WHAT is the real obstacle in an Iran–United States agreement? Is the deal genuinely stalled over the nuclear program, particularly disagreements on five- or ten-year restrictions? That is what the news suggests. However, diplomatic activity of such magnitude—especially one tied to global peace—cannot be understood solely through surface-level reporting.
One must also examine the behind-the-scenes and off-the-record engagements that continue alongside official narratives.
One view held that Pakistan had fulfilled its responsibility by bringing the United States and Iran to the negotiating table. Yet Pakistan’s efforts did not end there. After the talks, the Prime Minister traveled through Saudi Arabia to Qatar and then to Turkey, where four brotherly countries—Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt—once again convened. Having taken a breath of relief after the ceasefire, these countries moved a step further to deliberate on future challenges and responses. In particular, they explored the possibility of a defense alliance—often described in journalistic circles as a “Muslim NATO.” While the Prime Minister was shaping the future landscape in Turkey after an intense tour of the Arab world, the Field Marshal was in war-affected Tehran, engaging with Iranian leadership on pathways to lasting peace. What do these parallel efforts signify?
The matter is far from simple. It is not merely a case of two sides sitting together and agreeing to a ceasefire. Much more is attached to such an arrangement and without addressing these underlying factors, any ceasefire would remain fragile—a mere illusion of permanence. This indicates that the nuclear program is not the principal obstacle; something deeper is at play. This deeper issue is linked both to the Middle East and to the United States. It includes proxy actors such as Hezbollah and the Houthis—groups that raise concerns not only for Arab allies but also for the United States.
At first glance, Hezbollah and the Houthis appear to be Iran’s red lines—non-negotiable elements. However, the reality is that if these issues remain beyond compromise, then a lasting ceasefire will also remain uncertain. This is precisely the challenge that both the Prime Minister and the Field Marshal are simultaneously addressing. The synchronized engagement of Pakistan’s civil and military leadership reflects this urgency. Another significant development preceding these diplomatic efforts was the arrival of the Pakistan Air Force in Saudi Arabia, which has shifted the balance of power in the Middle East.
Pakistan’s military presence in Saudi Arabia marks an extraordinary development closely tied to regional stability. It does not merely strengthen Saudi defense; it also ensures broader strategic assurances. Saudi Arabia has reservations regarding groups like Hezbollah, whereas Iran maintains that Hezbollah’s focus is solely Israel. While this argument carries weight, non-state actors remain a major source of instability in the Middle East. This constitutes a critical barrier to lasting peace.
The presence of Pakistani forces in Saudi Arabia has, to some extent, practically mitigated this obstacle—but that alone is not sufficient. A comprehensive political consensus is indispensable. The recent foreign visits of the Prime Minister and the Field Marshal were aimed precisely at achieving this consensus. It appears, therefore, that the era of non-state actors in the Middle East may be approaching its end. Alongside this, another strategic development is on the horizon.
This relates to a proposal by Qatar, which suggested forming a defense alliance including Pakistan and Turkey to ensure stability in the Middle East. The current ceasefire efforts may well serve as a prelude to such an alliance. This bloc could include Saudi Arabia, other Arab states, and potentially Iran, with Pakistan naturally assuming a leading role. In this sense, Pakistan is not only facilitating a historic ceasefire but also emerging as a potential superpower in Asia. This indicates that the world is changing—indeed, it has already changed to a significant extent. Pakistan’s role in this transformation is central. Yet, many uncertainties remain attached to this historic moment, giving rise to legitimate concerns.
The Field Marshal’s visit to Iran resulted in high-level engagements with Iranian leadership. One outcome of these meetings was Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, allowing maritime routes to resume and commercial shipping to flow. However, the American blockade persisted. Not only did it continue, but it was reinforced with explicit threats. Donald Trump, without ambiguity, declared that Iranian commercial vessels would not be allowed passage through this route—particularly oil tankers. In an otherwise hopeful environment, this statement was deeply discouraging—a bad omen. Consequently, Iran once again closed the Strait of Hormuz. The American stance thus represents a major obstacle to lasting peace, indicating that all is not well. This posture has also created additional challenges for Pakistan.
Amid these developments, there was another glimmer of hope: a ceasefire in Lebanon. However, the intentions of Netanyahu still appear questionable. If a permanent Iran–US agreement is reached, will it include the Lebanese ceasefire? The United States and Israel suggest otherwise. This becomes yet another troubling sign—effectively a third major obstacle on the path to enduring peace. Despite all this, the world—and particularly the Middle East—is indeed changing. Yet significant barriers remain on the path to complete transformation. The peace agreement, though within reach, still hangs in the balance.
—This writer is former advisor to the President of Pakistan, author & mass media theorist.
(farooq.adilbhuta@gmail,com)
