Is Pakistan’s grey gamble sinking in the Strait?

The world’s longest game of "Will They, Won't They" just got a lot more volatile. While diplomats were busy polishing the fine print for a permanent peace, US and Iran decided to trade shots in the Strait of Hormuz instead. US forces targeted missile and drone launch sites and other military assets in Iran that they said were responsible for attacking three US warships transiting the strait. No vessels were hit, US Central Command said.

A monthlong ceasefire remains in effect, US President Donald Trump assured.

But, this latest showdown puts ‘peacemaker’ Pakistan in a tough spot, desperately trying to keep the regional door from slamming shut.


ALSO READ | A quiet Gulf player may steal Pakistan’s ‘miracle’ moment

Trump has already threatened more intense strikes if Iran refuses his terms, raising the risk of a longer war that has already killed thousands and sparked a global energy crisis.

“Just like we knocked them out again today, we’ll knock them out a lot harder, and a lot more violently, in the future, if they don’t get their Deal signed, FAST,” Trump said in a social media post. “It might not happen, but it could happen any day,” Trump told reporters later, referring to a possible agreement.

Islamabad, it must be recalled, was thrust into this “thankless” role by the Oval Office, Burzine Waghmar of the SOAS South Asia Institute, University of London, noted in an email response to ET Online.

ALSO READ | US military says it intercepted Iranian attacks on 3 Navy ships in Strait of Hormuz

Pakistan’s Army chief Asim Munir has overplayed his hand by promising Trump the moon with rare earths and cryptocurrency deals, he said. “This began with his much-vaunted private luncheon with Trump and nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize over and above not condemning Washington for the air strikes but Tehran for attacking the GCC.”

Did Pakistan fail?

In the high-stakes world of Trumpian diplomacy, being a messenger is only a good job as long as the recipient is actually opening the mail. Now, the question remains: was Islamabad ever a mediator, or just an intern out of his depth?

"Pakistan has failed as a mediator in the ongoing conflict," Prof. Aswini K. Mohapatra, formerly Dean of the School of International Studies, JNU, told ET Online in an interview. He asserts that even if Islamabad’s diplomatic efforts eventually yield a result, the victory will be short-lived. While Pakistan hopes to use this role to extract economic concessions from the Trump administration, Mohapatra describes such hopes as mere "imagination and expectation."

The struggle to play global fixer is further hampered by Pakistan's own internal baggage. Dr. Amit Singh, Associate Professor at the Special Centre for National Security Studies, said that Islamabad’s limitations stem from structural weaknesses in democratic stability, economic capacity, and social indicators.

"Additionally, long-standing allegations of supporting terrorism have affected its international credibility," Singh noted, suggesting that many nations continue to view Islamabad’s "peacemaker" tag with caution and skepticism.

Despite these hurdles, the diplomatic machinery was supposedly in high gear just days ago. A Bloomberg report on Wednesday indicated that Iran was expected to send a formal response via Pakistan within forty-eight hours. But as today's skirmishes near Hormuz prove, reality on the water is far more volatile than the memos on a desk. The clash doesn't just jeopardize the fine print it threatens to sink the very credibility Pakistan has spent months trying to keep afloat.

Beyond Pakistan’s capabilities

The US President is not prepared to compromise on the nuclear issue and has been insisting on the surrender of Tehran’s 60% enriched uranium stockpile to the United States. According to Prof. Mohapatra, these are "very tough terms" that are well beyond the Pakistani “mediators' ability or capacity to resolve.”

Iran’s leaders haven’t indicated whether they will accept the terms of the US offer, though they have shown little sign of yielding on their nuclear program or accepting a moratorium on enriching uranium — both top US demands.

The Pakistanis have been employed by Trump to strike some kind of deal that he can subsequently flaunt, saying, "Look, another feather in the cap," similar to Venezuela, as per Mohpatra.

“Now, the Iranian side, having been degraded militarily, has come around to accepting the diktat of the United States not to go nuclear. The Pakistanis have been working hard to achieve this just to please the master.”

On Thursday, a Pakistani official said, the US and Iran are close to a temporary agreement to halt the war in the Middle East. Officials in Islamabad said a very basic “interim” deal could be reached as early as this weekend and that Tehran was reviewing a US proposal.

Although, there are strong indications that Islamabad may have overestimated the extent of its influence over the confrontation, particularly after the crisis evolved from diplomatic signalling into direct military escalation near Hormuz.

Munir eyeing a ghost deal?

The Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas project, or the "Peace Pipeline," has been a geopolitical ghost since 1994. While India walked away in 2009, Islamabad remained trapped in a deal it couldn't afford to build and couldn't afford to break, facing massive penalties for its empty trenches. According to a 2013 SDPI report, the gas rates Tehran demanded were an "economic death sentence" for a country already teetering on insolvency.

Waghmar suggests General Munir is now attempting to revive this moribund project as a "mediator's discount" for his diplomatic legwork. However, the hope for a sweetheart deal is likely a fantasy. Waghmar deduces that Tehran, facing its own economic crunch, will be neither amenable nor obliging; even if it waives the default penalties, it won't offer the cheap energy Pakistan needs to keep the lights on. In this transaction, the "peacemaker" may find himself paying full price for a pipe that still leads nowhere.

Strait standoff

The war, which began when the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran, effectively shut the Hormuz, through which about a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas typically flows.

Before the clashes near Hormuz were announced, Iran said that the US had targeted two of its oil tankers in the area, according to a Press TV report citing the country’s joint military command. It also accused the US of striking civilian areas along its southern coast and on Qeshm Island “with the cooperation of some regional countries,” the report said.

The United Arab Emirates, which has borne the brunt of Iran’s retaliatory strikes on US allies in the region, said Friday morning that its air defenses were intercepting missiles and drones targeting the country.

The US “does not seek escalation but remains positioned and ready to protect American forces,” CENTCOM said.

The US “eliminated inbound threats and targeted Iranian military facilities responsible for attacking US forces including missile and drone launch sites,” according to the statement. USS Truxtun, USS Rafael Peralta, and USS Mason transited Hormuz and reached the Gulf of Oman without any US assets being struck, it said.