Between Fire and Diplomacy: Pakistan’s Moment in the US–Iran Crisis

Between Fire and Diplomacy: Pakistan’s Moment in the US–Iran Crisis

By Ghulamullah Kyani

The confrontation between the United States and Iran has entered a decisive and dangerous phase—caught between fragile diplomacy and the risk of a wider regional war. What began as a limited escalation in early 2026 has now evolved into a multidimensional crisis involving military pressure, economic disruption, and high-stakes diplomacy.

Recent talks hosted in Islamabad ended without a final agreement, but both sides agreed to keep diplomatic channels open. This is a critical development. Historically, even limited engagement during conflict reduces the probability of rapid escalation and creates space for mediation.

On the ground, tensions have escalated significantly. The United States has initiated a naval blockade near the Strait of Hormuz—through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil supply passes daily. Any disruption here has immediate global consequences. In response, Iran has warned of retaliation, raising fears of direct confrontation in one of the world’s most sensitive energy corridors.

The economic impact is already visible. Global oil prices have surged past $100 per barrel, while energy markets remain volatile. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has revised its global demand outlook downward due to uncertainty caused by the conflict. For energy-importing countries like Pakistan, this translates directly into inflationary pressure, higher import bills, and fiscal strain.

Amid this uncertainty, Pakistan has emerged as a credible and active mediator. Its ability to host direct talks reflects a balanced foreign policy—maintaining working relations with Washington while preserving deep ties with Tehran. This dual engagement gives Islamabad a unique diplomatic advantage.

However, the challenge now is not symbolic mediation, but sustained engagement. The most urgent priority must be to prevent the collapse of the current ceasefire, which remains fragile and time-bound.

A 30 to 45-day extension of the ceasefire is both practical and necessary. Evidence from past conflicts suggests that extended pauses significantly improve the chances of negotiated settlements by allowing technical teams and diplomats to work through complex issues without the pressure of active hostilities.

Pakistan should also advocate a step-by-step negotiation framework. The core disagreement—particularly over Iran’s nuclear programme, including proposals to limit uranium enrichment for up to 20 years—is too complex for a single შეთანხმ. Attempting to resolve all issues simultaneously risks deadlock.

Instead, a two-track approach is advisable:
• Immediate focus on ceasefire stability and de-escalation
• Parallel dialogue on long-term strategic and nuclear concerns

Confidence-building measures can play a decisive role. Limited humanitarian sanctions relief, assurances against further military escalation, and partial easing of maritime restrictions are realistic, implementable steps that can restore trust.

Pakistan should also broaden the diplomatic framework by involving key regional and global stakeholders. Countries such as Turkey, China, Saudi Arabia, and European partners can collectively reinforce mediation efforts, increasing both legitimacy and pressure for compromise.

Equally important is the use of backchannel diplomacy. Historically, major diplomatic breakthroughs—from Cold War détente to regional peace agreements—have relied heavily on quiet, behind-the-scenes negotiations.

At the same time, Pakistan must highlight the broader global consequences of continued escalation. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz not only affect oil markets but also global trade flows, insurance costs, and supply chains. For developing economies, this can mean slower growth and increased economic vulnerability.

For Pakistan, the stakes are particularly high. The country imports a significant portion of its energy needs, and any sustained rise in oil prices directly impacts its balance of payments. Moreover, regional instability undermines broader economic and connectivity goals.

The path forward is undeniably complex. Yet diplomacy often succeeds in precisely such high-risk environments. Pakistan’s neutrality, credibility, and proactive engagement position it well to play a meaningful role.

The choice before all parties remains stark: escalation or engagement.
At this critical juncture, the most realistic and strategic approach is clear—extend first, resolve later.