As diplomats prepare for the formal signing of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding, an increasingly familiar debate has emerged over who deserves credit for bringing Washington and Tehran to this point. The answer matters because it also helps explain who is likely to remain important as negotiations move into their most difficult phase.

The formal ceremony may take place in Geneva. Technical discussions may move between different capitals. Yet these developments should not obscure the central reality of the past several months: Pakistan accomplished something that many considered impossible. It helped halt the momentum of a dangerous regional war and created a diplomatic channel capable of bringing the United States and Iran into a structured process after decades of hostility.

That achievement has understandably generated a contest over credit. Some accounts portray Pakistan as merely a venue. Others suggest that different actors were responsible for the substantive diplomacy, while Islamabad simply provided a public face. Such arguments misunderstand how diplomacy actually works.

Diplomatic breakthroughs are not defined by where documents are signed. They are defined by who creates the political conditions that make agreements possible. In this case, Pakistan's achievement was not hosting meetings. It was building, sustaining, and protecting the diplomatic channel itself.

From the outset of the crisis, Pakistan pursued a coordinated strategy at multiple levels. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif maintained political engagement with regional and international stakeholders. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar coordinated diplomacy across multiple capitals. Field Marshal Asim Munir engaged the security dimension of the crisis, particularly at moments when military escalation threatened to overwhelm diplomacy. This was supported by sustained work across diplomatic, military, intelligence, and security channels.

The importance of this coordinated approach is often overlooked. The challenge was never simply to persuade Washington and Tehran to talk. The challenge was to prevent repeated events from destroying the possibility of talks altogether.

As a neighbour, a Muslim country, and a state with long-standing relations with Iran, Pakistan repeatedly argued that diplomacy served Iran's interests better than an open-ended confrontation

As a neighbour, a Muslim country, and a state with long-standing relations with Iran, Pakistan repeatedly argued that diplomacy served Iran's interests better than an open-ended confrontation

Several times during the conflict, diplomacy appeared close to collapse. Escalation in Lebanon threatened to widen the war. Tensions in the Gulf repeatedly raised fears of a broader regional confrontation. Military exchanges created pressure for retaliation. Hard-line voices on all sides argued that negotiations were futile. Each time, the diplomatic track had to be protected from being overwhelmed by events on the ground.

Escalation was not always........

© The Friday Times