By Sarar Khan Niazi

The expiry of the 60-day US-Iran ceasefire framework should not be treated as merely another missed diplomatic deadline. It is a warning that the Middle East is entering a more dangerous phase: one in which temporary restraints are disappearing faster than a durable political settlement can be built. The Islamabad memorandum, reached after Pakistan-mediated talks, was intended to halt military operations and provide 60 days for negotiations toward a broader settlement. That period has now expired without the promised breakthrough. The immediate temptation will be to ask who is responsible for the failure. Washington and Tehran already blame each other. Iran says the United States violated the understanding and demands an end to the blockade, withdrawal of US forces and compensation. Washington, meanwhile, is relying increasingly on sanctions and pressure. But the more important question is what happens next. The danger is not necessarily that a full-scale regional war begins tomorrow. The greater danger is a chain reaction of limited confrontations that gradually becomes impossible to control. The Strait of Hormuz remains a central flashpoint, while tensions involving Gulf States, Lebanon, Israel and armed groups across the region create multiple opportunities for miscalculation. Reuters has described the conflict as increasingly appearing to operate on “autopilot”, with shipping disrupted and regional tensions multiplying. Gaza adds another layer of volatility. Recent US-led efforts to revive a political roadmap have produced no breakthrough. Talks involving Jared Kushner, Israel and Hamas ended with fundamental disagreements still unresolved, particularly over the sequence of Israeli withdrawal and Hamas disarmament. Meanwhile, Israeli strikes have continued despite the ceasefire framework. This is precisely why the Middle East cannot afford diplomacy that treats ceasefires as endpoints rather than bridges. A ceasefire is valuable only if it creates political space for something more permanent. If the pause merely allows each side to regroup, replenish and return to maximalist demands, the clock eventually runs out and the violence returns with greater intensity. The international community therefore needs to shift from deadline diplomacy to sustained diplomacy. Washington cannot expect sanctions and military pressure alone to produce Iranian concessions. Tehran cannot assume that maintaining pressure around Hormuz will eventually force its adversaries to accept its demands. Israel and Hamas cannot continue treating the sequencing of concessions as a zero-sum contest while Gaza’s humanitarian crisis deepens. There is also a particular responsibility for regional mediators. Pakistan’s role in bringing Washington and Tehran to the negotiating table demonstrated that countries outside the traditional great-power axis can create diplomatic openings. Islamabad should preserve that channel rather than regard the expiry of the 60-day framework as the end of its diplomatic effort. Other regional actors including Gulf states, Türkiye, Egypt and Qatar also have an interest in preventing a conflict whose economic and security consequences would spread far beyond the immediate battlefield. The stakes are not confined to the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz is vital to global energy and trade. Prolonged disruption threatens shipping, fuel prices and already fragile economies. The consequences would be felt in South Asia as quickly as in Europe or the Gulf. The Middle East does not need another deadline. It needs a mechanism capable of surviving one. The failure of the 60-day framework should therefore be understood as a diplomatic alarm, not an invitation to escalate. The choice before the region is increasingly stark: revive serious negotiations while channels remain open, or allow a collection of unresolved conflicts to become one interconnected war. The first option is difficult. The second could prove catastrophic. For once, diplomacy should move faster than the missiles.