AGREEMENT between the US and Iran has quickly become one of the most consequential diplomatic developments in the ME in recent years. It seems a pragmatic step toward regional stability. At the same time it is a strategic development that grants Tehran significant concessions without securing corresponding guarantees. The situation is intense in Israel, where many political leaders fear that the deal undermines years of efforts to contain Iranian influence across the region. The agreement appears to be a classic case of diplomatic compromise. US gains a reduction in tensions with Iran, decreases risk of a costly military confrontation, and creates space for broader regional stability. After decades of military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, successive US administrations have increasingly favored diplomacy over direct confrontation. If the agreement prevents escalation and secures a degree of predictability in the Gulf, it serves an important US interest.
Iran has secured tangible benefits. Access to frozen assets and the possibility of increased trade and investment could provide much-needed support to an economy burdened by years of sanctions. Tehran has negotiated from a position of resilience rather than weakness. The agreement contains no major restrictions on Iran’s missile capabilities or its network of regional allies will be interpreted by many in Tehran as evidence that Iran successfully resisted maximum external pressure. The agreement resembles a transactional compromise in which Washington and Tehran obtain some of their immediate objectives while sacrificing others. The US gains de-escalation and diplomatic leverage, while Iran gains economic breathing room and strategic recognition. Neither side achieves everything it wanted, but neither leaves the negotiating table empty-handed.
Israeli leaders have long argued that any arrangement with Iran must significantly limit Tehran’s military capabilities, missile program and support for allied groups across the region. An agreement that eases economic pressure on Iran without imposing strict new constraints could strengthen Iran that Israel considers its most serious long-term security challenge. The agreement is a setback for Israel. If sanctions relief enables Iran to rebuild its economy and enhance its regional influence, Israel may find itself confronting a more confident and economically resilient adversary. The agreement could limit the scope of certain Israeli military operations, particularly in neighboring theaters, while the prospect of a stronger Iran is likely to deepen Israeli concerns. In strategic terms, Israel appears to be the principal loser from the arrangement. Nevertheless, Israel remains the region’s most technologically advanced military power and maintains strong strategic ties with the US. While the agreement may complicate Israeli objectives, it does not fundamentally eliminate Israel’s capacity to protect its interests.
The most intriguing dimension of this development is Pakistan’s role. If Islamabad’s diplomatic efforts were indeed instrumental in facilitating dialogue between the US and Iran, the achievement represents a significant boost to Pakistan’s international standing. For decades, Pakistan’s foreign policy narrative has been overshadowed by security concerns, regional rivalries and economic challenges. Successful mediation between two deeply adversarial states would present Pakistan in a different light: as a constructive diplomatic actor capable of contributing to global peace and conflict resolution. In international diplomacy, successful mediation enhances credibility and creates political capital. It demonstrates trust from multiple sides and signals an ability to maintain relationships with competing powers. For Pakistan, such a role could strengthen ties not only with the US and Iran but also with other countries seeking regional stability.
A high-profile mediation success by Islamabad would inevitably attract international attention and could challenge prevailing narratives about Pakistan’s role in global diplomacy. While one diplomatic achievement does not alter the broader balance between Pakistan and India, it does provide Pakistan with valuable soft-power gains. US and Iran have been marked by decades of mistrust, ideological differences and competing regional interests. Previous agreements have faced political opposition, shifting strategic calculations and changes in leadership. The survival of the current arrangement will depend on whether both sides continue to perceive benefits that outweigh the costs. Regional conflicts, domestic political opposition in either country, renewed disputes over sanctions or actions by non-state actors could quickly undermine trust. If either side concludes that the agreement disproportionately benefits the other, support for its continuation may weaken. The US-Iran agreement is neither an unconditional triumph nor a humiliating defeat for any single actor. It is a strategic compromise stemming from the recognition that prolonged confrontation carries enormous costs. The US secures reduced tensions and diplomatic flexibility. Iran gains economic relief and preserves key elements of its strategic posture. Israel faces legitimate concerns about the implications of a stronger Iran but remains a powerful regional player. Pakistan emerges as a notable diplomatic beneficiary, gaining international recognition as a facilitator of dialogue at a moment when the world desperately needs effective mediators. Pakistan’s role in bringing adversaries to the negotiating table may prove to be one of the most significant diplomatic stories to emerge.
—The writer is editor, political analyst and author of several books based in Islamabad.
