By Islamov Bositkhon, UWED undergraduate, intern at IAIS
On April 8, the United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran succeeded in reaching a temporary two-week ceasefire following a 40-day armed confrontation. U.S. President Donald Trump, as well as the Iranian leadership, acknowledged Pakistan’s significant role in facilitating this agreement, emphasizing the effectiveness of its mediation efforts in preventing further escalation of the conflict.
In this context, a legitimate question arises: why did Pakistan—rather than other regional actors such as Turkey or Egypt – assume the key mediating role between the conflicting parties?
Pakistan–Iran Relations
Pakistan and Iran share a long border exceeding 900 kilometers, which objectively creates a high degree of interdependence in the sphere of security. Iran was the first country to recognize Pakistan’s independence in 1947, while Pakistan, in turn, recognized the Islamic Republic of Iran following the Iranian Revolution.
Despite these historical ties, bilateral relations have been characterized by ambivalence. In the 1990s, the two states adopted divergent positions on the Afghan issue, which contributed to tensions. During the 2000s, relations gradually improved; however, in January 2024, an armed incident occurred in which both sides launched missile strikes on each other’s territories, justifying their actions as counterterrorism operations. Nevertheless, the crisis was rapidly de-escalated, indicating the existence of functional mechanisms for conflict management.
A significant improvement in relations took place in 2025 amid a series of regional crises, including a short-term war between Israel and Iran, as well as an armed confrontation between India and Pakistan. Pakistan adopted a more explicit position by condemning Israel’s actions, in contrast to India, which maintained neutrality. This strengthened the perception of Pakistan as a more predictable and reliable partner for Iran.
At the same time, Pakistan began to demonstrate rapprochement with the United States. Notably, Pakistan’s Chief of Army Staff, Asim Munir, visited the White House in June 2025 and held talks with President Trump.Furthermore, Pakistan proposed nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
This dual orientation in foreign policy enabled Pakistan to occupy a unique position as a “bridge” between Washington and Tehran. A key factor lies in Pakistan’s distinctive diplomatic status. Following the Iranian Revolution of 1979, Iran has lacked direct diplomatic relations with the United States. Under these circumstances, Iranian interests in the United States have traditionally been represented through Pakistani diplomatic channels.
Pakistan–United States Relations: From Tension to Pragmatic Rapprochement
Historically, relations between the United States and Pakistan have been complex. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Washington repeatedly accused Islamabad of insufficient efforts in combating terrorism. The peak of tensions occurred in 2011, when U.S. forces eliminated the leader of Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, on Pakistani territory without prior notification to Pakistani authorities.
Nevertheless, beginning in mid-2025, a gradual normalization of relations has been observed, driven by the pragmatic interests of both sides. Pakistan undertook a number of steps toward the Trump administration, which contributed to the restoration of political dialogue.
The Strategic Importance of the Middle East for Pakistan: Energy Dependence
The Middle East holds critical importance for Pakistan, primarily in the energy domain. More than 80% of its imported oil originates from countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, with the Strait of Hormuz serving as the key transit route.
With the outbreak of the conflict on February 28, Iran significantly restricted maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a global energy crisis. For Pakistan, the consequences were particularly severe: by early April, fuel prices had risen by approximately 54%, leading to widespread social protests and intensifying inflationary pressures.
An additional factor was the collective security agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, concluded in September 2025. In essence, it resembles the principle of collective defense analogous to Article 5 of NATO.
In the context of Iranian missile strikes on Saudi territory, Pakistan faced the risk of direct involvement in the conflict. Such a scenario could have led to large-scale escalation, including the activation of terrorist groups in the border regions of Balochistan and Sistan.
Pakistan’s Diplomatic Initiatives
Pakistan actively promoted the negotiation process. An important step was the meeting of foreign ministersfrom Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, initiated by Islamabad, aimed at developing potential scenarios for conflict resolution.
Subsequently, Pakistan’s Deputy PM, Ishaq Dar, visited China, where the parties formulated a comprehensive settlement plan consisting of five key points designed to facilitate de-escalation and stabilization.
The reconciliation achieved between the conflicting parties is expected to be further developed through negotiations in Islamabad, scheduled for April 10, with all sides having agreed to participate.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Pakistan’s mediation efforts proved effective in facilitating conflict resolution. Owing to a unique combination of factors acceptable to both the American and Iranian governments, Pakistan emerged as a platform through which the conflicting parties were able to exchange information—something that previous negotiation rounds in Qatar and Oman had failed to achieve.
Given the existential implications of the Iran–U.S. conflict for Pakistan, its authorities acted actively and decisively despite considerable challenges and pressure from both sides. Moreover, Pakistan engaged both regional and global actors, including China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, in its diplomatic initiatives.
Thus, the success of Pakistan’s mediation can be attributed not only to its diplomatic efforts but also to a unique combination of strategic, economic, and geopolitical factors that positioned it as the most effective mediator within this particular configuration of the conflict.
* The Institute for Advanced International Studies (IAIS) does not take institutional positions on any issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IAIS.
