By Sardr Khan Niazi

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s call for restraint and sustained diplomacy amid the latest escalation between Washington and Tehran deserves serious attention. At a moment when the Middle East is once again edging towards a wider conflict, the instinct of governments must not be to answer every military action with another military action. The consequences of such a cycle will extend far beyond the immediate protagonists. Pakistan’s position is both principled and pragmatic. Islamabad has repeatedly urged the parties to step back from confrontation and return to dialogue, while offering its own good offices to facilitate communication. This is not merely a diplomatic slogan. Pakistan has a direct interest in preventing another prolonged regional war. The latest escalation demonstrates how quickly a contained confrontation can acquire a life of its own. Military strikes may produce tactical gains, but they rarely resolve the political disputes that caused a crisis in the first place. Worse, retaliation creates new grievances and makes compromise politically harder for all sides. The danger is particularly acute in the Gulf. Any disruption to shipping, energy supplies or regional infrastructure would have consequences well beyond the battlefield. Countries already struggling with economic pressures would face higher energy and transport costs, while fragile economies across Asia could suffer from renewed inflation and supply-chain disruption. For Pakistan, the stakes are especially high. Islamabad has long standing relations with both Iran and the Arab Gulf states, while maintaining important ties with the United States. A broader conflict would therefore place Pakistan in an increasingly difficult diplomatic position. It could also create economic, security and humanitarian pressures along Pakistan’s western frontier. This is why Islamabad’s emphasis on diplomacy should be accompanied by sustained diplomatic engagement. Pakistan should work with countries that retain channels to Washington and Tehran and encourage them to keep those channels open. Quiet diplomacy may not produce dramatic headlines, but it is often precisely what becomes indispensable when public rhetoric has become confrontational. The Islamabad understanding reached through mediation also offers a starting point. Whatever its limitations, an existing diplomatic framework is preferable to having none. The parties should resist the temptation to treat every breach as justification for abandoning negotiations altogether. Commitments that have already been made should be upheld, while mechanisms for addressing violations should be strengthened. At the same time, Pakistan must ensure that its diplomacy remains balanced. Calling for restraint cannot mean overlooking violations of sovereignty or the suffering of civilians. A credible peace policy requires consistency: opposition to attacks on civilian populations, respect for territorial integrity and support for negotiated solutions must apply regardless of which side is responsible. There is also a larger lesson here. The international community has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to mobilize military resources far more quickly than it can mobilize diplomatic solutions. That imbalance is dangerous. Major Powers possess considerable influence over the parties to the conflict and should use it to create space for negotiations rather than encourage maximalist demands. The immediate objective must therefore be de-escalation. A ceasefire, however fragile, can save lives and create the conditions for talks. Diplomacy can then address the harder questions that military force cannot settle. Pakistan should continue making this case, but it should also recognize the limits of mediation. Islamabad cannot impose peace on Washington or Tehran. What it can do is keep communication alive, encourage moderation and make clear that a wider war serves no one’s long-term interests. Prime Minister Shehbaz’s message is therefore timely. In an increasingly combustible region, restraint is not weakness and diplomacy is not appeasement. They are the mechanisms through which states prevent crises from becoming catastrophes. The region has already paid too high a price for conflicts that seemed manageable at their beginning. The priority now must be to ensure that the latest escalation does not become another such tragedy.