Mediator or Something Else?

In this article, Prof. (Dr.) Manoj Panigrahi analyzes Pakistan’s self-styled mediation in the United States–Iran conflict, highlighting key inconsistencies and geopolitical stakes.

US Vice President JD Vance arrived in Islamabad for talks with Iranian officials on April 11, 2026 (in picture: JD Vance with Pakistan's Chief of Defence Forces and Chief of Army Staff Field Marshall Asim Munir, Pakistan's Interior Minister Mohsin Raza Naqvi and Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar). Photo by Jacquelyn Martin - Pool/Getty Images

The current so-called “mediation” act being done by Pakistan on the ongoing conflict between the United States and Iran has caught the eyes of pundits worldwide. However, there is a missing piece in this, and that is Israel, which had jointly launched an attack against Iran. Pakistan’s act as a “mediator” has been praised in multiple places, and in some corners, it was said that Pakistan should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for its leadership in bringing a temporary halt to the ongoing West Asian conflict. From an outsider perspective, the attempt at peace looks great, but when one gives a close look, it brings in several contradictions.

Being a mediator can indeed be a challenge. However, when one looks at the roles and responsibilities of the mediator, it is to be impartial and not take any sides. Then it must be accepted as a mediator from all the conflicting sides. But since we look at how the pre-mediation process has evolved and the initial stage of the mediation act, it has steered away from these two points.

First, Israel has been left out of this mediation process, even though it was also one of the parties to the conflict. As a country, Israel is not recognized in Pakistan and has been termed as “illegal state”, and it has also repeatedly been called for its destruction. This has been echoed recently when Pakistan’s defence minister tweeted a distasteful comment against Israel, which saw a huge backlash from several stakeholders. Before the mediation process began, Israel’s Ambassador to India Reuven Azar stated that, “Israel does not view Islamabad as a ‘credible player’ and he added that, ‘the United States has decided to use the services of the facilitation of Pakistan for their own reasons’. Such paradoxes have and will lead to an ultimate confusion and can make or break such mediation process, where the other conflicting party and the mediator have refused to recognize each other.

Second, Pakistan’s own credibility. Pakistan’s role as a “neutral” mediator has been questioned at several places. First, it is a treaty ally of Saudi Arabia. Both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had signed the “Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement” on 17 September, 2025, which committed each side to come to the support of the other if either one gets attacked militarily. Since Iran’s missiles had landed in Saudi Arabia, there has been no commitment on whether Pakistan will come forward in support of Saudi Arabia. Second, allegations that Pakistan's territory is being used by the United States to attack Iran. Such allegations have been strongly refuted by the Pakistan authorities.

Third, Pakistan stands to gain by “acting” or “facilitating” the mediation process. Pre-Iran conflict, Islamabad and Kabul were in a conflict that got overshadowed. Its own involvement in the mediation process has helped Pakistan to secure support from the United States against Afghanistan. Afghanistan forces had managed to successfully attack the Nur Khan Airbase near Islamabad, which had caused major embarrassment to Pakistan’s leadership. It was less than a year ago that the same base was attacked by India during Operation Sindoor. Additionally, support from the United States President Donald Trump. During the ongoing talks of peace with Iran, President Trump again stated his own role as a facilitator between India and Pakistan in 2025. He claimed that he “settled” the issue between the two countries. Such support from the United States helped Islamabad in shifting the attention of its public to a new one.

Lastly, the narrative push that Pakistan has been trying to make is that it has helped the world by mediating in the West Asian conflict. And it had saved the world in a positive manner for the free flow of crude oil by reopening the Strait of Hormuz. This again stands in contradiction. The decision to agree to even talk can be seen as a primary “saturation” by the United States and Iran. Pakistan’s acting as a “Peace Messiah” again stalled flat, where it has regularly tried to hide itself behind the nuclear threat. Post-Operation Sindoor, Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir spoke in the United States that, “We are a nuclear nation. If we are going down, we will take half the world down with us”. Furthermore, former Pakistan’s Ambassador to India recently stated, “Pakistan could strike India if it faces an existential military threat from the United States or Israel”.

What United States and Iran have to gain from Pakistan being a mediator? The United States, especially President Donald Trump, got the much-needed support for his policies, citing attempts to achieve peace as military losses increased with the timeline for reaching its primary objective in Iran. And for Iran, the reduction of air attacks by the United States can surely give it much-needed time to reorganize and, to a certain extent, not be attacked by Israel as well in its territory.

Therefore, it is too early to say how these “peace talks” will evolve, as one of the conflicting parties is not being put into consideration, and the credibility of the mediator has been questioned since the beginning.

(Prof. (Dr.) Manoj Kumar Panigrahi is an Associate Professor at Jindal School of International Affairs. He is currently an MOFA Fellow at National Chengchi University.)