Brussels, April 15 Although Pakistan seeks to project itself as a peace broker between the United States and Iran, this narrative runs counter to Pakistani military actions in Afghanistan, which have resulted in significant Afghan civilian casualties, including women and children.
This contradiction undermines Islamabad's moral claims, as a nation cannot easily market itself as “a guardian of regional stability" while “carrying the baggage of its own coercive record next door", a report mentioned.
Writing for 'EuropaWire', Dimitra Staikou, a Greek lawyer, writer, and journalist, noted that the development between mid-March and early April this year was not shaped by a single architect, but by multiple parallel actors operating across intersecting tracks.
She stressed that rather than a centralised process, mediation unfolded as a network — where Pakistan was not the hub influencing outcomes but one of the several channels through which outcomes moved.
“Pakistan attempted to present the process as proof of its diplomatic significance, positioning itself as a key mediator at a time of extreme regional tension. Both the Iranian and American sides acknowledged, between March 25 and 31, in different ways, their roles in conveying messages and hosting contacts. Yet this acknowledgement also exposed the limits of its influence: Islamabad functioned less as a true mediator and more as a conduit in a process shaped by stronger forces and conflicting strategies it could neither control nor reconcile,” Staikou detailed.
According to the expert, the depiction of Pakistan’s mediation by hosting ceasefire talks in Islamabad reflects only a part of the broader picture.
There are strong indications that both Beijing and Washington are dependent on Pakistan as a messenger to transmit positions and proposals aimed at bringing Iran to the negotiating table.
“This is reflected in intensified China–Pakistan contacts, Iranian delegations visiting Islamabad, and the joint five-point initiative announced shortly before the ceasefire, parts of which were ultimately incorporated into the final arrangement. Indeed, the fact that Iran appears to have looked beyond Pakistan for serious assurance only reinforces the point that Islamabad was never seen as the anchor of the process,” Staikou mentioned.
The report stressed that the ceasefire framework between the US and Iran itself proved fragile from the outset with divergent interpretations — especially regarding Lebanon — and the continuation of military operations eroded its credibility.
At the same time, she said, critical issues including security in the Strait of Hormuz remained unresolved, suggesting that the agreement addressed the appearance of the crisis rather than the root causes.
“This chest-thumping also reflects the pressure of Pakistan’s grim economic situation. Islamabad’s insistence on presenting the episode as a diplomatic success is also linked to domestic pressures. With a $3.5 billion loan repayment due to the United Arab Emirates, a $1.3 billion bond maturing within the month, foreign exchange reserves of approximately $16.4 billion, rising inflation in March, and a return to a current account deficit in February, Pakistan had strong incentives to amplify its foreign policy narrative," Staikou emphasised.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor