The Islamabad mediation circus: A fox guarding the henhouse

I have said it before, and I will say it again: it’s deeply worrying how readily the United States has accepted Pakistan as some kind of honest broker in the high-stakes talks with Iran. Watching Islamabad slide from the sidelines straight into the spotlight of this so-called US-Iran “peace process” feels like watching a masterclass in diplomatic cynicism.

Pakistan isn’t just carrying messages anymore — it’s playing chief facilitator, venue host, and political guarantor for a ceasefire that neither Washington nor Tehran seems fully willing to stand behind in public. And while everyone pats themselves on the back for "de-escalation", one question keeps nagging: why is Iran so eager to use Pakistan as a shield while it buys time for its real agenda?

More from Opinion

From Message Boy to Power Broker

It started quietly enough. Back in March, Pakistani officials began shuttling between Tehran and Washington with what was billed as a 15-point American proposal. The demands were straightforward on paper: Iran must halt any nuclear weapons work, rein in its missile programme, stop choking the Strait of Hormuz, dial back support for its proxy militias, and, in return, get some phased sanctions relief. General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s army chief, even made a surprise trip to Tehran to test the waters and deliver Washington’s red lines in person. Pakistani diplomats spun this as noble "bridge-building". Let's be honest — this wasn’t neutral diplomacy. It was Pakistan inserting itself as some sort of indispensable middleman at a moment when both sides needed someone to blame if things went south. As Trump’s public ceasefire deadline loomed, Islamabad leaned hard on both capitals. Prime Minister Sharif and the military brass reportedly twisted arms in Washington for a limited pause and pressured Tehran to hold back its bigger strikes. Iran’s foreign minister later publicly thanked Pakistan for its “tireless efforts". How convenient.

The Islamabad Circus

The whole thing reached peak theatre with the Islamabad talks of April 11-12 — Pakistan’s biggest diplomatic coup in decades. A massive 300-person American delegation, including Vice President JD Vance and Trump insiders Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, sat across from a 70-member Iranian team led by parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. Pakistan’s own heavy hitters — Sharif, General Munir, and Deputy PM Ishaq Dar — played hosts, making sure both the civilian government and the military got photo ops. They branded it the “Islamabad Process", pretending this was the start of some grand, ongoing diplomatic track rather than a one-off damage-control summit. In the end, they got a fragile two-week ceasefire, some vague de-escalation around the Strait of Hormuz, and an agreement to keep talking through Pakistani channels instead of immediately resuming hostilities. There was no final deal and no real breakthrough — just enough breathing room for everyone to regroup. Pakistan emerged looking like the hero of the hour.

Iran’s Real Motives: Playing for Time

Here’s where the story gets darker and where the media coverage has been far too polite. Iran’s participation in this Pakistan-mediated dance isn’t about genuine peace or compromise. It’s about survival, manipulation, and buying time while the regime pursues its long-term goals. Tehran has zero interest in dismantling its nuclear weapons programme or curbing its missile arsenal. Those capabilities are the jewels of the Islamic Republic’s strategy for regional dominance and deterrence against Israel and the United States. Every “concession” offered in Islamabad is almost certainly tactical — designed to ease immediate pressure, fracture international unity against the regime, and secure sanctions relief without giving up the core infrastructure.

The hardliners in Tehran have made it crystal clear: there are “no direct negotiations” with the Great Satan, only indirect messaging through convenient proxies like Pakistan. This allows them to maintain their revolutionary idealism at home while quietly advancing their agenda. Just look at Iran’s track record. For years, the regime has perfected the art of diplomatic bad faith. It has signed deals only to cheat on them, funded terrorist proxies across the region while denying responsibility, and using every ceasefire or negotiation window to rearm and regroup. The Strait of Hormuz threats, the missile barrages, and the nuclear sabre-rattling — these aren’t defensive moves by a cornered victim. They’re calculated provocations meant to extract maximum leverage.

By hiding behind Pakistan, Iran gets to portray itself as the reasonable party forced into talks by American aggression, all while its proxy network continues destabilising the Middle East. Pakistan’s role enables this duplicity. Shared borders, Shia religious ties, and energy dependencies give Islamabad unique access to Tehran. Pakistani leaders are so desperate to rehabilitate their image with Trump — who once rightly slammed them for “lies and deceit” — that they’re willing to overlook Iran’s bad faith. Framing mediation as “reassuring Iran that Pakistan isn’t a Saudi or American proxy” essentially means carrying water for a regime that exports revolution and chaos.

The Limits of Leverage

Pakistan’s constraints are real. Iranian hardliners view the whole Islamabad channel as little more than convenient cover for US pressure. On the American side, plenty are furious that Trump is “outsourcing” diplomacy to a country with a long history of playing both sides — sheltering Taliban elements, maintaining ties with China, and now burnishing its credentials with the mullahs.

The ceasefire itself is temporary and reversible, which suits Iran perfectly. It can regroup, test new weapons, coordinate with its proxies, and return stronger when the clock runs out. As of right now, Pakistan is still promising to host another round before the current ceasefire expires. Daily back-channel contacts continue, tweaking proposals on sanctions, maritime security, and missiles.

Now some will say that this has been a major diplomatic win for Islamabad — and in narrow terms, it is. Pakistan has gone from international pariah to indispensable player in one of the world’s hottest crises. The bigger question is at what cost to the United States and to regional stability? By legitimising Pakistan as the go-between, Washington risks signalling weakness and rewarding Iranian procrastination. Iran’s motives remain crystal clear to anyone paying attention: preserve the nuclear threshold, keep the missiles flowing, sustain the axis of resistance, and wait out this administration in hopes of a more pliable one later. Every round of “talks” gives them exactly that — time.

Pakistan isn’t a neutral mediator. It’s a player with its own interests. These include repairing ties with Washington, balancing relations with Tehran, and elevating its regional status. It may even think that all this gives it an advantage over India. But in doing so, it’s helping a fundamentally dishonest Iranian regime run the clock. The US should be extremely wary of this entire setup. Fragile ceasefires brokered by bad-faith actors rarely lead to lasting peace. History shows that they usually just postpone the next, more dangerous round of conflict.

True pressure, clear red lines, and direct consequences for Iranian aggression and nuclear advances are what’s needed — not another round of Islamabad theatre that lets Tehran breathe easy. Anything less plays straight into the mullahs’ hands. Washington should wake up before it gets played yet again. and then wondering why the chickens keep disappearing.

(David Vance is a political commentator and author. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)