Opinion: 'How Pakistan became the ultimate peacemaker between the US and Iran'

The US and Israel launched strikes on Iran in late February without the United Nations Security Council’s authorisation. The strikes were in violation of international law, the United Nations Charter, and the principles of “Just War” — a theory that provides a framework for determining whether a war is morally justifiable.

The consequences of the US and Israel’s actions included a potential collapse of the international order and immeasurable harm to the global economy. The United Nations confers upon the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security and the prevention of precisely such outcomes. However, it has been seen that this responsibility remains at the mercy of the UNSC’s permanent members, who can exercise their veto power to overrule it.

As fighting continued following the February 28 strikes by the US and Israel, none of Washington’s historical allies — nor the UN, Nato or the rest of the liberal West — were able to effect a cessation of hostilities, let alone initiate a process for peace talks.

Until, to the surprise of the world and the dismay of many, Pakistan played an instrumental role in securing an initial cessation of hostilities and setting the stage for US-Iran negotiations.

Pakistan has previously facilitated talks between the US and its adversaries as well. In 1971, Pakistan was instrumental in arranging a secret visit of then-US National Security adviser Henry Kissinger to China. About a year later, then-US president Richard Nixon met Chairman Mao Zedong in China. The rest, as they say, is history.

Pakistan is well-regarded for its United Nations peacekeeping missions in various parts of the world. Since the 1960s, it has also been a net security provider and regional stabiliser for Jordan and the Gulf States.

Given that history, it was not unusual for Pakistan to lead the efforts for peace in the ongoing conflict.

Field Marshal Asim Munir and Pakistan’s powerful Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) have been quietly revisiting Pakistan’s strategic role in facilitating a rapprochement between the West and the East. The efforts for a peaceful resolution of the long-running conflict between the US and Iran, for example, have involved a long and arduous process which began well before the first bombs fell on Iran this February. Those efforts continued during the blitz with greater resolve and were what eventually helped secure a ceasefire between the two nations.

Director-General ISI Gen Asim Malik, along with Maj Gen Faisal Naseer, the head of counterintelligence, liaised continuously with their US counterparts to de-escalate the crisis. Throughout the process, Natalie A. Baker, the US charge d’affaires in Islamabad, worked closely with Pakistan. Islamabad and Washington worked in perfect sync.

What Pakistan’s leadership initially aimed to achieve seemed beyond the realm of possibility. It is not easy to influence zealots driven by religious certainty, and there were many to contend with in Iran, Israel and the US. A nuanced and delicate balance had to be maintained to keep the antagonists at the table amid an ongoing war.

The US and Iran lacked, and still lack, mutual trust. The United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have been poles apart. The rest of the Gulf states perceived themselves as the victims of aggression. Israel was and continues to be the unrelenting spoiler. Meanwhile, China has been and remains active behind the scenes to secure peace.

Apart from Israel, which seemed determined to continue the war, every other state involved seemed to repose its trust in Pakistan. This was motivation enough for the country to assume the role of honest peace-broker.

Acting as an intermediary, Pakistan initially conveyed a 15-point US peace plan to Iran, which Tehran found unacceptable. Subsequently, China’s help was sought for mediation, and a five-point peace plan was agreed upon as a basis for negotiations.

Field Marshal Munir’s commitment to pursue and further what appeared to be a hopeless cause was what ultimately delivered a two-week ceasefire, which was followed by Pakistan mediating and hosting direct peace talks between the US and Iran in Islamabad.

Unfortunately, the talks hit a dead end after a promising first round. Perhaps this should have been expected: the path to peace is typically just as uncertain as the vicissitudes of war.

As the situation stands now, the US military’s tactical successes have ensured that it will not suffer a defeat. However, the US has also failed to achieve its pre-war aims. Iran is in ruins, but remains unsubdued. The US has suffered a strategic setback.

Field Marshal Munir enjoys trust and goodwill in Washington as well as in Tehran. The Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, trust him. This makes him uniquely qualified to serve as an honest peacemaker and bring the warring parties back to the table.

The first round of peace talks did not culminate in a peace treaty. No surprises there. It is more important that the ceasefire still holds. The ceasefire, it may be recalled, came a mere 90 minutes before the onset of a feared ‘Armageddon’ that promised to wipe out an entire civilisation. An apocalyptic level of destruction was averted.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a precarious and contentious issue. Iran’s possession of enriched uranium is also a core point of contention. And, as ever, Israel’s penchant to sabotage peace seems undiminished.

There is a distinction between a temporary deadlock on a core issue and the breakdown of peace negotiations. The former, per se, does not negate the latter. It is not very common for peace talks to succeed in a single round. There will be several rounds of peace talks before an agreement is achieved.

The arguments for peace are very powerful. International law and the United Nations demand peace. The pope has spoken for peace. The global economy demands peace. Only the Messianic zealots of Eretz Israel are against it.

Sixty-one days since the US-Israel attack on Iran, the imperatives for peace are obvious. The stage is set, and the peace process ought to succeed. The continuing ceasefire has expanded to include Israel and Lebanon as well. Iranian airspace is open to civilian aviation.

Israel has failed to subdue Hamas, Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis. Their resilience turned a “blitzkrieg” into a war of attrition. No amount of US-Israel blustering or sophistry can hide this strategic debacle despite their tactical successes. It must now be understood that unmet war aims cannot be attained at a peace table.

In 1812, Napoleon’s Grand Army occupied Moscow after defeating Russian forces. Napoleon ensconced himself within the Kremlin’s walls and waited for peace to come to him. But there was to be no peace. The Russians refused to surrender. The episode marked the beginning of the end of the Napoleonic Era. Let’s not forget the lesson it left: military dominance does not always bring peace.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and not necessarily representative of Dawn or its editorial staff.