With some Trump support, Islamabad is bidding to outsmart Delhi diplomacy
By Tirthankar Mitra
As the war between US and Iran rages on, Pakistan has suddenly emerged as a would be mediatory. It is patting itself on its back for this “diplomatic agility”.
Actually this is more of a calculated gamble born less of strength than compulsion. In so many words, the “agility” can be traced to economic vulnerability, regional insecurity together with search for relevance in a rapidly shifting political order.
It can be stated to be the result of convergence of personalities and interests which is unusual. General Asim Munir, the face of Pakistan’s military leadership appears to enjoy a degree of personal rapport with US President Donald Trump.
But personal chemistry is not diplomacy. It may open doors but it cannot by itself end a war. One must not lose sight of the fact that Pakistan’s motives are immediate. It’s economic fragility makes it acutely sensitive to energy supply through the Strait of Hormuz.
A prolonged conflict threatens inflation, fiscal strain and domestic unrest. An already volatile western frontier with Afghanistan and an adversarial relationship with India makes prospect of a regional war existential. In this backdrop, Pakistan making sounds of mediation. It is more about damage control than peacemaking.
Meanwhile, Pakistan is trying a delicate balancing act. It is maintaining ties with Iran while currying favours with Washington. This is anything but classical non-alignment. Pakistan is trying to be indispensible to all without being trusted by any. This is risky ambiguity. Domestic opinion in Pakistan is highly sympathetic to Iran especially after escalation of .American bombings.
An impression that the Pakistani powers are tilting too much towards Washington could trigger internal backlash. On the other hand, failure to make even modest diplomatic gains would be looked upon as an attempt to punch above its weight.
United States and Iran are not conventional adversaries. They are locked in an ideological hostility which goes far beyond this conflict.
No intermediary, with limited leverage over both sides can easily bridge this divide. Pakistan at best, can transit messages, host meetings but cannot alter the fundamentals of the ongoing escalation.
This makes Pakistan’s role a mere stakeholder trying to survive outcomes but in no way shaping them. If this effort fetches even a temporary de-escalation, Pakistan will claim a big diplomatic victory.
But if it fails consequences will not be confined to reputation Miscalculations have a way of spreading in a region already on edge. And then Pakistan will have to pay the price of being too far into a conflict it cannot control. It may prove far greater than the benefits of trying to mediate it. (IPA Service)
