By Pir Ghulam Nabi Shah Jillani
Pakistan has once again placed diplomacy at the center of its foreign policy, insisting that the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding must be implemented according to both its letter and its spirit. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammad Ishaq Dar has argued that faithful implementation of the memorandum is the only credible route to peace. At a time when tensions between the United States and Iran continue to threaten regional stability, that argument deserves serious consideration. Pakistan has consistently presented itself as a supporter of peace, dialogue, cooperation and mutual respect among nations.
Dar has also paid tribute to the armed forces for what he described as Pakistan’s decisive victory in the war imposed by India last May, while stressing that the events of the past year have again demonstrated the urgent need to resolve longstanding disputes peacefully. He has rightly identified the Jammu and Kashmir dispute as one of the principal sources of instability in the region and reaffirmed Pakistan’s political, diplomatic and moral support for the Kashmiri people. His message comes as Islamabad remains engaged with a number of international partners.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty spoke to Dar and conveyed greetings to Pakistan on its Independence Day, with both sides reaffirming their close and brotherly relations and their intention to deepen cooperation. Dar also held separate meetings with the British high commissioner, the US chargé d’affaires and the Chinese ambassador to discuss the regional situation. Such contacts matter because diplomacy is rarely successful when conducted in isolation. It depends on sustained communication, trust and the willingness to keep channels open even when differences are profound. The wider international environment makes this approach all the more necessary.
The confrontation between Washington and Tehran has consequences far beyond their bilateral relationship. It affects the security of the Middle East, energy supplies, international trade and the wider global economy. In such circumstances, the temptation to rely on threats, sanctions and military pressure must be resisted. Dialogue is not a sign of weakness. It is often the only means by which adversaries can step back from a confrontation without either side being forced into humiliation or escalation. Pakistan’s efforts to encourage dialogue between the United States and Iran are therefore significant. Bringing two deeply distrustful parties towards negotiations is never easy. Years of political hostility and mutual suspicion cannot be erased by a single diplomatic initiative.
But the willingness to create space for talks demonstrates that even entrenched disputes can be approached through patient mediation. If the Islamabad Memorandum emerged from that diplomatic process, it should not be treated as merely another document in the crowded archive of international diplomacy. Its value will ultimately depend on whether the parties are prepared to implement its commitments. Agreements are not ends in themselves. They are mechanisms for building confidence, reducing tensions and creating conditions in which more difficult questions can eventually be addressed. The current direction of events, however, remains worrying. Any move towards greater strategic confrontation, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, carries consequences that could extend well beyond the immediate parties.
The strait is one of the world’s most important maritime routes, and instability there can quickly affect energy markets and international commerce. Any disruption to shipping would put additional pressure on oil prices, supply chains and economies already struggling with geopolitical uncertainty. This is why threatening language from any side should be treated with caution. When threats are answered with counter-threats, diplomacy becomes harder and escalation becomes easier. The statement by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that Washington could take measures unlike anything previously seen risks reinforcing precisely the dynamic that diplomacy is supposed to prevent.
The same principle applies to Washington. No country can expect lasting stability by demanding that its adversary simply accept its terms. Sustainable diplomacy requires compromise, credible assurances and mechanisms through which both sides can address their concerns. The objective should not be to establish who can impose the greater cost on the other, but to find a framework in which neither side sees escalation as its only option. This is where the Islamabad Memorandum could acquire importance. If it provides a workable framework for reducing tensions, it deserves the opportunity to succeed. Its implementation should be judged by whether it lowers the temperature, restores confidence and creates space for further negotiations.
A world shaped by sanctions, threats and military confrontation, or one in which disputes are managed through diplomacy and mutual restraint? Strengthening the negotiating table today is one of the surest ways of preventing tomorrow’s battlefield. The Islamabad Memorandum offers an opportunity to reaffirm that principle. It should be seized before another cycle of confrontation makes the search for peace considerably harder.
(The writer is a senior retired government health official and served in the Public Sector on various positions with large administrative and clinical experience. He has keen interest in national, international affairs, and geopolitics. He can be reached at editorial@metro-morning.com)
