There are quite a few improbable elements here. Firstly, Iran has not officially acknowledged that it is either speaking with the US or even willing to negotiate a ceasefire agreement with US President Donald Trump.
Secondly, we do not know who is running Iran. No one has seen a recent image or video of the new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, though Israeli media reports that he has agreed to negotiate with the US.
Meanwhile, speculation is rife that Pakistan is the most likely host for anticipated US-Iran ceasefire negotiations. The confirmation came from none other than Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
On March 24, Sharif said that the country could host talks between the United States and Iran. “Pakistan stands ready and honored to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks for a comprehensive settlement of the ongoing conflict,” Sharif said in a post on X.
President Trump shared a screenshot of Sharif’s post on his platform, Truth Social.
The choice of Pakistan as the mediator between Iran and the US has surprised many.
For one, Pakistan is itself in the midst of a war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. Last year, it fought a brief four-day war with India. And the year before that, in 2024, Pakistan exchanged ballistic missiles with Iran.
A country that has had three clashes with its three neighbors in the last three years is an unlikely choice for playing the role of a mediator.
Second, Pakistan has been known as an epicentre of international terrorism for many years. In fact, Pakistan has been placed on the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) ‘Grey List’ for financing terror networks three times in the last 18 years.
Pakistan was placed on the FATF Grey List for the first time in 2008, then in 2015, and again in 2022. For the past 18 years, Pakistan has been on the FATF Grey List for over 9 years.
The US has blamed Pakistan for supporting the Taliban, and Osama Bin Laden was killed in the country.
Even today, nearly 150 UN-sanctioned terrorists (named in the UN’s 1267 list) are either Pakistani citizens, have connections with the country, or operate from inside the country.
Meanwhile, Pakistan has topped the Global Terrorism Index 2026 as the country worst affected by terrorism, recording the highest number of terror-related deaths.
According to the report, published by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), Pakistan’s strained relations with neighbouring countries — particularly Afghanistan — combined with escalating violence from the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), have greatly amplified security risks across the country.
A country with a decades-long history of abetting and aiding terrorism/Islamic extremism can hardly be trusted to play the role of a mediator in talks, where one of the stated goals is to rein in Iran from supporting non-state terror groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis.
If anything, Pakistan has been a fellow traveller with Iran in the journey of financing, training, arming, and providing safe havens to terror networks.
Thirdly, and perhaps most crucially, Pakistan is the same country that resurrected the transnational A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network.
It was Pakistan that supplied nuclear technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. Pakistan has been the genesis of nuclear proliferation, and thus, can not be the mediator in talks where the stated goal is to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Those who create the crisis can not be its solution.
Fourthly, the mediator has to be a disinterested, neutral party. Pakistan hardly fits the bill. Just six months ago, Pakistan signed a mutual defense agreement with Saudi Arabia, Iran’s primary and historical regional competitor.
Iran and Saudi Arabia have, for centuries, also fought over the leadership of the Islamic World. Pakistan’s defense agreement with Saudi Arabia means that in any Iran-Saudi conflict, Islamabad is likely to side with Riyadh.
In fact, we have already seen a glimpse of how Pakistan can not be a neutral party in any Middle East conflict.
Earlier this month, Ishaq Dar, Pakistan’s foreign minister, said he warned his Iranian counterpart against attacking Saudi Arabia and cited the defense pact.
Curiously, Saudi Arabia, according to President Trump, has been encouraging the United States’ actions against Iran.
On March 25, Trump called the Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman a “warrior,” fighting alongside American efforts.
The remarks followed a New York Times report that claimed the Saudi prince has been arguing that the US-Israeli military campaign presents a “historic opportunity” to remake the Middle East and that Trump should continue the war against Tehran.
So, we have a curious situation here that could only be termed a ‘theatre of the absurd’. Apparently, Saudi Arabia is encouraging the US to attack Iran and finish what it started. Meanwhile, Pakistan, which is treaty-bound to help Riyadh if it is attacked, is positioning itself as a mediator in ceasefire talks with Iran.
Fifth, the mediator should be strong enough that it could guarantee the enforcement of the terms of the agreement. A client state cannot be the guarantor in an agreement involving its own patron state. Economically, Pakistan has been lurching from one crisis to another.
In the last 15 years, Pakistan has received four major IMF bailouts. Soon, Islamabad would need its fifth bailout, for which it would need Washington’s blessings.
A state that can be blackmailed, pressurised, or held hostage by one of the parties involved could never be an impartial mediator.
Pakistan could literally go bankrupt if Washington does not green-light the IMF’s next bailout for Islamabad.
For these reasons, Pakistan is not only an unlikely but perhaps the worst choice to be the mediator in the US-Iran talks.
What it could do, however, is play the role of a messenger, a runner boy, a conduit to facilitate direct or indirect talks between the US and Iran.
In fact, this is precisely what Islamabad is doing. Passing messages between Tehran and Washington till they can not engage in direct talks for reasons of optics.
Reportedly, Pakistan conveyed Trump’s 15-point demands to Iran, which Tehran has already rejected.
So, mediator, to put it mildly, is a misnomer. Pakistan, to be precise, is serving as a messenger.
In fact, that is the role Pakistan has historically played.
Many analysts and media outlets (including the New York Times, Reuters, Gulf News, and Nikkei Asia) are erroneously recounting that, in the 1970s, Pakistan famously mediated between the US and China, leading to the historic reconciliation between the two adversaries.
However, even then, just like today, Pakistan played the role of a facilitator or backchannel rather than a formal arbitrator or mediator.
In the 1970s, Pakistan had just come out of a disastrous war with India when it lost half of its territory. It had no leverage, power, or authority over either Beijing or Washington.
It needed economic, military, and diplomatic support from both China and the US. So, by passing messages between the two and facilitating direct talks, Pakistan sought to demonstrate its utility and raise its international standing.
More than five decades later, Pakistan’s situation, or indeed its intentions, have hardly changed.
Just like in the 1970s, Pakistan has no leverage or authority over either the US or Iran. It is critically dependent on the US for IMF bailouts and military support.
Islamabad is hardly in a position to serve as a guarantor or enforcer of the agreement’s terms.
And, just like in the 70s, Islamabad is trying to leverage the crisis to raise its own international standing, US blessings for an IMF bailout, Washington’s leniency on its missile program, which is already sanctioned, Iranian oil and gas, and some international media space, which is not in reference to supporting or spreading terrorism.
- Sumit Ahlawat has over a decade of experience in news media. He has worked with Press Trust of India, Times Now, Zee News, Economic Times, and Microsoft News. He holds a Master’s Degree in International Media and Modern History from the University of Sheffield, UK.
- VIEWS PERSONAL OF THE AUTHOR.
- He can be reached at ahlawat.sumit85 (at) gmail.com
