Mekaiel Siraj Qazi
FOLLOWING Pakistan’s successful effort to bring American and Iranian officials to the same table in Islamabad, it now appears those were merely talks about talks.
Together with Qatar, Islamabad has once again helped convince both adversaries to escape the summer heat for Switzerland’s Burgenstock Resort, where expensive coffee and cautious diplomacy are on the menu. While the public may see little more than optics and theatrics, markets tend to take a different view. The mere prospect of dialogue between Washington and Tehran is often enough to calm nerves and steady prices. For Pakistan, the stakes are particularly high. Sharing a 565-mile border with Iran, any major conflict next door would bring economic pain, disrupted trade and the risk of wider regional instability. Peace, in this case, is not just good diplomacy. It is good economics. Pakistan’s role in these developments is neither luck nor coincidence. Few countries today maintain functional relations with Tehran, Washington and the Gulf capitals simultaneously. Islamabad’s advantage was not merely having access to all sides but carefully leveraging those relationships to bridge gaps between two adversaries who have spent decades speaking past one another.
When the first round of talks ended after Vice President JD Vance’s departure from Islamabad, many assumed the effort had stalled. Yet diplomacy is rarely measured in news cycles. As headlines moved on, Pakistani officials continued engagements with Tehran, Gulf capitals and Washington. Much of the real work appears to have unfolded through quiet back-channel diplomacy away from cameras and communiqués. In diplomacy, success is not always a signed document, but getting adversaries back into the same room. Attempting to broker peace is also firmly in Pakistan’s national interest. Beyond sharing a long border with Iran, Pakistan sits close to the Gulf’s critical shipping lanes, many of which faced disruption during the recent fighting. Every escalation between Washington and Tehran sends shockwaves through energy markets, driving up fuel prices, increasing shipping insurance costs and disrupting already fragile regional trade.
Pakistan cannot simply turn to Iranian oil to cushion the blow due to sanctions. Instead, it remains vulnerable to fluctuations in global energy markets, particularly when tensions place the Strait of Hormuz under scrutiny. For ordinary Pakistanis, these geopolitical crises eventually arrive in a familiar form, higher transport costs, more expensive goods and yet more pressure on household budgets. As if Pakistan did not already have enough economic difficulties of its own without importing somebody else’s crisis by tanker. There are those in Pakistan celebrating these developments as diplomatic victories, and there are those asking a far simpler question, what difference does any of this make to me? The answer is that wars have a habit of finding their way into household budgets. The longer tensions persist, the greater the pressure on energy markets. Higher fuel prices mean higher transport costs. Higher transport costs mean more expensive food, goods and services. Supply chains remain disrupted, inflationary pressures grow, and any hope of relief on electricity bills becomes increasingly distant.
The average Pakistani may have little interest in diplomatic communiqués issued from luxury resorts in Switzerland. Most will never read them. What they will notice, however, is the price of petrol, the cost of groceries and whether they can afford their monthly bills. Without sustained efforts to de-escalate the crisis, diplomacy eventually gives way to economics, and economics has a habit of showing up in the most ordinary places, including the queue outside a petrol station. These diplomatic efforts are already beginning to pay dividends. Just this week, petrol prices were reduced by Rs74 per litre, a notable relief in an economy where fuel costs ripple through almost every sector. While no single diplomatic breakthrough can be credited for this alone, easing regional tensions does help stabilize oil markets which, in turn, filter down into domestic prices. If these talks move beyond their preliminary stage, regional risk declines and markets respond in kind. Markets reward predictability above all else. Trade routes, particularly those linked to the Strait of Hormuz, become more secure, shipping costs stabilize, and supply chains regain some breathing space.
For Pakistan’s diplomatic position, this is arguably one of its most significant recent roles. After years of political turbulence and diplomatic uncertainty, Pakistan has remained relevant—not as a spectator but as a facilitator of dialogue between two adversaries—while persisting in its efforts to secure a peaceful solution despite not having resolved the conflict. Not every crisis has a military solution and in this case there is none without wider regional cost; Pakistan’s space is diplomatic, where persistence matters more than spectacle. Back-channel talks and repeated engagements do not produce headlines but keep channels open, helping prevent essentials like energy from becoming unaffordable luxuries. In that sense, Pakistan’s most valuable export may not be material but the maintenance of dialogue itself. Peace is rarely as thrilling as conflict. Strong statements, dramatic exchanges between leaders and constant escalation make for better entertainment, and for that there is always news media and cinema. The first round may have been talks about more talks. The next may be talks about progress. If Pakistan can help turn diplomatic small talk into meaningful dialogue, the reward will not be applause in Geneva or headlines from Switzerland. It will be something far rarer in this part of the world, a quiet but vital role in keeping the possibility of peace alive, when it is needed most.
—The author regularly contributes to the Pakistan Observer.
