Islamabad’s role has developed from facilitation talks into the hosting of direct US-Iran negotiations, the creation of the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), and continuing diplomatic engagement aimed at preventing renewed escalation. Pakistan’s role should therefore be understood less as conventional “mediation” in the narrow sense and more as a combination of facilitation, shuttle diplomacy, crisis management and sustained mediation.
Pakistan’s Unique Diplomatic Access
Pakistan maintains working relationships with Iran, Saudi Arabia, the wider Gulf states and the United States simultaneously, allowing Islamabad to communicate across competing strategic camps. Unlike Gulf states that are directly exposed to the conflict and therefore face constraints on their ability to act as neutral intermediaries, Pakistan remains geographically connected to Iran while maintaining strong strategic and economic ties with the Gulf and Washington.
European powers also face a credibility challenge with Tehran, given their role as E3 parties to the JCPOA and the subsequent failure to provide Iran with the economic relief expected after the US withdrawal in 2018, which contributed to a breakdown of trust. Against this backdrop, and with no alternative diplomatic framework having so far produced a durable settlement, the Islamabad process has emerged as the most practical channel for sustained engagement between the principal stakeholders.
Restoring Regional Stability
Pakistan’s continued balancing across competing camps creates the diplomatic space necessary for such engagement, Pakistan share a 909-kilometre border with Iran, protecting energy supplies and maritime connectivity, safeguarding remittance flows from the Gulf, preventing the spread of terrorism. Pakistan’s mediation, therefore, is not driven by alignment with either side, but by a combination of diplomatic access, balanced relationships and a clear national interest in restoring regional stability.
Pakistan’s Position: Neither Washington nor Tehran
Islamabad has made clear that it is not acting on behalf of Iran or the United States, but is attempting to facilitate a peaceful, lasting and comprehensive resolution. This distinction is central to understanding Pakistan’s mediation strategy.
Neutrality in this context does not mean diplomatic passivity. Rather, Pakistan has attempted to use its relationships with competing actors to preserve communication at a time when direct engagement between the principal parties has become increasingly difficult.
Pakistan’s ability to maintain working relations simultaneously with Iran, the United States, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states provides it with a diplomatic channel across otherwise divided political camps.
Why Pakistan Is Positioned Differently From Other Mediators
Pakistan’s credibility as a mediator does not come from possessing overwhelming economic or military leverage over either Washington or Tehran. It comes from access.
It has a longstanding strategic relationship with the United States, close defence and economic relations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and geographic, cultural and diplomatic links with Iran.
This gives Pakistan an unusual diplomatic advantage: it can communicate across political and strategic divides that are difficult for the principal parties themselves to bridge.
Pakistan’s position is therefore based on what international-relations scholars might describe as relational leverage rather than coercive leverage.
From Backchannel Diplomacy to the Islamabad Talks
Pakistan’s mediation became concrete in April.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on April 8 for more than 45 minutes. During the conversation, Sharif conveyed appreciation for Iran’s acceptance of a ceasefire and its willingness to participate in negotiations in Islamabad.
Pakistan subsequently announced that the United States and Iran had agreed to an immediate ceasefire and invited both sides to Islamabad for negotiations.
The importance of this development should not be understated.
The ceasefire created the political space necessary for direct diplomacy, while Islamabad provided the physical and diplomatic venue where representatives of Washington and Tehran could sit across the table.
The negotiations that followed became known as the Islamabad Talks.
The Islamabad Talks: Turning Facilitation into Direct Diplomacy
The subsequent negotiations became known as the Islamabad Talks.
Washington and Tehran were brought into direct, high-level negotiations on Pakistani soil on 11 and 12 April 2026 at a time when relations between the two sides had deteriorated sharply.
The 300-member U.S. negotiating team was led by Vice President JD Vance, alongside special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner; while the 70-member Iranian team was led by parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, alongside foreign minister Abbas Araghchi.
The Pakistani mediating team was led by prime minister Shehbaz Sharif, field marshal Asim Munir, and deputy prime minister and foreign minister Ishaq Dar. The talks lasted 21 hours between 11 and 12 April 2026.
From the Islamabad Talks to the Islamabad MoU
The next major step was the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in June.
The April process was primarily concerned with bringing the parties together and creating an opportunity for de-escalation. The Islamabad MoU represented an attempt to give that engagement a more structured framework.
Islamabad sought to translate diplomatic engagement into practical arrangements capable of sustaining negotiations and managing areas of disagreement.
The framework placed particular importance on the Strait of Hormuz, including arrangements concerning maritime access and the easing of measures contributing to the confrontation. The central logic was to move the parties away from immediate military escalation and towards a process in which contentious issues could be addressed through negotiation.
From Islamabad Talks to a Continuing Diplomatic Process
Pakistan’s mediation did not end with the April talks or the June MoU.
When implementation encountered difficulties, Islamabad continued urging the parties to return to the framework.
In July, Pakistan’s Foreign Office described the Islamabad MoU as an enduring framework and called for the resumption of technical-level negotiations.
In August, the Foreign Office again stated that Pakistan remained engaged with the parties and was working alongside Qatar and other countries to facilitate de-escalation, particularly over the Strait of Hormuz.
Islamabad’s role is to keep diplomatic channels open, reduce miscalculation, transmit messages, facilitate negotiations and help establish mechanisms through which the parties can resolve disputes.
The August Mission: Pakistan Returns to the Diplomatic Front
Pakistan’s continued relevance became particularly visible in August.
On August 24–25, Field Marshal Asim Munir travelled to Tehran alongside Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi after speaking with US President Donald Trump. Pakistani officials said the discussions in Tehran focused on de-escalation, reopening the Strait of Hormuz and achieving a negotiated settlement.
Pakistan subsequently described the discussions as having made “significant progress.”
The development is important because it demonstrates that Islamabad’s role survived the deterioration of the June framework.
The three rounds of Islamabad Talks; A Win for Diplomacy
Pakistan’s role in the crisis demonstrates that diplomacy can remain effective even when relations between major powers are defined by confrontation and mistrust.
The three rounds of Islamabad Talks demonstrated a sustained diplomatic effort rather than a one-time initiative, keeping the negotiating process alive and providing the parties with an avenue to address differences through dialogue.
