Published: 08:40 AM, 24 April 2026
Middle East Imbroglio Continues
There is still considerable ambiguity in the Pakistan brokered peace talks between Iran and the US and in the absence of any clarity, news is trickling in that another round of peace talks is scheduled in Islamabad very shortly. Details of the outcome will be known much after this opinion piece falls in the hands of the readers. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s euphoria in “successfully” brokering truce remains tentative and does not show any promise at least for the near future.
Objectively speaking, Pakistan does not really deserve any credit for facilitating the talks and it is by share default it got an opportunity to host the truce negotiations in Islamabad raising its wishful thinking as a seasoned negotiator. It’s Foreign Office (FO) and diplomatic community are agog that it had, by one stroke, got the US and the Iran on its side and has now emerged as a regional power amongst the Islamic world. Pakistan appears ecstatic over the overwhelming response it received specially from countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, UAE etc. who have been targeted by Iran in the ongoing military confrontation. There is also, what seems to be a misplaced satisfaction, a domestic perception that Pakistan successfully managed the deal proving its credibility, balance and strategic passion, “qualities” that Pakistan tried to demonstrate by enabling this deal.
Meanwhile, well known Pakistani columnist Muhammad Amir Rana and other commentators dwelling on the Pakistan’s brokered talks, assess that there are now new opportunities between Iran and Pakistan to reinforce their bilateral ties. The prospects of rebuilding the level of trust that existed during the Shah’s era appear limited, especially in view of the hardline orientation of the current regime in Iran — this war, in fact, might have reinforced Tehran’s sense of strategic pride and made the country more hesitant to move closer to a state it has long thought as an adversary. In fact, this view has shaped much of Iran’s geopolitical and geo-economic outlook. The implications of the war are significant. The regime in Iran has survived, but survival alone should not be mistaken for strength, as the country is now militarily stretched and faces political and economic constraints. In fact, within Iran’s borders, a challenge has surfaced which is perhaps more complex than the one on the external front.
In another view point given by veteran Pakistani diplomat, Maleeha Lodhi, the ceasefire agreement came about when the two warring parties wanted an off-ramp from the conflict and stepped back from their maximalist positions. Iran had previously said it would not agree to a temporary ceasefire and insisted on a comprehensive settlement for a lasting end to the war. It also said it would not open the Strait of Hormuz in return for a ceasefire. However, it then agreed to a two-week truce and opening of the strategic waterway to maritime traffic for the ceasefire’s duration. Pakistan’s role in shaping the two-phase peace plan was important in persuading both sides to the negotiating table. Yet, it did not seem to work. But within hours of the ceasefire announcement, challenges emerged. Israel launched its deadliest attacks yet on Lebanon. This prompted Iran to again close the Strait of Hormuz, saying this was part of the ceasefire agreement with the US. But Trump and Vice President Vance claimed Lebanon was not included in the ceasefire, thus contradicting the assertion by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif that it was. This underlined the difficulties of sustaining a delicate ceasefire. That appears even more likely after the inconclusive Islamabad talks. Frustrated by its failure to force Iran to surrender, Israel may try as per the Pakistani think tanks, to sabotage resumption of the US-Iran dialogue. This is generally the perception amongst the Pakistani strategists.
Maleeha Lodhi further opines that given these conflicting proposals it was unrealistic to expect that an agreement could be reached in no time. Diplomacy, according to her after all is a process, not a one-day event. In the opening bid, it was not surprising that neither side budged from their positions. While both wanted de-escalation, they were not prepared at this juncture to retract from their principal demands. Statements by US and Iranian officials after the talks made this evident, each side declaring what it saw as the sticking points. But both kept open the possibility of continuing on the diplomatic options. Coming days however, will show whether and when this might happen. A return to war is certainly not in the interest of either country. Judging by these estimates, it is highly improbable that the next round of talks is going to yield any tangible results. Hence, the imbroglio remains.
In the ongoing context, it appears relevant to quote what The Guardian wrote in its editorial, “This is a strategic defeat for the US that will resound for decades, and a clear sign of its systemic failures.” In similar vein, The Economist said, “Donald Trump is the biggest loser” in a conflict that has revealed “the shallowness of his vision for a new way of wielding American power”. US credibility stands damaged in the region and its reputation battered across the world. Indeed, it seems the closing of an era of American dominance and hegemony in the Middle East, where its security umbrella also failed to protect its allies. This is at least largely what the Pakistani perception is which continues to try and mediate the deal between the two warring countries amidst the unending imbroglio with bleak prospects of a breakthrough.
Shantanu Mukharji is a retired IPS officer
and former National Security
Advisor in Mauritius.
