Pakistan has emerged as a central intermediary in efforts to reduce tensions between the United States and Iran, hosting talks and facilitating backchannel diplomacy between the two adversaries.
For Islamabad the stakes are high. Pakistani officials say Gulf stability is closely tied to the country’s economic and security interests: a wider US–Iran confrontation could disrupt trade routes, worsen energy pressures, inflame sectarian tensions and further destabilize Pakistan’s sensitive border areas with Iran.
Taking on a visible mediation role has also offered international prestige to Pakistan’s government. But it carries risks: failure could produce reputational damage and invite criticism at home and abroad.
“Pakistan risks growing criticism if its efforts to revive US–Iran talks fail, especially after publicly taking a leading mediation role,” said Michael Kugelman, senior fellow for South Asia at the Atlantic Council. “With talks stalled, Pakistan’s options are limited because a mediator cannot force two deeply distrustful sides to negotiate.”
When a US news report this week alleged Pakistan had allowed Iranian aircraft to park on Pakistani airbases—effectively shielding them from possible US strikes—Islamabad responded angrily, calling the account “misleading” and “speculative.” The Foreign Office said the movements were tied to diplomatic and logistical arrangements related to ongoing peace efforts and involved personnel from multiple parties, warning that unverified reporting could undermine sensitive negotiations.
The unverified CBS report drew criticism from some US politicians, including Senator Lindsey Graham, and fuelled broader worries that Pakistan might be seen as too accommodating to Tehran while maintaining ties with Washington.
At the same time, China has publicly encouraged Pakistan to broaden its diplomatic role. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi urged Islamabad to “step up” mediation between Iran and the United States and help stabilise the region, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz.
But experts stress the limits of what Pakistan can achieve. A high-level US–Iran summit held in Islamabad last month did not produce a durable breakthrough, and subsequent attempts by Pakistan to set up direct talks have so far faltered.
“The outcome of the talks was never guaranteed, nor in the hands of Pakistan,” said Imtiaz Gul, an independent security analyst. He added that progress would have required US willingness to engage with Iran’s ten-point proposal and Iran’s readiness to compromise. “I think the US and others misread the Iranian character and underestimated their resolve. This is what caused the setback. I am not sure if the level of trust in Pakistan (of the respective parties) is as high as it was when the mediation was launched.”
Diplomatic moves by Islamabad risk generating suspicion on all sides. Critics in Washington question whether Pakistan is being too soft on Tehran, while Iranian officials remain cautious because of Pakistan’s longstanding military and strategic relationships with the United States and with Gulf Arab states such as Saudi Arabia.
“Pakistan will likely continue trying, but expectations should remain limited,” said Fatemeh Aman, an independent expert on Iran–Pakistan ties. “Islamabad is not in a position to shape US–Iran tensions in any major way. Its main role is keeping communication open when direct engagement becomes difficult. The core disputes between Tehran and Washington—sanctions, regional security, and nuclear issues—are beyond Pakistan’s influence. At the same time, Pakistan struggles to balance ties with Iran, the US and Gulf Arab states, which creates mistrust on all sides. As tensions rise, maintaining that balance becomes increasingly difficult.”
Analysts say Pakistan’s most realistic contribution is likely to be limited to facilitating communication and supporting de-escalation rather than brokering a definitive settlement. Kugelman warned that repeated public praise of Pakistan by US figures, including former President Donald Trump, could make Tehran more suspicious of Islamabad’s neutrality.
“The most practical step Pakistan can take is encouraging both sides to maintain and extend the ceasefire,” Kugelman said. “At the same time, Pakistan must carefully preserve its credibility with Iran. Reports suggesting Pakistan is not accurately conveying positions between Tehran and Washington could damage its role as a neutral mediator.”
For now, Islamabad appears determined to keep channels open while trying to avoid offending any of the major powers involved. But if mistrust among the principal actors persists, Pakistan’s ability to act as a bridge will remain constrained and its diplomatic standing could be tested.