By Uzma Ehtasham
The countdown had begun. President Trump’s 48-hour ultimatum to Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz expired on Monday morning, with the threat of devastating strikes on Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure hanging in the balance. Then, in a move that has sent a ripple of cautious relief across global capitals, Trump announced a five-day postponement. On Truth Social, his preferred megaphone, he spoke of “very good and productive” talks over the previous two days, claiming that several points of agreement had been reached. Detailed and constructive negotiations, he said, were under way. The strikes would wait.
Iran’s foreign ministry, characteristically, denied any direct talks were taking place. Ebrahim Rezaei, spokesperson for the national security committee, dismissed the idea of negotiations with Washington. Trump, he said, was merely buying time. Yet the gap between public denial and back-channel reality has rarely been wider, and it is into that space that Pakistan has stepped with a degree of diplomatic dexterity that is beginning to command attention.
For what is being described in diplomatic circles as the first tangible result of coordinated efforts by Pakistan, Turkey and Egypt is precisely this: a pause, however temporary, in a conflict that has threatened to spiral beyond control. Over the past 48 hours, the three countries have kept back-channel diplomacy alive, shuttling messages between Washington and Tehran with the explicit aim of preventing an all-out conflagration. For Pakistan, these efforts reflect the active leadership of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the strategic-level engagements of Field Marshal Asim Munir, both driven by a singular objective: stability in a region that has seen too little of it.
Analysts note that the coordinated approach with Turkey and Egypt signals a shift. Regional powers, weary of being spectators to destruction, are asserting themselves as facilitators of dialogue rather than combatants in a conflict not of their making. Pakistan’s balanced and constructive foreign policy, maintaining positive engagement with all major stakeholders, has earned it a credibility that few others in the region can claim. The Financial Times reported on Sunday that Field Marshal Munir had spoken directly with President Trump, and that senior Pakistani officials were quietly facilitating back-channel contacts between Iranian officials and Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the president’s trusted envoys. Pakistan, the newspaper noted, is leveraging both its military leadership’s ties with Iran and its amicable rapport with Trump to position itself as a central mediator. The offer to host potential talks in Islamabad has been formally extended, with speculation that US Vice President JD Vance might attend.
The stakes, meanwhile, could scarcely be higher. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has disrupted global oil supplies, sending tremors through international markets and hitting the poorest countries hardest. Pakistan, which imports 85 per cent of its crude oil through the strait, had by early March seen its fuel reserves dwindle to just 28 days. When Trump announced his five-day reprieve, oil prices fell immediately—a stark reminder of how anxiously the world awaits any news of peace.
Yet it would be a mistake to read this pause as a simple triumph for any one party. Iran has demonstrated, over four weeks of conflict, a resilience that confounded expectations. Faced with the combined military power of the United States and Israel, and despite the loss of its supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and other key political and military figures, Tehran has not buckled. It has struck back at American interests and military installations across the Gulf, inflicted heavy losses on Israel, and reminded the world that military dominance does not guarantee submission. If this conflict ends in negotiation, it will be because Iran proved itself unbreakable.
That is the context in which Pakistan’s mediation must be understood. This is not the diplomacy of a disinterested party but of a neighbor acutely aware that it would be among the first to suffer should the fighting widen. The reprieve is real, but it is only a reprieve. The deeper obstacles remain, none more intractable than the calculations of Israel. As Joe Kent, a former director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, observed this week, de-escalation efforts founder when Israel, unwilling to see negotiations succeed, launches major strikes precisely to sabotage them. Every such attack weakens the diplomatic track and feeds the cycle of violence.
Whether Pakistan’s quiet diplomacy can ultimately overcome that dynamic remains to be seen. But in a moment when the world seems to be dividing into camps, a developing nation has stepped forward to remind us that the pursuit of peace is not the exclusive preserve of great powers. If Islamabad’s back-channel efforts succeed in halting this war, it will mark a luminous chapter in Pakistan’s diplomatic history. But even if they do not, the lesson will endure: that even when the flames of war are raging on every side, there must always be a door left open for peace.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
