Being a matter of personal choice, there should have been no reason whatsoever for any discussion or debate regarding US President Donald Trump’s decision to choose Pakistan as the sole mediator for the second round of US-Iran negotiations. But with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt making special efforts to justify the same, questions are bound to arise.
Mentioning that “While there have been many countries around the world that want to offer their help,” Leavitt said “the President feels it’s important to continue to streamline this communication through the Pakistanis.” She also defended Trump’s choice by maintaining that “The Pakistanis have been incredible mediators throughout this process.”
Major disruption in oil supplies due to the US-Iran conflict has created a humongous global crisis and since everyone is affected, the international community wants an early end to this debilitating faceoff. So, it’s but natural that many countries would have volunteered to act as mediators. Consequently, while Leavitt’s mentioning that several countries were willing to act as Washington’s mediator may have given the beleaguered US President a much needed ego massage for, but means little otherwise.
Leavitt’s bestowing the “incredible mediator” sobriquet on Islamabad doesn’t quite gel simply because with the first round of US-Iran talks collapsing within hours without even making any notional progress, Pakistan didn’t get an opportunity to display its mediation skills. As such, Islamabad definitely deserves due appreciation for getting Tehran to the negotiating table, but isn’t it too premature to determine that Islamabad has been an “incredible mediator”?
With the White House spokesperson announcing that “they [Pakistan’s military and civil leadership] are the only mediator in this negotiation,” the media has rightly inferred that the ‘White House has made it clear that the road to peace-or a significant escalation-runs exclusively through the Pakistani military and civilian leadership.’ However, what remains to be seen is how Islamabad [or to be more specific Rawalpindi] measures up to mercurial Trump’s expectations.
Failure of the Pakistani delegation led by Field Marshal Asim Munir to convince Tehran to participate in the second round of peace negotiations, is not only a setback but also indicates that Pakistan has failed to create a conducive atmosphere for talks. While a mediator cannot be blamed in case talks don’t succeed, getting the antagonists onto the negotiating table is a mediator’s basic task. As such, the second round of negotiations not taking place despite being scheduled during the first round of talks has definitely dented Islamabad’s image as an effective mediator.
Many analysts opine that despite having cordial relations with both the US and Iran, Pakistan has a host of inherent weaknesses for undertaking mediation. Firstly, while Islamabad waxes eloquent that its friendship with Washington is based on “mutual respect” and “sovereign equality,” it’s no secret that besides being a friend, Uncle Sam is also the master. Hence, Trump’s “favourite field marshal” is wearing two hats-of a mediator and that of an America’s ‘proxy’, and it would be naïve to believe that Tehran isn’t aware of this.
Secondly, Pakistan has been taking pains to tell the world that it is performing the role of a mediator with complete neutrality. But by deploying military assets to defend Saudi Arabia against any threat from Iran, it’s willy-nilly very much become part of the conflict and as such Pakistan’s credibility as a neutral entity has been eroded. Allegations of Pakistan aiding US tankers to bypass Iranian blockade in the Straits of Hormuz, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s posting of a “draft” post purportedly composed by Washington on X, and his factually inaccurate announcement of Lebanon being part of the peace deal puts a serious question mark on Pakistan’s role as a neutral mediator.
There’s talk that Trump decided to choose Pakistan as mediator primarily as he knows that Field Marshal Munir would keep US interests in mind during negotiations, and probably this is why Tehran has refused to participate in the second round of the talks. Doesn't Islamabad’s stoic silence on aggressive US actions like blockading the Straits of Hormuz and commandeering an Iranian container ship while the ceasefire was in effect demolish any illusions of its neutrality as a mediator?
So, in case a second round of talks does take place in the days to come, then it’s for certain that the same would have come about not because of Pakistani mediation but in spite of it being a silent onlooker whom neither the US nor Iran takes seriously.

Email:-----------------------nileshkunwar.56@gmail.com
( Pull)