Has Pakistan lost credibility as mediator between US and Iran?

What began as an effort by Islamabad to project itself as a capable intermediary has instead put Pakistan under extreme criticism as negotiations between the United States and Iran have stalled, exposing gaps in communication, and deepening mistrust among key stakeholders.

From conflicting assurances and missed diplomatic signals to internal pressures and external setbacks, Pakistan’s mediation effort now appears to be struggling on multiple fronts.

A fragile diplomatic opening that failed to deliver

The latest phase of US-Iran engagement was expected to take place in Islamabad, where Pakistan had stepped in to host negotiations aimed at extending a temporary ceasefire and possibly laying the groundwork for a longer-term arrangement.

The talks followed an earlier meeting held in the Pakistani capital on April 11, which concluded without any substantive agreement.

More from Explainers

Asim Munir: The ‘man of peace’ whose blood-soaked uniform is getting dry-cleaned by Western media

One year of Pahalgam attack: Pakistan Army’s jihadi DNA remains intact

In the days leading up to the anticipated second round, there were indications of cautious optimism. US President Donald Trump had hinted at potential progress, even suggesting that “good news” could emerge from the diplomatic process.

Pakistan, for its part, invested significant effort in preparing the ground, with heightened security measures and logistical arrangements in place to facilitate high-level discussions.

However, the expected breakthrough never materialised.

Iranian representatives ultimately did not travel to Islamabad, and the negotiations collapsed before they could begin. The failure to convene talks came at a critical moment, as a two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran was approaching its expiration.

In a statement issued on April 21, Trump announced that Washington had agreed to a request by Pakistani intermediaries “to hold our Attack on the Country of Iran until such time as their leaders and representatives can come up with a unified proposal ... and discussions are concluded, one way or the other.”

Despite this, no specific timeline was outlined for either the proposal or the broader diplomatic process. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt later confirmed that no deadline had been established.

While the ceasefire was extended, a key point of contention remained unresolved. The United States chose to maintain its naval blockade targeting Iranian shipping routes, including vessels moving in and out of Iranian ports.

For Tehran, the continuation of this blockade represented a fundamental obstacle to any meaningful dialogue.

Iran has consistently maintained that its nuclear programme is intended for civilian purposes and has called for the removal of sanctions, compensation for damage inflicted during the conflict, and formal recognition of its control over the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.

Washington, meanwhile, has insisted that Iran must abandon highly enriched uranium and halt further enrichment activities to ensure that it does not acquire nuclear weapons.

These competing demands have created a difficult environment for mediation.

How Iran is growing wary of Pakistan

One of the central issues undermining Pakistan’s role has been the perception in Tehran that Islamabad failed to accurately convey critical positions and commitments.

According to intelligence inputs received by CNN-News18, Pakistani officials had assured Iranian leaders that they could effectively engage with the Trump administration and secure outcomes that would address Tehran’s concerns.

However, these assurances did not translate into concrete developments. During a recent visit to Tehran by Pakistan’s military leadership led by Field Marshal Asim Munir, Iranian officials reportedly presented a list of demands intended for the United States.

These demands, sources indicate, were not communicated to Washington, a lapse that has significantly damaged confidence in Pakistan’s reliability as an intermediary.

Iranian dissatisfaction has also been fuelled by broader concerns about how Pakistan represented Tehran’s interests in discussions with the United States. There are indications that Iranian officials believe their country’s strategic importance may have been understated in these exchanges.

The situation was compounded by developments on the ground that appeared to contradict the assurances conveyed through Pakistani channels. While Islamabad was facilitating dialogue, the United States seized Iranian cargo vessels near the Gulf of Oman.

For Tehran, this action reinforced the perception that the diplomatic process lacked coherence and that commitments made behind closed doors were not being honoured in practice.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi raised concerns about “bad faith” in the negotiations, signalling a breakdown in trust that would be difficult to repair.

In response, Iran moved to tighten shipping controls in the Strait of Hormuz, effectively halting any momentum that Pakistan had hoped to generate through its mediation efforts.

The remarks of Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan, Reza Amiri Moghadam, further only deepened these concerns. He pointed to the continuation of the naval blockade, threats of further military action, and what he described as unreasonable demands as factors incompatible with genuine peace efforts.

“As long as the naval blockade remains, faultlines remain,” he said.

How Pakistan is delivering mixed messages

The uncertainty surrounding Pakistan’s role has been amplified by conflicting accounts of what was communicated between the parties. Jeremy Scahill, a journalist at Drop Site News, reported that Iranian officials had been led to believe that Trump would “lift the blockade” on the Strait of Hormuz and extend the ceasefire before the next round of talks.

In reality, only the ceasefire extension was implemented, while the blockade remained in place. This discrepancy has raised questions about whether Pakistan misinterpreted US intentions or relayed assurances that were never firmly established.

“The Iranians told me it has happened before, where the Pakistanis have made such claims. We don't know if Pakistan said this or if Trump actually told it to them, and they turned around and told this to Iran. It's really complicated to determine who is telling the truth right now,” Scahill said.

He also noted that Iranian officials described Pakistani intermediaries as “scrambling” to keep up with Washington’s evolving position, suggesting a lack of clarity in Islamabad’s diplomatic engagement. The outcome, he observed, has left Pakistan with “egg on its face.”

Sources also indicate that Iran believes Islamabad has delivered mixed signals not only to Tehran and Washington but also to other major powers, including China and Russia.

Public commentary within Iran has echoed these concerns. During a televised debate on state media, analysts openly questioned Pakistan’s neutrality and accused its leadership of bias.

One participant alleged that Pakistan had prioritised a series of US demands while failing to adequately represent Iran’s own proposals. Another described the mediation effort as “tilted,” suggesting that it lacked balance and impartiality.

Alex Vatanka, director of the Iran programme at the Middle East Institute, highlighted the growing scepticism in Tehran. “If you look at Iran today, they're questioning what is Pakistan really up to. Are the Pakistanis doing the American bidding? Why are they pushing us? Why do they insist you have to come to Islamabad?” he told Atlantic Council.

How Pakistan remains submissive to the US

Beyond questions of messaging and intent, analysts have pointed to structural limitations in Pakistan’s ability to act as an effective mediator in such a complex dispute. One of the key challenges is the difficulty of offering credible assurances regarding the actions of the United States.

Vali Nasr, a former US State Department official, emphasised this constraint, noting that Pakistan lacks the capacity to guarantee how Washington will behave in a rapidly evolving situation.

“They can't say we promise the US won't do A, B, C. And there's nothing Munir can do about that,” he told The Financial Times.

This limitation has practical implications for the negotiation process. Without the ability to provide firm guarantees, Pakistan’s assurances to Iran are inherently uncertain, making it harder to build the level of trust required for meaningful dialogue.

Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group offered a similar assessment, arguing that Pakistan’s approach has been overly focused on persuading Iran to accommodate US demands rather than developing independent proposals to bridge the gap between the two sides.

“Pakistan is mostly trying to convince Iran to accommodate Trump's demands. It is not neccessarily trying to come up with ideas on how to bridge the gap,” he told The Financial Times.

This perceived imbalance has further reinforced concerns in Tehran that Pakistan’s mediation is not entirely neutral.

The issue of neutrality has also been highlighted by Pakistan’s response — or lack thereof — to certain developments. For instance, when the United States and Israel clarified that Lebanon was not included in the ceasefire arrangement, despite earlier suggestions to the contrary, Pakistan did not publicly challenge these assertions.

Similarly, Islamabad remained silent following the seizure of Iranian vessels during the negotiation period. For Iran, these episodes have served as additional evidence that Pakistan may not be in a position to safeguard its interests effectively.

How Pakistan is unable to manage its internal security

Reports indicate that Pakistan’s military leadership has faced criticism over issues related to information handling and verification in the past as well.

One such incident involved the presentation of a photograph purportedly showing a successful military strike against India. According to intelligence inputs, the image was later identified by independent investigators as a manipulated photograph of a Chinese PHL-03 rocket launcher from a previous exercise.

At the same time, Pakistan continues to contend with security challenges along its western border with Afghanistan. Despite launching Operation Ghazab lil-Haq, attacks by Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan have reportedly increased.

Just recently on Wednesday, Pakistan's National Resources Limited said its Darigwan site in southwestern Balochistan was attacked by unidentified gunmen, with security forces securing the area and conducting clearance operations.

Senior military officials have acknowledged shortcomings in this regard. Intelligence sources indicate that Asim Munir described the situation as a “massive intelligence failure” during high-level discussions earlier in the year.

This admission points to broader issues within Pakistan’s security apparatus, which may in turn affect its ability to focus on complex diplomatic initiatives.

These internal dynamics have created additional pressure on Pakistan’s leadership at a time when it is seeking to project stability and competence on the international stage.

What next for Pakistan as mediator

As the situation stands, the diplomatic process between the United States and Iran remains at an impasse.

The failure to hold a second round of talks in Islamabad, combined with ongoing disagreements over key issues such as the naval blockade, has effectively halted progress.

Pakistan, which had sought to position itself as the principal facilitator of these talks, now finds its role diminished. The perception that it overpromised and underdelivered has weakened its standing among the parties involved.

Pakistan’s attempt to mediate between Washington and Tehran was, in many ways, an ambitious undertaking aimed at enhancing its global profile and demonstrating its relevance in international affairs.

However, the events of recent weeks suggest that ambition alone is not sufficient to ensure success in such a complex arena.

With inputs from agencies