Diplomacy over Division

Ali Mehar

The Iran-Israel truce announced by President Trump in recent days is a regional diplomatic U-turn. The spotlight, if at all, was on the immediate stakeholders. However, one cannot overlook the modest but important role of Pakistan during the crisis. In a chivalrous and pragmatic frame of mind, Pakistan did exhibit some degree of strategic foresight and diplomatic maturity, which not only helped in de-escalation but also added to its prestige at the regional as well as international level.

Crisis management showcased a shift from ideological positioning to regional stability and cooperative neighborliness.

Pakistani response to the conflict came on time and was of a high-technology kind. From the very start, Islamabad condemned Israeli aggression and openly supported Iran, with which it has deep historical, religious, and cultural bonds. However, Pakistan never allowed such sympathies to cloud its perception or constrain its diplomatic skills. It adopted an appropriately pragmatic policy, emphasizing diplomacy, tension reduction, and a commitment to international norms. This balance of moral agenda and diplomatic restraint allowed Pakistan to be an honest and impartial voice in otherwise charged settings.

Leadership-level direct engagement by the country’s leadership was one of the bedrock elements of its strategy. Above all else, Pakistan’s COAS diplomatic overture to President Trump attested to Islamabad’s sincerity towards pursuing peace in the region. Such high-level thinking saw stark recognition that Pakistan’s role in such a scenario would be best executed through spontaneous communication to world powers and local players. It was not rhetoric but backed by continued interaction and cooperative action on Pakistan’s political as well as military leadership.

This mature crisis management is indicative of broader change in Pakistan’s foreign policy behavior. In a region of the world otherwise characterized by reflex responses and zero-sum thinking, Pakistan’s diplomatic restraint and integrity were a relief. Rather than throwing gasoline on fire or standing still because of paralyzing indecision, it opted for a middle-of-the-road policy, a policy of dialogue, equidistance, and regional responsibility. This did not merely enable Pakistan to advance its interests but put it in the position of a credible interlocutor who could negotiate with all the protagonists. Above all, perhaps, Pakistan’s behavior during the Iran-Iraq war implies a fundamental strategic change.

Islamabad increasingly seems to understand that its interest in the long term is not ideological positioning or alignments with the world outside but regional integration and stability. Its measured response also signals a growing recognition that security and success in the 21st century will rest on cooperative neighborliness, not confrontation. It is particularly so in a region where conflicts have a tendency to jump over borders and regional animosities can easily upset international progress. Pakistan’s crisis management also says much about its new diplomatic identity.

Measured diplomacy enabled a credible, impartial role in a tense regional conflict.

It no longer wants to be content with being viewed as merely a reactive actor or marginal player in Middle Eastern geopolitics. Instead, it is ascending to the position of a responsible stakeholder, one that can facilitate communication and defuse tensions. While IJOAHAHCHCPakistan’s past contacts with Iran and several other Arab nations give it more negotiating power, it is in large measure the result of thoughtful and deliberate use of that leverage, which has been respected here.

The Iran-Israel war was a test case for all the regional powers, a test case in which military solutions proved inadequate and in which the necessity arose to seek diplomatic avenues. This was an occasion when Pakistan’s middle-of-the-road constructive policy was an example of wise international behavior. It revealed that third-party intervention into a dispute can be the turning point in ending a dispute, as long as they are playing with transparency, confidence, and consistency.

Not the loudest, but among the wisest: choosing negotiation over escalation and dialogue over division.

With the ceasefire taking effect and the region slowly moving towards a more secure phase, the role of Pakistan in enabling it cannot be overstated. It was not the noisiest or the most heard, but one of the wisest and longest-lasting. In choosing diplomacy over division and negotiations over gunboat diplomacy, Pakistan has re-mapped regional responsibility. The crisis can be a moment of transformation in how Pakistan is perceived globally, not merely a crisis responder, but a crisis solver.

The author is a student of BS International Relations at Quaid-e-Azam University. He can be reached at @ alimeharmail50@gmail.com