The confirmation that Pakistan has been invited to take part in Iran-US talks aimed at easing tensions between Tehran and Washington is not a small development. According to the Foreign Office, these talks are part of backchannel diplomatic efforts involving multiple regional stakeholders, with Pakistan and Turkiye reportedly playing a facilitative role behind the scenes. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar is likely to represent Pakistan, showing Islamabad’s growing relevance as a stabilising actor at a time when the Middle East stands dangerously close to another catastrophic escalation. The talks come against a troubling backdrop. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has confirmed that he ordered the start of nuclear talks with the US after President Donald Trump threatened that “bad things” would happen if no deal was reached. The US has already dispatched an aircraft carrier group to the Middle East following anti-government protests in Iran last month. While President Trump has said he remains hopeful of “working something out", his repeated warnings of dire consequences point to a familiar pattern of coercive diplomacy that has historically produced instability. Iran, for its part, insists it wants diplomacy while vowing an unbridled response to any aggression. Thankfully, regional actors have shown rare unanimity in opposing any military adventure, Saudi Arabia and the UAE publicly stating they will not allow attacks on Iran to be launched from their territories. The more troubling assessment is that the obvious purpose of such action would be forced regime change, likely resulting in a US-backed government that would function as an Israeli proxy.
For Islamabad, the stakes are particularly high. There is little doubt that the Baloch insurgency is being exploited by India to destabilise Pakistan while simultaneously hurting Iran by fomenting separatist sentiment in Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan province. Any further weakening of Iran through external pressure or internal chaos would only create more space for hostile actors and proxy groups. A destabilised Iran would mean increased support for outfits such as the BLA and the TTP. Seen in this light, Pakistan’s quiet but active role in easing Iran-US tensions is neither accidental nor altruistic. After last year’s Iran-Israel conflict and subsequent US strikes, reports emerged of Pakistan being a key player in bringing down tensions between Tehran and Washington. Iran openly thanked Pakistan’s political and military leadership for its constructive role during that crisis. Despite periodic ups and downs in bilateral ties, Pakistan has consistently demonstrated solidarity with its neighbour in moments of grave difficulty. This approach reflects a clear-eyed understanding that regional peace is a necessity for Pakistan’s stability. More broadly, any forced regime change in Iran would have worldwide repercussions. After Israel’s continuing genocide in Gaza and its attacks on other countries in the region, a coerced change in Tehran would translate into Israel gaining even more leverage in the Muslim world.
This threat has been correctly perceived by Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, which is why they have publicly voiced their opposition to any such scenario. Observers also point out that even if such plans exist, Iran is no Libya. It is a far more complex, resilient state and any attempt to remake it through force would almost certainly lead to a prolonged and destructive conflict. President Trump is not someone inclined towards a long war, which makes dialogue not just preferable but unavoidable. At this juncture, Washington would do well to resist the temptation to check off Israel’s foreign policy wishlist simply because powerful lobbies have leverage over its leadership. Foreign policy cannot and should not be dictated by blackmail or ideological alignment at the cost of global stability. Better sense must prevail. Pakistan’s involvement in the Iran-US talks offers us a rare opportunity to steer events away from disaster and towards diplomacy.
