By Sardar Khan Niazi

Pakistan has consistently strived for de-escalation and peace between the United States and Iran. At a time when confrontation threatens to deepen regional instability, Islamabad’s emphasis on restraint, dialogue and diplomatic engagement reflects a clear understanding of the human, economic and strategic costs of prolonged conflict. The stakes extend far beyond Washington and Tehran. A confrontation between the two countries has implications for the wider Middle East, international energy markets, maritime trade and the security of millions of people. For Pakistan, which shares a border with Iran and maintains long standing relations with the United States and the Gulf states, the consequences are particularly significant. Pakistan’s approach is therefore shaped not merely by diplomatic preference, but by geography, economic realities and the imperative of regional peace. Islamabad has repeatedly maintained that dialogue remains the most viable means of resolving differences between the United States and Iran. Its diplomatic engagement has sought to preserve communication, encourage restraint and create opportunities for negotiations, even when tensions have threatened to derail the peace process. Pakistan’s role in facilitating a ceasefire in April 2026 and subsequent negotiations, including the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding in June, demonstrated the potential for diplomatic engagement to create space for a political settlement. Although the process has encountered serious difficulties, Pakistan has continued to advocate a negotiated resolution rather than allowing renewed hostilities to become the default course. The challenge, however, is considerable. The two sides remain divided over fundamental questions, including sanctions, nuclear activities, regional security and freedom of navigation. Recent diplomatic efforts have also faced setbacks, underscoring that the achievement of a ceasefire does not automatically translate into a durable peace agreement. Yet setbacks should not be mistaken for proof that diplomacy has failed. Negotiations between adversaries are rarely linear. Progress may be followed by deadlock, and periods of relative calm may give way to renewed confrontation. The essential task is to prevent disagreements from closing the door to dialogue altogether. Pakistan occupies a distinctive position in this crisis. Its geographical proximity to Iran gives it a direct interest in preventing instability along its western frontier, while its longstanding relationship with Washington provides another channel for engagement. Its ties with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries further underline the importance of a regional approach to peace. These relationships do not eliminate the difficulties of mediation. Rather, they create an opportunity for Pakistan to communicate with different parties, convey concerns and encourage practical steps towards de-escalation. Mediation, however, should not be confused with taking responsibility for resolving every disagreement. Pakistan cannot compel Washington or Tehran to abandon their positions. Nor can it guarantee an agreement when the parties themselves are unwilling to make the necessary compromises. Its contribution lies in keeping diplomatic channels open, helping narrow differences where possible and reminding both sides that the costs of continued confrontation may ultimately exceed the benefits they expect to secure. For Pakistan, peace between the United States and Iran is not an abstract foreign policy objective. Any prolonged conflict could generate serious economic and security repercussions. Disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy transit routes, could affect oil supplies, freight costs and global markets. For an economy sensitive to imported energy prices and external financial pressures, such disruptions could intensify inflationary pressures, raise production costs and complicate economic recovery. Regional instability could also affect trade, investment and the movement of people. A wider conflict would place additional pressure on neighboring countries and risk creating new humanitarian challenges. These concerns strengthen the case for sustained diplomacy. A negotiated settlement that reduces hostilities, protects civilian lives and preserves freedom of navigation would serve the interests of the region and the wider international community.