By Uzma Ehtasham
The world is passing through a dangerous period in which a crisis in one region can quickly become a problem for the entire international community. The confrontation between the United States and Iran is a clear example. Its consequences extend far beyond the two countries, threatening the fragile peace of the Middle East while creating uncertainty for energy markets, global trade and international diplomacy. In such circumstances, the instinct to escalate must give way to the harder but more necessary work of negotiation.
Pakistan has consistently argued for that course. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar has stressed that the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding must be implemented in accordance with both its spirit and its text, describing its implementation as the only viable path to peace. His position reflects a broader principle that Pakistan has sought to uphold: disputes between states, however deep, should ultimately be resolved through dialogue, cooperation and mutual respect rather than through threats and force.
Dar has also paid tribute to Pakistan’s armed forces over what he described as the country’s victory in the war imposed by India last May, while arguing that the events of the past year had once again demonstrated the urgent need to resolve longstanding disputes peacefully. He has singled out the Jammu and Kashmir dispute as a major source of instability in the region and reiterated Pakistan’s political, diplomatic and moral support for the Kashmiri people.
Pakistan’s diplomatic engagement has continued alongside this position. Egyptian foreign minister Badr Abdelatty spoke to Dar and conveyed greetings on Pakistan’s Independence Day, while the two sides reaffirmed their close and brotherly ties and their intention to deepen cooperation. They also discussed regional and international developments and agreed to maintain close contact. Dar separately met the British high commissioner, the US chargé d’affaires and the Chinese ambassador to discuss the regional situation. Such contacts matter because diplomacy is most useful when channels remain open even when positions are difficult to reconcile.
The central question, however, is whether the Islamabad Memorandum can now be protected from the forces that threaten to undermine it. The creation of a diplomatic opening between Washington and Tehran was never going to be straightforward. Years of mistrust, political confrontation and strategic rivalry have made sustained engagement extraordinarily difficult. If Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts helped bring the two sides to the negotiating table and contributed to the Geneva agreement that became known as the Islamabad Memorandum, the achievement should not be dismissed as merely another diplomatic episode.
Its greater significance lies in the principle behind it. Wars rarely end simply because one side possesses greater military power. They end when the parties eventually recognize that the costs of continued confrontation exceed the possible gains. Diplomacy provides the mechanism through which that recognition can be converted into practical arrangements, guarantees and confidence-building measures.
That is why the latest signs of renewed tension are so troubling. Reports of Iran approving strategic plans and considering tougher measures relating to the Strait of Hormuz, alongside threats from Washington of unprecedented economic pressure, risk creating a cycle in which every warning produces a harsher warning and every retaliatory measure invites another. Once that cycle takes hold, diplomacy becomes harder and military confrontation easier.
The Strait of Hormuz makes the danger particularly acute. It is one of the world’s most important maritime routes, and instability there would not remain a local problem. Any serious disruption to shipping or energy supplies could reverberate through markets far beyond the Gulf, pushing up oil prices, increasing transport costs and adding fresh pressure to an already vulnerable global economy. The consequences would be felt by countries that have no role in the dispute and by ordinary people already struggling with economic uncertainty.
This is precisely why neither side can afford to treat escalation as a cost-free instrument of policy. Washington must recognize that economic isolation and threats of further punishment cannot provide a substitute for diplomacy. Pressure may sometimes bring a government to the negotiating table, but it cannot by itself produce the trust required to keep an agreement alive. Tehran, for its part, must consider the wider regional and global consequences of any action that threatens energy supplies or international navigation.
There is a tendency in international crises to reduce diplomacy to a contest of concessions: who gives way first, who appears stronger and who can impose the greater cost on the other. That is a narrow view of statecraft. Serious diplomacy is not about surrender. It is about finding arrangements under which opposing parties can protect their essential interests without forcing the wider region to pay the price.
The Islamabad Memorandum should therefore be treated not as a ceremonial document but as a framework that deserves a genuine opportunity to work. Agreements acquire meaning through implementation. If the parties respect their commitments, address their concerns through established channels and resist unilateral steps that could destroy confidence, the memorandum could provide a foundation for reducing tensions and rebuilding trust.
Pakistan has a particular interest in seeing that process succeed. It has repeatedly argued that the region cannot afford another war and has sought to maintain communication with the United States, Iran, Britain, China, Egypt and other influential states. Its role as a diplomatic bridge will have value only if it remains balanced, credible and focused on practical outcomes. The objective should not be to secure a symbolic diplomatic victory for Islamabad but to prevent another conflict from consuming a region already burdened by instability.
The international community has seen what happens when diplomacy is allowed to collapse. Wars produce displacement, economic devastation and wounds that can endure for generations. Beginning a conflict may be politically easy; ending it is usually far more difficult. Leaders therefore have a responsibility to keep the diplomatic door open for as long as there remains any possibility of settlement.
(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)
#Pakistan #Iran #UnitedStates #USIran #IslamabadMemorandum #Diplomacy #MiddleEast #IranUSRelations #StraitOfHormuz #Geopolitics #ForeignPolicy #Peace #InternationalRelations #PakistanDiplomacy #MiddleEastCrisis #GlobalEconomy #OilPrices #EnergySecurity #WorldPolitics #IshaqDar
