Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar told the United Nations Security Council on Tuesday that negotiations between the United States and Iran “must succeed” in the interest of global and regional peace, warning that another prolonged conflict in the Middle East would be detrimental to all parties involved. Dar, who was in New York ahead of the UNSC debate, emphasized the need for restraint and diplomatic resolution in a region already strained by multiple ongoing conflicts.
Dar’s remarks come at a critical juncture in US-Iran relations, which have deteriorated significantly since the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018. Tensions have escalated through repeated incidents, proxy conflicts, and military posturing. Pakistan, as a South Asian nation with strategic interests across the Middle East and historical ties to both Sunni and Shia populations, has historically positioned itself as a voice advocating for regional de-escalation and dialogue-based solutions.
The deputy prime minister’s intervention at the Security Council reflects Pakistan’s broader geopolitical calculation: instability in the Middle East directly impacts South Asia through multiple channels—refugee flows, arms trafficking, sectarian spillover effects, and disruption of crucial trade routes including the Strait of Hormuz. Pakistan, which sits at the intersection of Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East, is acutely vulnerable to regional conflagration. Any military escalation between the US and Iran could trigger cascading effects from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf, destabilizing Pakistan’s already fragile security environment.
“Another prolonged conflict would serve no one,” Dar stated at the Security Council, according to diplomatic sources. His message underscored a critical reality: while some regional actors may benefit tactically from US-Iran tensions, the broader Middle Eastern ecosystem and interconnected global order would suffer substantial costs. Pakistan’s public advocacy for US-Iran dialogue also signals Islamabad’s desire to maintain balanced relationships with both Washington and Tehran—a delicate diplomatic tightrope that Pakistani policymakers have walked for decades.
The timing of Dar’s intervention is significant. Pakistan has recently undergone a leadership transition following elections and faces domestic economic challenges requiring stable external conditions. The country has also sought to reset its relationship with the United States following years of friction over Afghanistan policy and strategic priorities. By positioning Pakistan as a voice for restraint and dialogue at the highest international forum, Dar simultaneously addresses domestic political considerations, maintains strategic ambiguity toward both superpowers, and positions Islamabad as a stabilizing force rather than a destabilizing variable.
Regional stakeholders have diverged sharply on US-Iran tensions. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have historically aligned with Washington in countering Iranian regional influence, while Iraq, Oman, and Kuwait have advocated for dialogue. Pakistan’s public endorsement of US-Iran negotiations places it closer to the diplomatic consensus favored by moderate regional voices, rather than alignment with either Washington’s maximalist position or Tehran’s defensive posture. This positioning reflects Pakistan’s economic interests—stable energy supplies from the Middle East, functioning trade corridors, and reduced military expenditure on border security—all of which depend on relative regional calm.
The broader implications extend beyond immediate Middle Eastern dynamics. As China consolidates its Belt and Road Initiative investments across Central Asia and South Asia, regional instability threatens crucial infrastructure projects. Pakistan, as a key transit route for these initiatives and a recipient of Chinese investment, has economic incentives to advocate for peace. Additionally, Pakistani military resources currently devoted to counter-terrorism operations and border management cannot be easily redirected to address Middle Eastern contingencies, making strategic prevention of conflict far preferable to reactive crisis management.
Looking ahead, the critical variable remains whether diplomatic channels between Washington and Tehran can operationalize meaningful negotiations. Pakistan’s public advocacy, while significant symbolically, carries limited enforcement capacity. However, Islamabad’s willingness to voice support for dialogue at the UN suggests Pakistan will likely continue serving as an informal diplomatic intermediary, leveraging its relationships with both sides. Observer analysts expect Pakistan to intensify quiet diplomacy behind closed doors, potentially hosting shuttle diplomacy or facilitating back-channel communications. The success of any US-Iran settlement will substantially determine whether South Asia enters a period of relative stability or faces cascading security complications extending from energy security to terrorism recruitment and sectarian violence.
