_akhbar.jpg)
It is tempting to frame the latest spate of commentary in sections of the American media as routine geopolitical noise. That would be incorrect: there is nothing routine in them. The timing, tone and contradictions within these narratives point to something more deliberate: an attempt to discredit Pakistan’s role at a moment when it has emerged as a conduit between adversaries. When US President Donald Trump extended the Iran-US ceasefire at Islamabad’s urging, it disrupted expectations in certain quarters that the lapse of a temporary truce would trigger renewed escalation. Instead, the extension bought time – always the most valuable commodity in a volatile conflict. Yet, almost immediately, a string of ‘analyses’ and opinion pieces have begun circulating, questioning Pakistan’s credibility and intent. The contradictions are telling. On the one hand, Pakistan is portrayed as an unreliable interlocutor, allegedly advancing American interests at Tehran’s expense. On the other, it is cast as being too close to Iran’s security establishment – particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – to be trusted by Washington. Both arguments cannot simultaneously hold, yet both are being pushed with equal vigour.
The fact though is that even an attempt at mediation only works when both sides see value in the mediator. Pakistan’s ability to engage with both Washington and Tehran is the very condition that makes its role possible. To suggest otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand diplomacy or to wilfully misrepresent it. The question, then, is not whether Pakistan can be trusted by either side, but why certain actors appear invested in ensuring that it is not. The answer lies in identifying who benefits from a prolonged conflict. Netanyahu’s reaction to the initial ceasefire extension was instructive. For those who view de-escalation as a strategic setback, any third-party effort that sustains dialogue is an obstacle. And it’s not just Israel. In India, responses have ranged from measured caution to outright hostility. While some voices have acknowledged that a prolonged Iran-US confrontation would exacerbate regional instability, sections of India’s infamous media ecosystem have taken a different line. Their anxiety about Pakistan’s diplomatic relevance is almost palpable. The last few years have seen increasing scrutiny of India’s conduct, from allegations of transnational repression to its handling of internal dissent. Against this backdrop, Pakistan’s re-emergence as a diplomatic intermediary complicates a narrative that had, for decades, cast it primarily through the lens of instability. It is therefore unsurprising that attempts are being made to undermine that repositioning.
What makes the current moment particularly delicate, however, is not external criticism but internal susceptibility. Narratives designed to sow distrust between Islamabad and Tehran are strategic. For Pakistan, the risk lies in amplifying these narratives domestically, thereby weakening the very diplomatic channel it has worked to sustain. None of this is to suggest that Pakistan’s role is decisive or that it alone can determine the trajectory of US-Iran relations. The situation remains fluid. And ultimate responsibility rests with the principal actors. Indeed, if there is one clear takeaway, it is that Washington must move beyond episodic crisis management. Extending ceasefires is not the same as resolving conflicts. At some point, Trump will need a coherent strategy for de-escalation. Pakistan, for its part, has done more than might reasonably be expected. It has leveraged its relationships, navigated competing pressures and, at least for now, helped avert a further slide into confrontation. In the end, the question of who really is afraid (or jealous even) of Pakistan is less flippant than it appears. Let’s be honest here: in a region often defined by rivalry, even a modest success in mediation can provoke unease among those who would prefer conflict to continue.
