The last time Pakistan facilitated a meeting that changed the world, Henry Kissinger got the credit. That was 1971. Pakistan's role remained unacknowledged while history recorded the achievement under someone else's name.

Half a century later, the world is watching. When Trump's deadline for Iran approached in early April 2026, it was not Geneva, not Ankara, not Beijing that delivered the ceasefire. It was Islamabad. For the most significant direct engagement since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, American and Iranian officials sat across from each other in direct talks. The question worth asking - urgently - is whether Pakistan truly understands what it has, what it risks, and what it must do next.

The American scholar I. William Zartman spent decades studying why peace negotiations succeed or fail. Parties negotiate not when it is morally right but when continuing to fight costs more than stopping - when both sides find themselves in what Zartman called a Mutually Hurting Stalemate, where pain becomes unbearable and no escalatory exit appears available.

That moment exists partially between Washington and Tehran. But only partially - and Pakistan must understand exactly why.

The United States feels the cost in destabilised energy markets, rising fuel prices, and Gulf instability. With November midterms approaching, Republicans are feeling the electoral heat - a prolonged war was the last thing the Trump administration wanted heading into a campaign season.

Iran's response, however, does not follow the script. Iran did not collapse after losing its supreme leader. It appointed a........

© The Express Tribune