In today’s fractured world, even a temporary ceasefire feels like a small miracle. So when tensions between the United States and Iran appeared to ease, reportedly with Pakistan playing a mediating role, it should have been a straightforward moment of cautious relief.

Instead, it has turned into something else: a debate over credit, credibility, and, in some corners, thinly disguised discomfort.

Let’s start with the obvious. A de-escalation in West Asia is good news. Not for one country or another, but for everyone. The region sits at the heart of global energy flows. Any serious conflict involving Iran risks choking the Strait of Hormuz, sending oil prices soaring and rattling economies from South Asia to the West. Countries like India and Pakistan would feel that shock almost immediately.

So the first instinct should be simple: hope it holds.

But geopolitics is rarely that simple. Who gets the credit often matters as much as what actually happens. Pakistan’s reported role in facilitating talks has been met with scepticism—and in some cases outright dismissal—particularly across sections of Indian media and strategic commentary. That reaction is not surprising. The India-Pakistan rivalry has always been about more than territory or security; it’s also about narrative. Diplomatic wins are contested just as fiercely as military ones.

Still, there’s a difference between healthy scepticism and reflexive dismissal. Mediation, after all, is not about being universally loved or morally spotless. It’s about access. It’s about being able to pick up the phone when others cannot.

Pakistan, for all its complications, sits in an interesting position. It has working relationships with both Washington and Tehran. It has deep ties across the Muslim world. And it has just enough strategic weight to be taken seriously without being seen as an overbearing power. That combination—limited but real leverage—often makes for an effective intermediary.

We’ve seen this before. Countries like Norway and Qatar have built reputations as mediators not because they are powerful in the traditional sense, but because they are positioned well. They can talk to everyone without being seen as a direct threat.

If Pakistan is stepping into that space, even tentatively, it deserves acknowledgement.

Being in the right place at the right moment helps—but staying there requires patience, balance, and a clear sense of limits

Being in the right place at the right moment helps—but staying there requires patience, balance, and a clear sense of limits

That doesn’t mean uncritical applause. Mediation is not a one-off performance; it’s a long game. It requires consistency, credibility, and a careful balancing act. Pakistan will have to convince all sides that it is more than just a convenient channel—that it can act, at least in part, as an honest broker.

And that’s not easy. In a region as complex as West Asia, neutrality is always questioned. Every move is scrutinised. Every relationship is interpreted through the lens of larger geopolitical rivalries.

There’s also another point worth making, especially in light of the commentary around what happens next. Even if this ceasefire collapses, that failure cannot simply be pinned on the mediator. Pakistan, like any intermediary, can help bring parties to the table. It cannot force them to stay there.

If hostilities resume, responsibility will lie with the primary actors—the United States, Iran, or others directly involved—not with those who tried to create space for dialogue. Blaming the mediator for a breakdown may be politically convenient, but it misses the point.

At the same time, Pakistan itself should avoid getting carried away. There is a temptation, in moments like this, to frame diplomatic activity as a major strategic breakthrough. In reality, it is more modest than that. What we are seeing is an attempt by Pakistan to reassert relevance—through engagement with Washington, outreach to Gulf states, and a more visible role in regional diplomacy.

That’s not a bad thing. It’s how states operate. But it does come with risks. Overplaying one’s hand or being perceived as aligned too closely with one side can quickly erode the very credibility that mediation depends on.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the current debate, though, is how easily peace itself becomes politicised. When the conversation shifts from “is this good for regional stability?” to “who gets the credit?”, something important gets lost.

Worse still is the suggestion, implicit or explicit, that a ceasefire failing would somehow vindicate those who doubt Pakistan’s role. That kind of thinking is not just cynical; it’s counterproductive. Instability in West Asia is not a point to be scored in a regional rivalry. It is a shared risk with real consequences.

The truth is, peace is rarely neat. It doesn’t come with clear winners and losers. It emerges from messy compromises, partial successes, and sometimes unlikely intermediaries.

If Pakistan has helped even in a limited way to open channels between Washington and Tehran, that is worth recognising. Not celebrating blindly, not dismissing reflexively, but acknowledging it for what it is: a constructive step in a very complicated process.

Whether Pakistan can sustain this role is an open question. Diplomacy is as much about staying power as it is about timing. Being in the right place at the right moment helps—but staying there requires patience, balance, and a clear sense of limits.

For now, though, the focus should remain where it belongs: on the ceasefire itself. If it holds, everyone benefits. If it fails, everyone loses.

And that, perhaps, is the simplest reminder in all of this—peace is not a zero-sum game.

© The Friday Times