Pakistan’s mediation in the Iran war is a fool rushing where the wise fear to tread

Addressing a media briefing on April 2, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Tahir Andrabi, acknowledged that there were difficulties in the “facilitative process” his country had undertaken between the US and Iran to end the war.

The Pakistani media quoted Andrabi as saying, "Our efforts will continue despite the complications inherent in this challenging facilitative process. While obstacles exist, our pursuit of dialogue and advocacy for diplomacy remains unwavering.”

One Pakistani newspaper also reported, “The spokesperson firmly rejected suggestions that Pakistan was pressuring Iran to accept US demands, clarifying that Islamabad’s role was limited to facilitating dialogue and should not be misconstrued as policy imposition."

It is understandable that Andrabi ruled out that Pakistan was trying to impose any policy choices on Iran even though Pakistan has joined other states in asking that the Strait of Hormuz (SoH) be opened to maritime traffic. While this is in line with what the entire world is asking of Iran, it is, nevertheless, contrary to the position that Iran has taken on SoH.

More from Opinion

The challenges Pakistan is confronting cannot be on account of US President Donald Trump not wanting to make a deal with Iran. This was clear from Trump’s address to the American people, which came a few hours before Andrabi’s media briefing.

During the address Trump said, inter alia, “We are going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks… If, during this period of time, no deal is made, we have our eyes on key targets."

These words show that Trump is continuing to hold out dire threats to Iran if it does not make a deal. Trump has also warned that Iran’s power plants would be attacked, perhaps simultaneously. That would lead to large parts of the country suffering a blackout.

While Trump has not targeted these power facilities as yet, he has continued with the destruction of Iran's infrastructure. Bridges, residential apartments, medical facilities and schools have been destroyed in US and Israeli bombing. Iran has not bent to Trump’s demands till now. It has maintained a defiant stand.

Now, wars can end through surrender or negotiations. They end in the former if one of the belligerents has been defeated militarily. Trump is asserting again and again that Iran has lost and should surrender. Iran is not accepting Trump’s stand and is defiant in the face of his threats of destroying Iran’s infrastructure. The fifteen points that Trump has sent to Iran are a charter of surrender. Iran has repudiated them and has come up with its own five points. This is an indication that it wants the US to accept that this war can only end with negotiations, and for that to begin, the US must accept that it has been unable to defeat Iran.

At this stage Pakistan has played the role of conveying US demands to Iran and vice versa. It has thus ensured that the two sides have been in contact. At the highest level, Pakistan has indicated that it would be honoured to host both sides to facilitate a negotiation.

For that process to begin, the US must accept that it will not be able to defeat Iran. That is fundamentally different from what Trump currently wants. He is talking of a deal, but that deal would be Iranian surrender. That would also mean that Iran would lift its hold on SoH, its highest card, but it cannot do that unless it is willing to surrender.

So, now Trump wants to bypass the SoH issue, leaving it to others. Is he signalling to Iran that it can continue with its control of SoH but it should agree to a deal on nuclear and other issues? This would be strange thinking, but Trump has a convoluted mind.

Where does Pakistan stand now in all this? Three important Islamic states – Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia – were happy that Pakistan had taken the lead to facilitate the establishment of contact between the US and Iran. Their foreign ministers went to Islamabad for their second meeting as a consultative group on March 29 – their first meeting was in Riyadh on March 19.

In this meeting they asked for the unity of the Muslim Ummah and also expressed their ‘full support’ for Pakistan’s initiative to host US-Iran talks in Islamabad. They also wanted conditions to be created for ‘structured negotiations between relevant parties’. This meeting gave Pakistan a diplomatic high. At this stage Iran was also happy with Pakistan’s role.

While Iran was pursuing a strategy of defiance, it was willing to receive messages from third parties who put themselves out as intermediaries. It too wanted contact with the US, for, among other reasons, Iran’s tradition is to keep channels of communication open with those countries which are aligned with it and those that are not. Clearly, the Iranians were happy with Pakistan’s role too. They rewarded it by allowing twenty vessels flying the Pakistani flag to transit the Strait of Hormuz.

Pakistan was delighted with facilitating contact and the support it received from the three Islamic countries. Now it wanted the support of its patron and all-weather and iron friend, China. Accordingly, immediately after the conclusion of the Islamabad meeting, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar went to meet his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi. Andrabi told the media that Dar journeyed to China “despite medical advice to rest”. After their talks the two ministers issued a five-point China-Pakistan initiative for restoring peace and stability in the Gulf and the Middle East region on March 31.

Much of the initiative was anodyne. It called for the cessation of hostilities, the beginning of peace talks, non-attacks on non-military targets, and adherence to the UN charter. The initiative also emphasised the security of shipping lanes, and in this context it called SoH “an important global shipping route for goods and energy”. The initiative also called on the parties to “allow the early and safe passage of civilian and commercial ships” and the restoration of normal passage through SoH.

Nothing has been heard of Pakistan’s efforts at facilitation between Iran and the US after this initiative was issued. This fact, along with Andrabi’s admission that the Pakistani process is facing obstacles, is indicative of a loss in momentum.

It is likely that the US was miffed with Pakistan for trying to get Chinese blessings for its endeavour to facilitate contact and later negotiation. It is one thing for the US to have Pakistan act as a conduit and quite another to get homilies from China; Trump could not have been amused at this. Iran too would not have been happy with a reference to SoH. It is noteworthy that the Islamic ministers did not refer to this issue in their meeting on March 29.

The US can turn to countries other than Pakistan to pass messages to Iran. Turkey and Oman can fit the bill. If it suits both Iran and the US, then they can turn to Pakistan again for facilitation, but meanwhile Dar would be despondent and not only on account of his doctor telling him to rest!

(The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India’s Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.)