America Seeks Pakistan’s Role in Promoting Durable Peace Between Israel and Iran

In a significant diplomatic development, senior US officials have reportedly approached authorities in Pakistan to enlist their support in fostering a long-term peace initiative aimed at reducing regional tensions between Israel and Iran. This outreach marks a notable expansion of Washington’s strategy in the Middle East, recognizing Pakistan as a potential intermediary despite its complex relationships with both Iran and the broader Muslim-majority world.

Why Pakistan?

Often overshadowed by other regional players, Pakistan occupies a unique position:

1. Geopolitical Proximity
   Bordering Iran to its west, Pakistan shares historical, cultural, and economic ties, particularly among its southwestern Baloch communities.

2. Islamic Influence
   As the world’s second-most populous Muslim-majority nation, Pakistan carries religious and diplomatic weight, enabling it to act as a mediator or bridge between Shiite Iran and more conservative Sunni and Western-aligned states.

3. Strategic Credibility
   Islamabad has previously engaged in discussions around Afghan stability and continues to interact with both US and Chinese interests, lending it a rare blend of diplomatic flexibility.

By involving Pakistan, the US appears to be testing a “third-party” approach: using soft power and back-channel diplomacy to complement its more direct engagement with Tehran and Jerusalem.

The US-Pakistan Dialogue

Discussed largely behind closed doors, the US outreach reportedly involves several elements:

• Track-Two Diplomacy: Non-official dialogues, think tank seminars, and academic conferences that bring together retired statesmen, scholars, and regional experts to explore peace frameworks.

• Back-Channel Communications: Coordinated informal conversations with Pakistani diplomats and envoys who may engage counterparts from Tehran and Jerusalem.

• Confidence-Building Measures: Ideas floated include cultural exchanges, people-to-people programs, religious edicts supporting coexistence, and dialogue between clerics from Pakistan and Iran — all aimed at reducing sectarian suspicion.

• Technical/Policy Support: The US may provide logistical support, intelligence sharing, or security guarantees to Pakistan for facilitating meetings or quiet negotiations.

In effect, the US is positioning Islamabad as a potential convenor — quietly catalyzing conversations with minimal public fanfare, thereby preserving plausible deniability and reducing political risk.

Islamabad’s Delicate Balancing Act

For Pakistan, the proposition carries both opportunity and peril.

Opportunities:

• Elevating Pakistan’s diplomatic profile beyond South Asia by hosting and facilitating international peace initiatives.

• Strengthening ties with the US, which could translate into economic or military collaboration.

• Affirming Islamabad’s role in global Islamic dialogue and regional stability.

Risks:

• Potential backlash from hardline elements domestically who view any engagement with Israel as betrayal, given Pakistan’s long-standing solidarity with the Palestinians.

• Retaliation from conservative religious factions resistant to normalization with Israel.

• Possible friction with allies if Pakistan is perceived to be taking a pro-American stance in Middle Eastern tensions.

To navigate this, Pakistani authorities may emphasize neutrality — working with multiple partners and maintaining a policy of no formal engagement with Israel, while engaging Iran through official channels.

What Could a Pakistan-Facilitated Peace Process Look Like?

Should Islamabad proceed, several models could be pursued:

1. Quiet Track Diplomacy
   Hosting discreet dialogues between retired Iranian diplomats, Jewish scholars and religious figures, and American experts — setting the ground for later official talks.

2. Religious-Soft Power Engagement
   Facilitating interfaith conferences in Islamabad or Lahore that bring together clerics and theologians from Shia and Jewish traditions, promoting mutual understanding.

3. Cultural and Youth Exchanges
   Scholarships, arts, and student-led programs encouraging ordinary Iranians and Israelis to explore each other’s societies via the lens of a Muslim-majority country like Pakistan.

4. Regional Confidence Channels
   Proposing technical or humanitarian collaborations such as environmental or health initiatives involving Iran under Pakistan’s supervision — building shared interests and trust.

Such incremental confidence-building doesn’t require publicized hard diplomacy, but it can yield long-lasting relational dividends.

Motivations for the US

Why, precisely, would Washington look to Pakistan for this role?

• Diversifying Diplomatic Channels: US efforts to stabilize the Middle East often rely on a handful of Gulf states; engaging Pakistan introduces a new regional actor with independent legitimacy.

• Strategic Burden Sharing: US diplomacy in the Middle East faces growing domestic fatigue and resource constraints. Informal intermediaries can carry the load of dialogue and reduce official diplomatic exposure.

• Enhancing South Asia Linkages: The approach recognizes global interconnectedness — that peace in one region can benefit from bridges built by neighboring powers hundreds of miles away.

• Discreet Diplomacy Preference: After years of high-profile negotiations, back-channel track-two engagements may succeed where public diplomacy has failed.

Challenges and Critiques

There are immediate obstacles and concerns:

• Domestic Backlash: Should word leak of Islamabad engaging with Israel, resistance from influential political and religious actors could derail the process.

• Iranian Skepticism: Tehran remains wary of Pakistan’s military-intelligence ties with the US; any process seen as US-led might be viewed as coercive or insincere.

• Israeli Rejection Risk: Without formal diplomatic ties, Israel may refuse to treat Pakistani-facilitated efforts seriously — particularly if perceived as too pro-Iranian.

• Fragile Multilateralism: Beyond bilateral dynamics, the broader Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape remains volatile, with interlocking conflicts (Gaza, Syria, Iraq) that can overshadow limited initiatives.

Potential Payoffs

Despite hurdles, successful Pakistani facilitation could yield important results:

• Reduced Escalation Risk: Even modest channels of communication may prevent sudden military flare-ups between Iran and Israel — particularly over maritime, cyber, or proxy escalations.

• Shared Relief Valves: Indirect dialogue allows both sides to signal de-escalatory moves without political cost, opening space for complementary confidence-building steps.

• Strengthened Multilateralism: Successful Pakistani leadership in this effort could rebuild trust in third-party facilitation across Islamist and Western divides.

• Global Diplomatic Recognition: Islamabad would enhance its international standing, showcasing itself as a constructive actor capable of innovative diplomacy.

Looking Ahead

The next few months will indicate whether these discussions proceed from concept to action. US officials will likely brief Pakistani political leadership and intelligence counterparts. Islamabad must evaluate internal consensus and support. Iran’s foreign ministry will monitor the overture. Israel’s naval command and defense-establishment eyes will remain watchful.

If momentum builds, the first public indication may emerge as an invitation-only conference in Islamabad involving Middle Eastern scholars or retired diplomats. If engagement deepens, one could imagine a more formalized “peace track” hosted in Pakistan or another neutral venue, possibly under American coordination.

Alternatively, it may end quietly: discussions among staff, scholars, or diplomats that don’t reach public release or official declaration — gently sculpting attitudes, but without dramatic headlines.

The US engaging Pakistan to promote “durable peace between Israel and Iran” symbolizes a fresh experiment in diplomacy — less high-stakes summitry, more patient ecosystem-building. Islamabad’s potential role is delicate, balancing its own regional posture, domestic politics, and international ambition.

If successful, this effort could signal a new template for resolving seemingly intractable conflicts: one where geographically proximate, religiously connected third parties, working through quiet diplomacy, help coax détente between adversaries.

But success is far from guaranteed. Bridging centuries-old mistrust between Tehran and Jerusalem will require decades of relationship-building. Even the discreet Pakistani path could founder on sensitivities, alliances, or suspicion.

Still, the very fact that Washington may be shifting strategy — from declarative peace deals to indirect, Pakistan-facilitated confidence channels — indicates a growing recognition: that in today’s world, durable peace may emerge not from grand declarations, but from small, sustained connections built away from the spotlight.