CONFUSION surrounds the reported process of indirect negotiations between Tehran and Washington and many ifs and buts could shape up the final fate of such contacts but the very fact that a dangerous escalation in war has been avoided, at least for five days, is itself an achievement and could serve as a confidence-building measure to complement behind-the-scene diplomatic efforts of Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt aimed at de-escalation and an end to hostilities.
In a dramatic development, US President Donald Trump announced postponement of his plan for five days to hit the energy infrastructure of Iran, a warning that triggered a chilling message from Tehran that it will retaliate by striking similar facilities of Israel as well as Gulf countries. He also claimed that during two days of talks, the two sides reached major points of agreement and that a deal was possible soon but Tehran was quick to deny any talks claiming the remarks were aimed at easing market pressures.
Claims and denials notwithstanding, there are reasons to believe that the two warring countries were engaged in some kind of talks courtesy Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt and this is also borne out by the fact that the leadership of Pakistan and these countries remained in contact with relevant leaders and officials in Tehran and Washington. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif held a telephonic conversation with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, reaffirming solidarity with the brotherly country and urging restraint and dialogue. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar led a hectic diplomatic outreach, speaking separately with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi and Turkish FM Hakan Fidan. In both conversations, Dar emphasized the importance of dialogue and diplomacy to ensure peace, security and stability in the region and beyond, with all sides agreeing to remain in close contact. International media also reported that Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces Field Marshal Asim Munir also had a telephonic conversation with President Trump to discuss the evolving situation. This speaks volumes about peace-making efforts of Pakistan by virtue of its neutrality and special relationship with both Washington and Tehran.
The latest reports and development confirm the sagacity of Pakistan’s approach in the backdrop of the propaganda campaign unleashed by some vested local interests, which wanted Pakistan to adopt a hostile posture. According to Axios, Islamabad is being considered for possible talks involving a US delegation that may include special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, alongside senior Iranian leadership, potentially including the parliamentary speaker. However, continuation of attacks could pose significant threats to the prospects of dialogue as any mischief or miscalculation might spoil the atmosphere for the peace process. It is significant to note that the US has announced only postponement of its plan to strike at energy installations of Iran and not a temporary ceasefire whereas Israel says it would continue to hit targets in Iran.
Tehran too has declared it will continue to target Israeli and US targets in the Gulf. The situation that unfolded after the February 28 invasion of Iran has made it abundantly clear that there might not be a clear victor as the United States and Israel have not been able to come closer to their objective of regime change and decimating Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities. Instead, Iran has not only survived but is retaliating with unbelievable efficacy, creating frustration among invading forces, which is becoming more acute due to the lukewarm response of the world to the call of the US leader for help to reopen Hormuz. Dialogue is the only answer and it can produce a positive outcome only if the two sides drop their extreme demands and accept ground realities. President Trump has hinted at such a possibility by insisting his country wants no enrichment and skipping references to the missile capabilities of Iran. Initial demands of Iran included war reparations and guarantees against future attacks and the second one seems to be legitimate for a country whose security and survival was threatened repeatedly.
