Fakiah Noor
Track I diplomacy is formal state engagement conducted through official diplomatic channels. It remains the most authoritative mechanism for managing and resolving conflicts in international relations. Unlike informal (Track 1.5) or Track II initiatives, Track I diplomacy operates at the level of sovereign authority where decisions are backed by a spectrum of options for the use of National Power and influence, ranging from diplomacy to more aggressive and coercive capabilities such as military force, sanctions, and institutional leverage. However, current ongoing conflicts like the Iran- US conflict increasingly demonstrate that diplomacy cannot be played independently without the option of coercion; rather, negotiation and force are deeply intertwined. Preventive diplomacy emerges within this nexus as a strategy designed to manage the escalation through early, discreet, and structured engagement.
Pakistan‘s historical role in facilitating the 1971-72 rapprochement between China and the US provides a compelling example of how a middle power can operationalize Track I diplomacy with a full suite of preventive mechanisms. Acting as a discreet intermediary, Pakistan leveraged its strategic relationships to enable secret communications that culminated in a transformative geopolitical shift. In the ongoing context, tensions between the United States and Iran present similar complex dynamics of coercion, hard negotiation, and indirect engagements. Media sources reportedly show the intermittent hard negotiation, where both countries are in a mutually hurting stalemate, exacerbated by regional factors. These developments present a key question: Can Pakistan, drawing on its historical experience and middle power positioning, play a meaningful role in facilitating Iran- US de-escalation?
Preventive Diplomacy is most effective when deployed early, before conflicts escalate into entrenched hostilities. Its central premise is that timely intervention can alter the trajectory of disputes by creating opportunities for dialogue and compromise. On the other hand, Negotiation theory highlights that conflicts rarely move towards resolution solely through diplomatic engagement. Instead, they are shaped by the interplay between military realities and political objectives. Similarly, the concept of a “mutually hurting stalemate” is particularly significant, as it describes the current situation in which all parties recognize that the continued conflict is more costly than negotiation. In such conditions, preventive diplomacy can facilitate dialogue by providing mechanisms for de-escalation and face–saving.
At the same time, coercive strategies such as sanctions, limited military strikes, and proxy engagements can both enable constraint negotiations.
In the case of Iran-US relations, this dual dynamic is clearly visible. Economic sanctions have exerted significant pressure on Iran, while the United States faces strategic and political constraints in sustaining a prolonged confrontation. This indicates that coercion and diplomacy are operating simultaneously rather than sequentially. This coexistence suggests that preventive diplomacy must be designed to accommodate, rather than ignore, the realities of power. Effective mediation requires aligning diplomatic initiatives with the strategic interests of the parties involved, ensuring that negotiations are perceived as a means of consolidating gains rather than conceding defeat.
Iran- US Escalation: Insight from Contemporary Media
The Middle East stands at the crossroads following the outbreak of the 2026 Iran-US war. After weeks of high intensity of conflict with the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which controls 20% of the world’s Oil, 6000 plus casualties, and retaliatory attacks on US bases and desalination plants in other regional countries like Qatar and the UAE, the world and the region are a very uncertain place. These violations of the international order by both countries demean them in the eyes of the world and cast a pall of tension over the region, causing debilitating Oil Price Hikes, the collapse of the Stock Exchange, among others. Despite these ongoing tensions, both sides have engaged in indirect negotiations through intermediaries such as Oman and Qatar, focusing on limited and pragmatic short-term objectives.
Resultantly, the reported speech of the media narrative shows that the “talks have centered on incremental confidence-building measures, including partial sanctions relief, rather than a comprehensive agreement”. Furthermore, the media observes that “both Washington and Tehran prefer indirect engagement to avoid domestic political backlash”, emphasizing the role of intermediaries in providing political cover and facilitating face-saving measures to appease their domestic audiences. These developments suggest that Iran and the US already operate within a preventive framework, albeit an incomplete one. The challenge lies in transforming this fragmented interaction into a sustainable negotiation process.
The asymmetrical power shown by Iran indicates its deep resilience; still standing strong, although weakened, without distorting morale towards its ideological position and claiming its due right on its sovereignty and uranium enrichment, which continues to make Iran a challenging rival for the US. Consequently, the miscalculation of the US strategy in terms of Iran compels them towards the negotiation table for talks. It has led the US and Iran into a 14-day ceasefire mediated by the Pakistani government. This diplomatic window is intended to reconcile two drastically different frameworks tabled by each side: the U.S. 15-point peace proposal, which emphasizes total nuclear and military containment, and Iran’s 10-point peace plan, which focuses on economic sovereignty and the removal of U.S regional influence. Until now, the negotiations colloquially called as the “Islamabad Accord” are seen as the final opportunity to prevent a full-scale continental war.
Pakistan’s Mediatory Potential in Iran-US Negotiations
Pakistan’s global role in mediating between Iran and the US war can be understood through its unique position as a state with deep security ties to the West and a shared 900km border with Iran. Through extensive shuttle diplomacy, Pakistani leadership has acted as the trusted courier between Washington and Tehran, refining the language of both plans to find a “workable basis” for the ceasefire. The factors which collectively shape Pakistan’s credibility and effectiveness as a potential mediator are complex structural/geopolitical positioning, diplomatic capacity, and strategic alignment.
Pakistan’s Structural positioning provides the foundational basis of its mediatory role. Geographically, Pakistan sits at the crossroads of South Asia, the Middle East and Central Asia, making it a natural conduit for political, economic, and security interactions across regions. Its proximity to Iran, coupled with its longstanding ties with Gulf States such as the UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc. allows it to engage directly with multiple stakeholders in the broader Middle Eastern security architecture. This structural advantage has been further reinforced by evolving regional dynamics, particularly in the aftermath of the 7-10 May crisis 2025, in which Pakistan’s military and strategic posture shunned the Indian false flag, resulting in a shift in the power symmetry of the region. This recalibration of power has allowed Pakistan to project itself not merely as a reactive state but as an active shaper of regional order.
At the same time, the Shia-Sunni solidarity with each other at the crucial point of the war, when the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khomeini, was assassinated by a US strike, mutes the scepticism in Tehran, particularly the said sectarian dimensions that often underpin regional rivalries (Geo News). Pakistan’s internal religious solidarity provides strength and gives an immersive example of the management of sectarian plurality in line with its Muslim brothers.
Beyond Structural factors, Pakistan‘s diplomacy with fangs or the capacity to build a strong and credible global position plays a crucial role in shaping its mediatory potential. The 1970s US-China rapprochement portrays a perfect instance showing the ability of Pakistan to manage sensitive negotiations, maintain confidentiality, and build trust between adversaries. In the context of the Iran-US conflict, the ability to host or facilitate “talks about talks” in preliminary engagements that clarify positions and interests and explore potential compromises makes Pakistan a critical enabler of preventive diplomacy. Put simply, Pakistan’s ability to maneuverer between competing poles without being locked into the zero-sum alignments becomes central to its effectiveness as a mediator.
Proposed Implications or Outcomes for Pakistan
The implications of such a mediator role are deeply tied to Pakistan’s core national interests. First, Energy security stands out as the primary concern. Any de-escalation between Iran and the United States would reduce tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical checkpoint through which a significant portion of global oil supplies transit. The stability of this corridor would ensure reliable fuel imports and help to mitigate inflationary pressures and stabilize domestic energy markets.
Second, Border Security is directly related to regional stability. The escalated conflict between Iran and the US would trigger a high refugee influx into Pakistan’s Baluchistan province, which exacerbates the problems for local governance and challenges the security sector. Effective mediation would prevent conflict spillover and avoid additional socio-economic strain.
Third, Diplomatic Prestige represents an important strategic gain. The facility of dialogue between Iran and the US would elevate Pakistan’s status quo as a pivotal middle power, reinforcing its image as a credible mediator in global diplomacy.
The case of Iran-US tensions demonstrates that coercion, sanctions, and military posturing do not eliminate the possibility of diplomacy; they shape the conditions under which negotiations emerge. Pakistan’s mediatory role is a skill in terms of consistent strategy, which is contingent on the navigation of complex challenges, including great-power competition, regional rivalries, and domestic constraints. If this is managed effectively, this global role can yield significant geo-strategic benefits for Pakistan, including enhanced diplomatic stature, economic stability, and regional security.
Despite the initial failure of talks, Pakistan’s mediation future lies in its strategic patience and persistence as a trusted mediator and interlocutor, and its capacity to align preventive diplomacy with national interests while contributing meaningfully to global peace and stability. Three thongs need to be addressed in future Track 1 negotiations: First, make escalation more costly than cooperation; second, build proper third-party-led verification processes because neither side can rely on trust, for there is none; and lastly, create off-ramps enabling both sides to be able to step back without losing face. States in conflict react to pressure rather than trust. In peace, pressure doesn’t change or relent, but it is a pause before the next round.
