donald Trump insisted that Iran had responded positively to most American demands. “They’re agreeing with us on the plan,” he said. Iranian sources, however, have indicated that any pause in the month-long conflict would require an immediate halt to strikes and guarantees against renewed attacks.
It is within this narrow diplomatic opening that Pakistan has stepped forward.
On Monday, Islamabad hosted foreign ministers from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkiye in consultations aimed at de-escalation. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has spoken with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, emphasising restraint and a return to dialogue. Pakistani officials have publicly indicated that Islamabad stood ready to host and facilitate US-Iran talks, whether direct or indirect.
‘Strategically significant’
In Washington’s policy community, that offer has drawn measured but notable attention.
Michael Kugelman, director of the South Asia Institute at the Wilson Centre, described Pakistan’s willingness to facilitate talks as “the most promising development to date” in efforts to end the war.
He argued that Pakistan’s mediation role, particularly as a US-Iran go-between, made strategic sense at a time when direct engagement remained politically constrained for both Washington and Tehran.
Islamabad, he noted, maintained working ties with both capitals and had historically served as a discreet diplomatic channel in sensitive situations.
Even if mediation ultimately fell short, Mr Kugelman suggested, Pakistan’s effort would still advance its strategic interests by reinforcing its diplomatic relevance during a period of heightened regional instability.
A similar assessment came from Lisa Curtis, who served as deputy assistant to the US president and senior director for South and Central Asia at the National Security Council from 2017 to 2021 and is currently a senior fellow at the Centre for a New American Security.
“It may be surprising to some that Pakistan has taken on the risky role of a key mediator between the US and Iran,” she observed. “However, if successful, Pakistan would burnish its diplomatic credentials and receive a major boost to its relations with the US.”
Her comments reflect a broader recognition in Washington that Pakistan’s mediation effort builds on a gradual improvement in bilateral ties over the past year. A successful diplomatic intervention, or even a stabilising ceasefire, could further consolidate that trend.
At the same time, domestic debate in the US is sharpening. Senator Rand Paul, a Republican from Kentucky and chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, has questioned the legality of launching military action without congressional approval.
He warned that prolonged conflict could carry constitutional and political consequences, particularly if the administration sought additional funding for military operations.
The war has already inflicted thousands of casualties and disrupted maritime traffic near the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy supplies.
US lawmakers, scholars and media warn that any move to seize Kharg Island or conduct sustained ground raids inside Iran would mark a dramatic escalation, potentially drawing additional regional actors into the conflict.
Published in Dawn, March 31st, 2026
