Islamabad’s Mediation and the Unresolved War

Pakistan has positioned itself to enter a consequential moment in history as the country that helped stop a dangerous war; eased global economic pressures; offered Trump political insulation from domestic and international criticism over his responsibility in causing the crisis and its continued damage; and spared Iran from the civilisational destruction that Trump had promised with his nuclear threats.

Whether one describes what followed as a collapse, a suspension, or a ceasefire, the outcome reflects the inherent fragility of the situation and an absence of decisive military resolution on the ground. What was not anticipated, however, was the speed of the breakdown.

Those who exchanged handshakes and embraces on the tarmac at Islamabad’s airport appeared, in retrospect, to have entered the talks determined to transform them not into a careful dialogue aimed at compromise, but into a competing stage of rival narratives, each side claiming victory and demanding its dues.

When a two-week ceasefire was announced, a ten-minute massacre conducted by the Israeli occupation forces took place in Lebanon, claiming the lives of hundreds of civilians; among them was a Bangladeshi woman who had left her country in search of an honest livelihood only to end up in a white shroud.

We extend our sincere condolences to her family and loved ones. The timing of that strike was an expression of Netanyahu’s defiance, raising the probability of the failure of the negotiations, as each party weighed its own position and interests first.

The Americans sought full and final Iranian surrender, a demand that Trump sanctioned and that his deputy Vance reinforced, while at the same time claiming that they were “quite flexible” and “accommodating” during the talks.

The Iranians, for their part, sought the talks to mark the beginning of a path that could stop the war permanently and one in which they could claim a strategic victory.

They pursued a permanent ceasefire, including on the Lebanese front, the release of frozen assets, formal recognition of their right to nuclear and ballistic development, and acknowledgement of their regional influence. These were, in effect, the conditions of a power that had not been defeated.

Those who expected successful negotiations assumed that Pakistan’s mediation team carried in its pocket a set of mutual concessions sufficient to broker a compromise, as tends to occur in negotiations without a resolution on the battlefield.

But the more optimistic forecasts collapsed prematurely, treating the talks as though agreement were already assured. The pessimists, by contrast, had read the public statements of both parties as mines planted beneath the negotiating table, set to detonate when either side judged the moment opportune.

On this occasion, it appears both sides detonated simultaneously and got caught in the explosion.

The breakdown, whether permanent or temporary, raises several critical questions. Can the ceasefire survive long enough to allow renewed mediation efforts to bring the parties back to the table? Or will what the battlefield could not resolve be decided instead during the weeks of the truce or in the conflict that may follow its collapse? Early indications suggest the ceasefire is likely to hold, driven less by political will than by each party’s fear of resumption of war.

In this war, the observers needed little time to discern the true positions of the parties involved. What the rapid collapse of the Islamabad talks now demands is patience: to watch how the mediators absorb the failure and then how the warring parties respond to it, particularly given that a narrative of victory has become the foundational premise of both the war itself and the negotiations surrounding it.

One actor whose position deserves close attention in the aftermath is Netanyahu. He appears to be a loser in either scenario. If the ceasefire holds and the war effectively ends, he will face relentless domestic pressure. His citizens will ask, 'Where are the decisive results you promised?' If fighting resumes, he will face a harder question each time a missile lands on Israeli soil. His only guaranteed gain thus far has been a pretext to postpone his scheduled court appearances.