Iran Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi thanks Pakistan for solidarity
- First seen
- First seen: March 16, 2026 at 12:04 PM UTC
- Last updated
- Last updated: April 8, 2026 at 06:04 AM UTC
- Activity score
- Activity score: 7.77
- Article count
- 68 articles
Overview
Location
Coordinates: 35.7000, 51.4000
View on mapDPM Dar says US-Iran ‘indirect talks’ taking place through messages being relayed by Pakistan
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar on Thursday said that US-Iran “indirect talks” were taking place through messages being relayed by Pakistan. “There has been unnecessary speculation in the media regarding peace talks to end ongoing conflict in the Middle East,” he said in a post on the social media platform X. “In reality, US-Iran indirect talks are taking place through messages being relayed by Pakistan. In this context, the United States has shared 15 points, being deliberated upon by Iran,” he said. “Brotherly countries of Turkiye and Egypt, among others, are also extending their support to this initiative,” he said. “Pakistan remains fully committed to promoting peace and continues to make every effort to ensure stability in the region and beyond,” he said, adding that dialogue and diplomacy were the only way forward. He also tagged US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US President Donald Trump’s Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff in the post. Shortly after Trump took to his Truth Social platform to say Iranian negotiators were “begging” for a deal despite what he described as having been “militarily obliterated.” “They better get serious soon, before it is too late, because once that happens, there is NO TURNING BACK, and it won’t be pretty,” he said. The developments come a day after an acknowledgement of Pakistan’s role in backchannel diplomacy between the warring sides, as Iranian officials confirmed that Pakistan had passed on a proposal from the US to Iran for ending the war. This seemed to be a reference to the ‘15-point plan’ that Trump had referred to a day earlier. Although its contents were not officially disclosed, as per Israel’s Channel 12, it centred around stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons, limiting its missile programme in range and quantity, stopping its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen, as well as reopening the Strait of Hormuz so it could function as a “free maritime corridor”. In exchange, the plan promised the lifting of all sanctions on Iran, and international assistance in developing its nuclear capacity for energy production. However, Iran’s state-run Press TV reported on Wednesday that Tehran had “responded negatively” to the American proposal, citing a senior political-security official. “The official with knowledge of the details of the proposal… said Iran will not allow US President Donald Trump to dictate the timing of the war’s end,” it said. “Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met,” the official said, outlining five conditions under which Tehran would agree to end the ongoing conflict. These include: a complete halt to “aggression and assassinations” by the enemy; the establishment of concrete mechanisms to ensure that the war is not reimposed on the Islamic Republic; guaranteed and clearly defined payment of war damages and reparations; the conclusion of the war across all fronts and for all resistance groups involved throughout the region; and, international recognition and guarantees regarding Iran’s sovereign right to exercise authority over the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Reuters reported that despite its initial negative response, Iran was still reviewing the US proposal and had not rejected it outright, citing an unnamed senior Iranian official. Subsequently, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in a briefing on Wednesday, said that talks were still on, and described them as “productive”. Leavitt claimed that Tehran was seeking an “exit ramp” as their capacity to attack US and allied forces, as well as their ability to defend territory, is “dwindling, literally, hour by hour”. “We are very close to meeting the core objectives of Operation Epic Fury and this mission continues unabated,” Leavitt said. However, she cast doubt on the draft of the 15-point plan being cited in media reports, saying: “The White House never confirmed that full plan. There are elements of truth to it, but some of the stories I read are not entirely factual.” It should also be noted that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Tuesday said Pakistan stood “ready and honoured” to host “meaningful and conclusive talks” between the US and Iran. “Subject to concurrence by the US and Iran, Pakistan stands ready and honoured to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks for a comprehensive settlement of the ongoing conflict,” he said on X, tagging Trump, Araghchi and Witkoff. The US president had also shared PM Shehbaz’s statement on his Truth Social platform. Additional input from Reuters
DawnMarch 26, 2026 at 11:30 AM UTCPM Shehbaz highlights Pakistan’s role in Middle East de-escalation in meeting with Chinese envoy
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif highlighted Pakistan’s constructive role in promoting de-escalation and regional stability while discussing the situation in the Middle East with Chinese Ambassador Jiang Zedong on Thursday. On Monday, Pakistan took centre stage in a coordinated diplomatic push alongside Turkiye and Egypt for de-escalation, as the trio appeared instrumental in securing a five-day pause of US plans to strike Iranian energy and power infrastructure, officials said, describing the effort as going beyond routine crisis management. A press release by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) said that the Chinese ambassador called on the premier at the PM House today. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister Syed Tariq Fatemi, and the foreign secretary were also present, it said. PM Shehbaz appreciated China’s “steadfast economic support” and reaffirmed Pakistan’s commitment to advancing CPEC 2.0, “with a focus on agriculture, industrial cooperation, and priority infrastructure projects”, the PMO statement said. He also congratulated the Chinese leadership on the successful conclusion of the “Two Sessions” in Beijing and thanked President Xi Jinping, Premier Li Qiang, and Foreign Minister Wang Yi for their warm Pakistan Day greetings. “Ambassador Jiang commended Pakistan’s economic resilience and reform efforts, and reaffirmed China’s continued support, particularly in trade and investment,” the statement added. “Both sides expressed satisfaction at ongoing exchanges and looked forward to high-level engagements to mark the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations.” PM Shehbaz emphasised “continued close coordination at all levels on issues of mutual interest” while reaffirming the enduring Pakistan-China All-Weather Strategic Cooperative Partnership, it added. The premier had said on Tuesday that Pakistan stood “ready and honoured” to host “meaningful and conclusive talks” between the US and Iran. On Wednesday, he formally pitched Islamabad as a potential venue for negotiations between Iranian and US officials. PM Shehbaz briefs Malaysian counterpart on US-Iran mediation efforts Separately, the PMO said that PM Shehbaz also briefed his Malaysian counterpart, Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim, on Pakistan’s discussions with Iranian and Gulf leaders to bring the US and Iran to the negotiating table. The premier received a telephone call from Ibrahim this morning, wherein the leaders exchanged Eidul Fitr greetings in a “warm and cordial conversation”, the statement said. “The prime minister conveyed his deep appreciation to the Malaysian prime minister for his strong message of support for Pakistan’s leadership and endorsement of Pakistan-led mediation efforts to end the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East,” the PMO added. According to the statement, the Malaysian premier in turn appreciated PM Shehbaz’s “outstanding leadership” and apprised him of his own conversations with various world leaders emphasising the “immediate need to end the Middle East war”. He offered Malaysia’s full support to Pakistan’s peace efforts. Thanking Ibrahim, PM Shehbaz assured him that Pakistan would “continue its sincere and genuine efforts in de-escalating the prevailing situation in the region”. Both leaders agreed to remain in touch, the PMO added.
DawnMarch 26, 2026 at 10:41 AM UTCPakistan navigates shifting US-Iran dynamics amid ongoing war
WASHINGTON: Pakistan finds itself at the crossroads of war, diplomacy, and regional power shifts — a position shaped as much by geography and timing as by the personal ties its leaders have cultivated at the highest levels, US media note. “The US is working to arrange a meeting in Pakistan to discuss an off-ramp,” two administration officials said according to CNN. In other words, Washington is actively exploring Islamabad as a venue for de-escalation. NBC News reported in its bulletin that two regional sources and a US official confirmed a 15-point US plan to end the war had been delivered to Iranian officials through Pakistan. The BBC quoted two Pakistani officials as saying the proposal addressed sanctions relief, a rollback of Iran’s nuclear programme, limits on missiles, and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the world’s oil is shipped. Meanwhile, Iran has issued its own plan via state TV, which calls for a halt to killings of its officials, guarantees against further attacks, reparations for the war, an end to hostilities, and Iran’s “exercise of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz”. However, several major US outlets also cited President Trump, who at a Republican fundraiser on Wednesday night claimed that Iran was holding talks with the US but was reluctant to acknowledge it publicly due to potential repercussions. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the talks “are productive … and they continue to be.” Tehran’s public message could not be more different. Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf wrote on X: “No negotiations have been held with the US … Fake news is used to manipulate financial and oil markets and to escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped.” This is not merely a disagreement over facts; it reflects two very different political environments. In Washington, projecting that negotiations are underway serves multiple purposes: reassuring markets, signaling control, and presenting diplomacy as an alternative to escalation. In Tehran, denying talks reinforces resistance and avoids the appearance of yielding under pressure. Yet the more important development may not be what Tehran says publicly — it may be who is consolidating power behind the scenes. Washington-based Iranian scholar Vali Nasr has argued that while attention has focused on Qalibaf, “the appointment of former IRGC General Zolqadr deserves more attention.” He explained: “Ghalibaf may be the hot ticket for the White House, but Zolqadr is the reality on the ground.” Nasr added, “Zolqadr is Mojtaba’s man, and his selection shows that Mojtaba is in charge.” He noted that Israel’s campaign has not moderated Tehran but hardened it: “All Israel’s decapitation has achieved is transferring power in Tehran to the most hawkish part of the IRGC. Zolqadr comes from that wing.” He further observed that Zolqadr “had a hand in suppressing protesters in 1999 and 2009 and was instrumental in Ahmadinejad’s elections to the presidency.” His elevation, Nasr concluded, “does not suggest there will be talks with the US, but rather a much more aggressive Iranian posture.” If Nasr’s interpretation is correct, it complicates Washington’s optimism. Even if backchannels exist, the centre of gravity in Tehran may now lie with figures less inclined toward compromise. There is also a revealing debate unfolding inside the United States about the culture of power itself. Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, speaking to The New York Times, said he was disappointed by what he described as a “bravado” atmosphere being communicated from the top. He recalled serving with elite forces who accomplished extraordinary missions “without boasting about them”. They were not “braggadocious; that simply was not how they behaved.” He warned that much of today’s force is 18 years old and “highly influenceable”. “If young service members internalise rhetoric suggesting superiority, they may conclude that this is how they ought to think and behave — that they are inherently superior.” In reality, he noted, only a small fraction of personnel need to be capable of “kicking down doors”. The vast majority serve in intelligence, communications, and logistics — the enablers who make precision possible. Promoting the idea that “everyone should look like me”, he argued, “would be a disaster”. McChrystal’s warning speaks to a broader tension: the difference between projecting strength and exercising it with restraint. For Islamabad, the possible role in facilitating talks is not about spectacle. It is about quiet leverage — geography, access, and timing. But if Tehran’s internal balance has shifted decisively toward IRGC figures, Pakistan’s diplomatic window may be narrower than Washington’s public confidence suggests. The contradiction is stark: Washington says talks are “productive”; Tehran says there are none. Analysts warn that power in Iran may now rest with those least inclined toward negotiation. Pakistan’s relevance, as The New York Times observed, has grown — and so has its exposure. Whether Islamabad becomes the venue for a genuine breakthrough, or merely the stage for competing narratives, will depend on how dynamics unfold in both Washington and Tehran.
DawnMarch 26, 2026 at 05:50 AM UTCAt the crossroads
OVER the next few days, the joint US-Israeli aggression against Iran can go either of two ways: nascent attempts at a ceasefire, in which Pakistan is playing a major role, succeed and lead to a long-term settlement. Or, if ominous reports that the US president is buying time to move in more troops and invade Iranian territory are to be believed, the war gets much worse. In both scenarios, the Trump administration holds the key: it can either choose a sobering climbdown leading to peace, or continue the doomed march towards an even larger war. There is a very slim window for diplomacy, and if this chance is lost, it is unclear when the next may come. The US has reportedly sent ceasefire demands to Iran via Pakistan, while Turkiye is also engaging in shuttle diplomacy. Iranian officials are said to have termed US demands “unreasonable”. Pakistan and other regional states realise that if this conflict spirals further out of control, it will create a maelstrom that will consume the entire region, while dealing a huge blow to the global economy. All rational states wish to avoid such a dystopian scenario, except the US and Israel. The fact is that even close American allies are now voicing their disapproval at the aggression. For example, the German president has termed the war a “breach of international law”. Coming from the leader of a country that goes out of its way for Israel, this is significant. Similarly, the EU’s foreign policy chief has said “this is not Europe’s war”, while the Omani foreign minister has observed that “this war is not of [Iran’s] making”. Unable even to assemble a coalition of the willing to prosecute this illegal war, it is time for President Donald Trump to step back and create conditions conducive to a ceasefire and long-term calm. If there are negotiations, it is relevant to ask what will be on the agenda. The Iranians want guarantees they will not be attacked again, and compensation for war damage. This demand is reasonable. However, if the US keeps parroting Israeli talking points, and insists on maximalist demands from Tehran, such as an end to its ballistic missile programme, then the talks are unlikely to go far. For peace, the US and its regional proxy Israel must immediately cease hostilities, and create the right conditions for dialogue. Once matters calm down, states in the neighbourhood — Iran, the Gulf sheikhdoms, Turkiye, Iraq etc — must create a new regional architecture among themselves that promises collective security. As the past few weeks have shown, the US has only one permanent interest in the region: Israel. It cares little for its Arab allies, which is why these states must forge a new, region-led security order. Published in Dawn, March 26th, 2026
DawnMarch 26, 2026 at 04:16 AM UTCNo headway as Iran, US remain entrenched
• Trump administration claims ‘productive’ talks still on • Araghchi says exchange of messages through mediators ‘is not negotiation’ • Tehran ‘responds negatively’ to US plan conveyed by Pakistan, stops short of ‘rejection’; lays five conditions for ending war • Speculation abounds over VP Vance’s possible role in engagement with Iran ISLAMABAD / WASHINGTON: The pendulum of de-escalation swung several times on Wednesday, as Iran and the US traded barbs and claims about progress on backchannel efforts to restore some semblance of normalcy in the war-torn Middle East. However, the prospect of direct engagement between the two sides seemed to dwindle, as the Iranian side appeared circumspect about the prospect of returning to the table for talks with the “backstabbing US”. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also made the distinction clear, saying that an exchange of messages through mediators “does not mean negotiations with the US”. No talks were being held with Washington, he said, adding that the US had failed to achieve its key war objectives against Iran, including securing a quick military victory and bringing about regime change in Tehran. The sequence of events started with an acknowledgement of Pakistan’s role in backchannel diplomacy between the warring sides, as Iranian officials confirmed that Pakistan had passed on a proposal from the US to Iran. This seemed to be a reference to the ‘15-point plan’ that US President Donald Trump had referred to a day earlier. Although its contents were not officially disclosed, as per Israel’s Channel 12, it centred around stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons, limiting its missile programme in range and quantity, stopping its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen, as well as reopening the Strait of Hormuz so it could function as a “free maritime corridor”. In exchange, the plan promised the lifting of all sanctions on Iran, and international assistance in developing its nuclear capacity for energy production. However, Iran’s state-run Press TV reported on Wednesday that Tehran had “responded negatively” to the American proposal, citing a senior political-security official. “The official with knowledge of the details of the proposal… said Iran will not allow US President Donald Trump to dictate the timing of the war’s end,” it said. “Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met,” the official said, outlining five conditions under which Tehran would agree to end the ongoing conflict. These include: a complete halt to “aggression and assassinations” by the enemy; the establishment of concrete mechanisms to ensure that the war is not reimposed on the Islamic Republic; guaranteed and clearly defined payment of war damages and reparations; the conclusion of the war across all fronts and for all resistance groups involved throughout the region; and, international recognition and guarantees regarding Iran’s sovereign right to exercise authority over the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, Reuters reported that despite its initial negative response, Iran was still reviewing the US proposal and had not rejected it outright, citing an unnamed senior Iranian official. Subsequently, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, in a briefing on Wednesday, said that talks were still on, and described them as “productive”. Leavitt claimed that Tehran was seeking an “exit ramp” as their capacity to attack US and allied forces, as well as their ability to defend territory, is “dwindling, literally, hour by hour”. “We are very close to meeting the core objectives of Operation Epic Fury and this mission continues unabated,” Leavitt said. However, she cast doubt on the draft of the 15-point plan being cited in media reports, saying: “The White House never confirmed that full plan. There are elements of truth to it, but some of the stories I read are not entirely factual.” Vance role? Talk of the venue of a possible US-Iran summit had reached fever pitch on Tuesday after PM Shehbaz Sharif offered to host the confab in Islamabad. But Iranian officials said on Wednesday that “either Turkiye or Pakistan was under consideration as the venue for such talks”. In addition, there has been speculation that Vice President JD Vance may have been tapped to lead the engagement with Tehran following reports that the Iranians no longer trusted “backstabbing” Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the same men who were engaged in Oman-mediated talks with Iran before the US and Israel launched their surprise attack on Feb 28. An X account that tracks US government planes, @USGovtJets, lent credence to rumours that Vance may be heading to the Middle East when it reported that five C-17s aircraft departed Andrews Air Force Base “in support of an unannounced VPOTUS trip”. “All aircraft are holding at Ramstein Air Base for official confirmation of a trip. No official destination has been announced,” the account wrote. When Pakistani journalist Marianna Baabar asked whether this meant that Vance was due in Islamabad on Thursday, the account responded: “This would be most likely. Normally, they would be on the ground 24 hours before VPOTUS arrival, but this is anything but normal.” When asked about the possibility of VP Vance playing a part in the talks, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that he had been part of national security discussions related to Iran throughout the entirety of the Trump administration. Published in Dawn, March 26th, 2026
DawnMarch 26, 2026 at 02:27 AM UTCPakistan has conveyed US proposal; Turkiye or Pakistan could host talks, senior Iranian official says
Pakistan delivered a proposal from the United States to Iran, and either Pakistan or Turkiye could be venues for discussions to de-escalate the war in the Gulf, a senior Iranian official told Reuters on Wednesday. The comments, by an official speaking on condition of anonymity, were among the few signs that Tehran was willing to consider diplomatic proposals, despite having denied in public that it would negotiate with the administration of US President Donald Trump. However, later in the day, it emerged that Tehran had “responded negatively” to the US proposal and outlined five conditions under which Tehran would agree to end the ongoing conflict. The Iranian source that spoke to Reuters did not disclose details of the proposal passed on by Pakistan, or whether it was the same as a 15-point US proposal that has been reported by news outlets. The source said “either Turkiye or Pakistan was under consideration as the venue for such talks”. A source familiar with the matter had confirmed on Tuesday to Reuters that the plan had been sent to Iran. Dawn has reached out to Pakistan’s Foreign Office for a comment on the matter. According to Reuters, three Israeli cabinet sources said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet had been briefed on the proposal, which they said includes removing Iran’s stocks of highly enriched uranium, halting enrichment, curbing its ballistic missile programme and ending funding for regional allies. Separately, Iran’s ambassador to Pakistan said there had been no talks between Washington or Tehran. “We have also heard such details through the media, but according to my information — and contrary to Trump’s claims — so far no negotiations, direct or indirect, have taken place between the two countries,” said ambassador Reza Amiri Moghadam, adding that it was “natural that friendly countries are always engaged in consultations with both sides to end this illegitimate aggression”. Malaysia welcomes Pakistan’s ‘timely and constructive offer’ to host talks Meanwhile, Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim welcomed Pakistan’s “timely and constructive offer to host dialogue” between the US and Iran. In a post on X, he said, “I commend Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the leaders of other friendly nations for stepping forward at a moment of acute regional danger, following the earlier commendable efforts of the leadership of Oman and other friendly countries. Pakistan’s relationships with the relevant parties, and its standing as a credible voice in the Muslim world, place it in a strong position to help create the conditions for meaningful negotiations.” “Malaysia supports this initiative and encourages in particular the United States and Iran to respond in the spirit in which it was offered. I note with cautious hope the signals, however incomplete, that suggest some space for diplomacy may still exist. That space should be treated with the seriousness it deserves,” he said. Reaffirming Kuala Lumpur’s support for Islamabad’s initiative, he encouraged, in particular, the US and Iran to “respond in the spirit in which it was offered”. “I note with cautious hope the signals, however incomplete, that suggest some space for diplomacy may still exist. That space should be treated with the seriousness it deserves,” PM Ibrahim said. At the same time, the Malaysian prime minister emphasised that any negotiation between the US and Iran “must proceed on the basis of genuine intent: a clear commitment to ending the conflict, not managing its tempo for tactical advantage”. He affirmed Iran’s “right to defend its sovereignty, as recognised under international law, particularly in the face of continued Israeli strikes in the country and in Lebanon”. PM Ibrahim recalled that in recent days, he has held discussions with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Türkiye, Egypt, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan and other partners “to better understand the situation and to advocate for de-escalation”. “Malaysia will continue to support every credible effort towards a just and lasting peace,” he reaffirmed. PM Ibrahim urged “all parties to exercise maximum restraint and to ensure that civilian populations and the infrastructure of neighbouring states, namely the Gulf states, are not drawn further into a conflict they did not choose”. “The Gulf states, the region and the world have much at stake — economically, socially and in terms of long-term stability — and their peoples must not bear the consequences of decisions taken elsewhere,” he stressed. The Malaysian PM also noted with concern that “some of the strongest advocates of the rules-based international order appear to apply it unevenly”. “International law cannot be invoked selectively. It cannot shield one party from accountability while denying another its inherent right to self-defence. Its credibility depends on consistency,” he asserted. Islamabad offers to host US-Iran climbdown effort On Tuesday, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif formally pitched Islamabad as a potential venue for negotiations between Iranian and US officials. “Subject to concurrence by the US and Iran, Pakistan stands ready and honoured to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks for a comprehensive settlement of the ongoing conflict,” he wrote on X, tagging US President Donald Trump, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. The move followed reports that Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt had talked the US out of attacking Iranian energy infrastructure — a move that many fear would mark a dangerous escalation in the already-deadly conflict raging in West Asia. While there was no official word on whether the offer was Pakistan’s own initiative, sources privy to discussions said that the request that Islamabad host talks between the two warring sides had actually come from Washington. “Didn’t you see who re-tweeted the PM’s message,” a source privy to developments told Dawn when asked where the proposal originated from. This was a reference to President Donald Trump, who shared PM Shehbaz’s tweet on his own Truth Social platform. Pakistan has not made the offer ‘just for fun’, the insider said, adding that there was a deeper significance behind the move. When asked why Pakistan was chosen, the source said that the offer did not come about in a day or two, but was deliberated on in a series of meetings and backchannel efforts aimed at de-escalating the situation in the Middle East. “Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar was in constant contact with Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi and talked to him at least five times in recent days,” the source said. Similarly, PM Shehbaz has spoken to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian twice in a couple of days, and their last conversation on Monday was said to have lasted over an hour. Meanwhile, the top military brass engaged Washington, the source said, referring to reports that Field Marshal Asim Munir had spoken to President Trump. In addition, civil and military leaders also met Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman and his Defence Minister Faisal bin Farhan during a recent trip to Saudi Arabia, the insider said, painting all of these individual occurrences as being part of the chain of events that led up to the offer of Islamabad as a potential venue for de-escalation measures. Another aide to the PM cited media reports, which claimed that Trump’s Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff had traveled to Pakistan. “There is, however, so far no sign of any meaningful Iranian figure joining him there,” the aide told Dawn. One source scoffed at the general feeling of ‘surprise’ over Pakistan playing a central role in organising talks between the warring sides, saying that it reflected how the country’s diplomatic potential was always underestimated. The source recalled that in the past, the country had played a key role in mediating between Iran’s Ahmedinejad regime and Saudi Arabia when their enmity was at its peak. Pakistan was also instrumental in bringing both the Afghan Taliban and Washington to the table at Doha. Going further back in history, the source recalled how Pakistan was the conduit for Henry Kissinger’s surreptitious China diplomacy in the early 1970s.
DawnMarch 25, 2026 at 02:49 PM UTCPM Shehbaz, Bilawal discuss regional situation, Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts for peace
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Wednesday met with PPP Chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari and discussed the evolving situation in the Gulf amid the US-Israel war on Iran and matters of national importance. During the meeting, the prime minister informed Bilawal about Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts aimed at promoting global peace in light of regional tensions. Both leaders also exchanged views on political developments and internal security challenges facing the country. Bilawal appreciated the federal government’s policies and measures to address potential challenges arising from the ongoing conflict, praising the prime minister’s leadership during a difficult time. The two leaders also reviewed development projects being carried out by the federal government in Sindh. The meeting was also attended by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah, Minister for Economic Affairs Ahad Khan Cheema, Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb, Minister for Law and Justice Azam Nazeer Tarar, Adviser to Prime Minister on Political Affairs Rana Sanaullah and Senator Saleem Mandviwala. The development comes a day after PM Shehbaz had formally pitched Islamabad as a potential venue for negotiations between Iranian and US officials.
DawnMarch 25, 2026 at 01:48 PM UTCPM Shehbaz hails Saudi Arabia’s ‘restraint’, stresses urgent need for de-escalation of ongoing Iran war
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Wednesday hailed Saudi Arabia for showing “remarkable restraint” during the ongoing Middle East hostilities and stressed the need for urgent de-escalation. He made the remarks during a phone call with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, wherein the two discussed Iran’s retaliatory attacks sparked by the US-Israel military actions on February 28. A statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) about the phone call early this morning termed their conversation “warm and cordial”. “While appreciating the leadership of the Kingdom for demonstrating remarkable restraint in the current crisis, the prime minister reassured His Royal Highness that Pakistan would always stand by the Kingdom and the brotherly people of Saudi Arabia, just as they had always supported Pakistan, through thick and thin,” the PMO stated. It further said that the prime minister “reiterated Pakistan’s strong condemnation of the recent attacks on Saudi Arabia and expressed, once again, Pakistan’s complete solidarity and unequivocal support for the kingdom and its people, in these challenging times”. The prime minister called for an immediate end to hostilities and a return to normalcy so that the regional situation could be stabilised. “He called for unity and harmony in the ranks of the Ummah, which was needed more than ever before,” PMO noted. PM Shehbaz also briefed the Saudi crown prince on Pakistan’s “constructive diplomatic outreach to all parties urging de-escalation and resolution of differences through dialogue and diplomacy”. “The crown prince deeply appreciated Pakistan’s peace efforts. Both leaders agreed to maintain their close coordination between the two countries, at all levels,” the PMO said. The premier conveyed his heartfelt Eidul Fitr greetings to the crown prince, to the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, His Majesty King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, and to the brotherly people of Saudi Arabia. These sentiments were “most graciously reciprocated by” the crown prince, the PMO statement added. PM Shehbaz also posted on social media platform X about their conversation. Reiterating the details, he said: “Appreciating the Kingdom’s restraint, I stressed the urgent need for de-escalation, an end to hostilities, and unity in the ranks of the Ummah.” He further said, “We agreed to remain in close coordination.” Gulf countries — including Saudi Arabia — are facing Iranian attacks, which Tehran says are aimed at US and Israeli sites in response to the latter’s deadly large-scale strikes. The conversation between the prime minister and the Saudi crown prince comes amid Pakistan’s intensified efforts to act as a mediator between the United States and Iran to end the ongoing war that has engulfed the Middle East. On Tuesday, a day after a proposal was floated to hold Iran-US talks in Islamabad, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif formally pitched the federal capital as a potential venue for negotiations between Iranian and US officials. The move followed reports that Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt had talked the US out of attacking Iranian energy infrastructure — a move that many fear would mark a dangerous escalation in the already-deadly conflict raging in West Asia. On March 9, PM Shehbaz held a “restricted meeting” with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, according to a statement by the PM’s spokesperson. During the meeting, the prime minister expressed Pakistan’s “full solidarity and support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in these challenging times”, and both leaders agreed to work together for regional peace and stability.
DawnMarch 25, 2026 at 07:30 AM UTCPakistan’s mediation offer reflects growing diplomatic confidence, Capitol Hill symposium told
WASHINGTON: Speakers at an hours-long symposium on Capitol Hill on Tuesday noted that Pakistan’s gesture to mediate peace between the United States and Iran, amid the recent escalation of hostilities between Washington and Tehran, reflects growing confidence in Islamabad’s diplomatic role in regional disputes. Referring to the recent US–Iran military confrontation — which included direct strikes and retaliatory actions that heightened tensions across the Gulf — participants observed that Pakistan’s outreach underscored its desire to play a stabilising role in a region already burdened by multiple conflicts. Speakers argued that Pakistan, a developing country of more than 250 million people situated in a strategically sensitive region bordering Afghanistan, Iran, India and close to the Gulf, must be viewed beyond a narrow security lens. They noted that the country has a large diaspora in the United States, a growing and educated middle class, significant natural resources, and nuclear capability — factors that make it an important regional player. They noted that geography has consistently shaped Islamabad’s strategic choices and constrained its economic potential, as developments in neighbouring states directly affect its security and growth prospects. The symposium, titled “US and Pakistan: Past, Present, and Future,” was organised by the Congressional Pakistan Caucus and held under the Chatham House Rule. The nearly four-hour session was chaired by Caucus co-chairs Tom Suozzi and Jack Bergman in collaboration with the Embassy of Pakistan. Natalie Baker, Chargé d’Affaires at the US Embassy in Pakistan, also addressed the conference and thanked members of Congress for organising the important and historic event. In a social media post, Congressman Tom Suozzi said experts were brought together “to review the history, security and economic dimensions of Pakistan–US bilateral relations and to help build a better future.” The US State Department welcomed the holding of the symposium. In a separate post, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Paul Kapur noted that positive developments in Pakistan–US ties during President Donald Trump’s tenure helped promote mutually beneficial partnerships in economic sectors, including minerals. Pakistan’s Ambassador to the United States, Rizwan Saeed Sheikh, said Pakistan’s unique geostrategic location gives it importance at both regional and global levels. He noted that Pakistan has played a frontline role in the fight against terrorism and has made significant sacrifices for regional and global peace. He added that Pakistan remains ready to continue playing a full role in promoting international peace and stability. Discussions on the history of bilateral ties noted that US–Pakistan relations have evolved in cycles — periods of close cooperation often followed by phases of mistrust or disappointment. Participants observed that engagement has frequently been shaped by third-country considerations, particularly developments involving India, Afghanistan and China, which complicated efforts to build a steady, long-term partnership. There was broad agreement that the relationship had at times become overly transactional, driven by immediate geopolitical needs rather than institutionalised cooperation. Speakers stressed that both countries would benefit from clearer expectations and a framework that goes beyond crisis-driven security coordination. Security discussions focused on Pakistan’s current threat environment. Participants noted that militant groups have become more fragmented and technologically capable, operating across borders and posing challenges not only to border regions but potentially to major urban centres. They emphasised that while military operations remain important, sustainable counter-terrorism requires stronger civilian law enforcement institutions and rule of law. Tensions between India and Pakistan were described as a continuing source of regional risk. Even with ceasefire understandings in place, participants cautioned that a major terrorist incident could trigger another crisis between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. Some warned that both sides risk focusing excessively on military preparedness rather than investing in crisis-prevention mechanisms. The discussion also examined Pakistan’s relationship with China. While military cooperation between Beijing and Islamabad remains strong, economic cooperation has produced mixed results. High expectations surrounding the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor have not always translated into consistent outcomes, and security threats to foreign personnel have created additional complications. Participants noted that Pakistan does not seek exclusive dependence on any one partner and continues to value engagement with the United States. Economic cooperation emerged as a central theme of the symposium. Participants argued that the future of US–Pakistan relations must move from aid-based interaction toward trade and investment. Pakistan was described as having significant potential in critical minerals, renewable energy, information technology and digital services. However, investors were said to remain cautious due to policy unpredictability, taxation concerns, bureaucratic hurdles and weak dispute resolution mechanisms. Participants stressed that foreign investors require regulatory stability, reliable infrastructure, prepared and bankable projects, and confidence that contracts will be enforced fairly and efficiently. Examples were cited of US interest in Pakistan’s mineral sector, with participants noting that local communities often respond positively when projects adhere to clear international standards. At the same time, they underlined that attracting sustained foreign capital would require structural reforms, reduced corruption, stronger arbitration frameworks and greater legal certainty. Between panels, the event also highlighted efforts to address bonded labour in Pakistan’s brick kiln industry. Reference was made to families trapped in generational debt bondage and to recent legislative and administrative measures aimed at reform and modernisation. Participants emphasised that cooperation between government institutions, civil society and international partners is essential to eliminate exploitative labour practices. In closing discussions, speakers said cooperation between the United States and Pakistan is not optional given the size, population and geopolitical roles of both countries. They stressed that while security cooperation remains necessary, the relationship must expand to include trade, investment, education and institutional development. Speakers concluded by identifying three recurring themes: the importance of counterterrorism cooperation and regional stability; Pakistan’s central role in regional dynamics involving China, India, Afghanistan and Iran; and the need to deepen economic engagement. Participants expressed cautious optimism that a more stable and productive partnership could emerge if both sides maintain sustained engagement, adopt realistic expectations and pursue practical reforms. There was broad agreement that similar dialogues should continue in order to strengthen a relationship described as complex, consequential and evolving.
DawnMarch 25, 2026 at 05:46 AM UTCTrump’s new gimmick
US PRESIDENT Donald Trump’s climb-down from his 48-hour ultimatum to Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz should come as no surprise. His persistent inconsistency makes such reversals unsurprising. His claims of “very strong talks” with Iran have been firmly denied by Tehran. He extended the deadline by another five days, hoping Iran would yield. However, there is no indication that the Islamic Republic — having endured more than three weeks of devastating strikes by the US in coordination with Israel — is prepared to surrender. Trump’s latest claim that the US and Iran are negotiating a “total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East” may have briefly eased international oil and gas prices. Still, it lacks plausibility given that hostilities have not ceased. Mere exchanges of messages between Tehran and Washington through a third country cannot be construed as serious negotiations. Despite the decapitation of its leadership and widespread devastation, there is no indication that Iran is prepared to capitulate — contrary to what Trump’s statement suggests. Iran has also made it clear that it will not enter into negotiations unless the US administration agrees to a complete ceasefire. Trump’s claim about negotiations is viewed as an attempt to cover up US preparations for a possible ground operation. While Trump announced a postponement of his deadline, more American troops were being deployed in the region. Israel continued to extend its war into Lebanon. There has certainly been an effort by some regional countries, including Pakistan, to push for peace talks. However, no breakthrough appears likely, given the wide gap in negotiating positions between Tehran and Washington. There cannot be any meaningful talks under the shadow of war. Backchannel efforts cannot be interpreted as formal talks. While Iran has acknowledged the “regional initiative” aimed at reducing tension, there is no concrete framework of structured talks as yet. The five-day extension of the deadline is not a move towards de-escalation. There cannot be any meaningful talks under the shadow of war. While Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has tweeted that Islamabad stands ready to serve as a host for talks, subject to American and Iranian acceptance, Pakistan’s role as messenger should not be overstretched. A number of foreign reports had suggested Islamabad as a potential venue for peace talks and were widely amplified on social media at home. Western media reports about the US president calling Pakistan’s army chief are indeed significant. However, should this be construed as Islamabad — which has good relations with both Tehran and Washington — taking centre stage in efforts to resolve such a complex conflict? While Pakistan maintains good relations with both the US and Iran, it is questionable whether its efforts can achieve a breakthrough. Trump’s latest suggestion — that the US and Iran could jointly control the Strait of Hormuz — is little more than a figment of his imagination. Despite the massive use of air power over the past three weeks, the US has failed to compel Iran to reopen the critical waterway that accounts for more than 20 per cent of global oil supplies, pushing the world towards one of the worst economic catastrophes in decades — potentially surpassing the combined impact of the oil crises of 1973 and 1979. This unfolding crisis partly explains Trump’s decision to back down from his ultimatum. A prolonged war would not only carry long-term economic and geopolitical consequences for America’s allies but also for the country itself. Now in its fourth week, the conflict has so far failed to achieve any of Trump’s ever-changing objectives. His aspiration for regime change has not materialised despite a relentless decapitation campaign targeting Iran’s political and military leadership. If anything, the war appears to have further united the country. Notwithstanding Trump’s claims of destroying Iran’s military capability, Iran has continued to strike Israel and US military bases in the Gulf countries. Last week’s strike near Israel’s key nuclear facility at Dimona — reportedly evading sophisticated air defence systems — has shaken the country. The attack has been described as one of the most dramatic escalations in the US-Israel war on Iran. It suggests that while Iran’s military capability may have been degraded, it has certainly not been obliterated, as claimed by Trump. Iran’s low-cost drones and missiles continue to test America’s regional allies, which are bearing much of the burden of the conflict. Even the petrodollar-rich Gulf countries are feeling the financial strain of the war. Israel’s strike on Iran’s main gas facility and the US bombing of Kharg Island, the country’s largest oil export terminal, have expanded the conflict to economic targets. In retaliation, Iran has struck energy installations across the region, pushing some Gulf economies back by years. Trump’s threat to destroy Iran’s major power plants drew a strong warning of retaliation, with Tehran signalling it would target similar installations in the Gulf countries. An Iranian spokesman warned of “serious consequences” for any attacks on vital infrastructure, emphasising that such actions would invite a “decisive and immediate response”. This potential for catastrophic escalation appears to be one reason behind Trump’s decision to extend his deadline. Iranian officials have interpreted the move as a sign that he is yielding to the threat of retaliation. Trump’s failure to garner support from America’s Western allies for what many view as an ill-conceived war has further compounded his frustration. Nato countries reportedly declined Washington’s request to deploy warships to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, unwilling to be drawn into what they see as a war of choice — even though they are among those most affected by the disruption of a major global oil supply route. It is one of the rare moments in recent decades when the US appears isolated in a major conflict. A long-fractured, West-dominated world order now appears increasingly untenable in the wake of the US-Israel war on Iran. What is emerging instead is a more chaotic global landscape. The US has failed to achieve any of its objectives or secure a decisive outcome in this unwinnable war. Trump’s latest claims about peace talks with Iran are seen as yet another rhetorical manoeuvre rather than a concrete diplomatic breakthrough. The writer is an author and journalist. zhussain100@yahoo.com X: @hidhussain Published in Dawn, March 25th, 2026
DawnMarch 25, 2026 at 04:58 AM UTC