THE negotiations stretched into the second day and the closed doors remained firmly shut. It took 47 years to bring those doors—and the people sitting behind them—to this point. When so much time has already been spent just reaching the table, a little delay in reaching a decision should not be a cause for undue concern. That was one way to look at the delay, though there were countless long-standing anxieties lurking in the background. While that is true, the old Arabic saying “al-intizar ashad dumin al-mawt”—waiting is more painful than death—aptly described our condition. We sat waiting for the outcome, caught in precisely that state of restless anticipation.

Yet, while this wait was justified, there is another reality: one outcome of these negotiations had already emerged even before they formally began—and it was the very outcome we had been hoping for, namely a ceasefire. Whether this ceasefire is for a day, fifteen days or a longer duration is not the central question. Why this outcome matters—that is the real puzzle to understand. There was the looming threat from President Donald Trump that he intended to erase Iranian civilization. Just hours remained before the expiry of his ultimatum when Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s X Account spoke. He appealed to both sides for a ceasefire—an appeal that was welcomed and soon after, the ceasefire materialized. Was there some kind of incantation behind that tweet that made it so effective?

Indeed, there was a kind of “incantation”—but not the mystical spell of a sorcerer. It was something else: a principle rooted in the natural order, a law by which the universe operates. That law is to strive with sincerity and leave the outcome to God. This is precisely what Pakistan did. Since last year’s twelve-day conflict, Pakistan remained actively engaged with the Iran–US tensions and played its part in efforts to extinguish the fire. Some of these efforts are well known—such as the meeting of foreign ministers from four Islamic countries in Islamabad, followed immediately by Ishaq Dar’s visit to Beijing. These are on record. But alongside them existed an unending chain of diplomatic contacts and engagements. Without such groundwork, who would have taken a late-night tweet so seriously?

When that tweet appeared, President Donald Trump remarked about Pakistan’s leadership, calling them dignified and impressive people. One may have reservations about President Trump, but it was this very moment that led people in Iran to come out into the streets carrying Pakistani flags. The secret behind it was simple: Pakistan’s civil-military leadership—Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar—worked tirelessly, in complete unity and sincerity, without regard for day or night. God rewarded that effort in the form of a ceasefire. And not just that—Pakistan was granted a level of honour that nations often yearn for.

This, then, is the outcome of the negotiations—an outcome that arrived as a reward even before the talks formally concluded. The question now arises: what, then, kept the negotiators occupied for so long? The answer is both long and painful. When issues are prolonged, they become increasingly entangled and complex. In the Islamabad talks, efforts were made to untangle this very knot of complications. It would not be an exaggeration to say that knots tied by hands were being opened with teeth. What kind of knots are these? Some are well known: the future of the Strait of Hormuz, Israeli attacks on Lebanon, Iran’s right to nuclear energy and missile technology and its frozen assets—among many others. These are complex enough and naturally require time. But there are issues even more complicated than these. One glimpse of such complexity emerged the very moment Iran and the United States sat down at the negotiating table. Marc Thiessen, a former Director in the White House speechwriting office, wrote in The Washington Post during the negotiations that if talks failed, those leaders who had been spared for negotiations should also be eliminated. Thiessen represents a segment within the United States that harbours deep hostility toward Iran and, more broadly, toward the Muslim world. One dimension of his statement is clearly to pressure Iran into accepting a desired agreement. But a closer look reveals something more: similar, if not slightly lesser, pressures also weigh on American negotiators. This means that negotiators on both sides carry a dual burden—they must resolve the actual dispute while also thwarting those who seek to sabotage the talks.

During the war, Pakistan was often described as walking a tightrope in the context of its defense cooperation with Saudi Arabia. In much the same way, the negotiators too walked a tightrope—indeed, something closer to a razor’s edge. Given this, the delay in reaching a result was understandable. For us, it is enough that negotiations are taking place—and that too negotiations whose outcome, in the form of a ceasefire, had already begun to take shape. In the process of untying knots tied by hand—using their teeth—the parties nearly ran out of breath and with that, this round of negotiations also came to an end. Yet possibilities remain intact, as does the ceasefire. That, in itself, is the outcome of these talks. Hope is not lost. The guests will return to Islamabad again.

—This writer is former advisor to the President of Pakistan, author & mass media theorist.

(farooq.adilbhuta@gmail,com)

© Pakistan Observer