Pakistan’s portrayal of itself as a neutral peacemaker in the ongoing US-Iran conflict is facing growing scrutiny after a report suggested that the push for a ceasefire largely originated from the White House, not Islamabad.
According to a report by the Financial Times, the administration of Donald Trump had been actively pressuring Pakistan for weeks to use its diplomatic channels to persuade Iran to agree to a temporary halt in hostilities, particularly tied to reopening the strategically critical Strait of Hormuz.
`
The report raises questions about Pakistan’s independence in the negotiations, suggesting it acted more as a conduit for US interests rather than an impartial intermediary.
Backchannel Diplomacy and US Strategic Interests
Sources cited in the report indicated that Washington viewed Pakistan as a useful intermediary due to its status as a Muslim-majority neighbour with established ties to Tehran. The objective was to make a US-backed ceasefire proposal more acceptable to Iranian leadership.
Pakistan’s military leadership, particularly Asim Munir, played a central role in these backchannel efforts. The outreach intensified as Trump’s deadline for potential military escalation approached, with Pakistani officials engaging in rapid consultations with senior US figures, including Vice President JD Vance and envoy Steve Witkoff.
Subsequently, Pakistan relayed the ceasefire proposal to Abbas Araghchi, culminating in a two-week truce agreement involving the United States, Iran, and Israel.
Further complicating Islamabad’s narrative, reports suggest that the White House had prior visibility of Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s public announcement regarding the ceasefire. A draft version of Sharif’s message, reportedly cleared by US officials, was mistakenly posted with editorial markings still visible, triggering embarrassment and raising questions about the authenticity of Pakistan’s claim to independent mediation.
Behind the scenes, Pakistan is said to have shared a US-drafted 15-point framework with Iran, while Tehran responded with its own proposals, including five- and ten-point plans. Although both sides remained far apart initially, negotiations gradually moved toward a compromise centred on limiting uranium stockpiles and reopening maritime routes.
IRGC Resistance Complicates Tehran’s Position
Despite tentative agreement from Iran’s political leadership, internal divisions within the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps posed a significant hurdle. The IRGC, which wields considerable military and political influence, was reportedly split over whether to accept a ceasefire or continue the confrontation.
Some factions within the IRGC opposed reopening the Strait of Hormuz and resuming talks with Washington, viewing it as a strategic concession after weeks of conflict.
The ceasefire push came amid heightened tensions, with Trump warning of devastating consequences if Iran failed to comply with US demands. However, the report suggests that rising global oil prices and the resilience of Iran’s regime played a key role in Washington’s urgency to secure a pause.
The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 20% of global energy supplies pass, had become a focal point of the crisis. Disruptions in the waterway triggered sharp increases in fuel prices worldwide, intensifying economic and political pressure on the US administration.
Ceasefire Confusion and Lebanon Fallout
The fragile truce quickly ran into complications over its scope, particularly regarding whether it applied to Lebanon. While Pakistan publicly stated that the ceasefire extended “everywhere,” including Lebanon, both the US and Israel rejected that interpretation.
Benjamin Netanyahu maintained that operations in Lebanon were not covered by the agreement, and Israeli forces soon launched a major wave of airstrikes in the region. The escalation resulted in significant casualties, further straining the already fragile ceasefire.
US Vice President JD Vance later suggested that the discrepancy may have stemmed from a “misunderstanding,” indicating that Iranian negotiators may have believed Lebanon was included in the deal when it was not.
In response to what it described as violations of the agreement, Iran signalled a hardening stance. Senior Iranian leaders criticised the US and Israel, arguing that continued military actions undermined the credibility of the ceasefire framework.
Tehran also briefly reopened the Strait of Hormuz following the truce but later moved to restrict traffic again, highlighting the fragile and reversible nature of the arrangement.
Pakistan’s Credibility at Stake
The unfolding developments have placed Pakistan at the centre of diplomatic controversy. Analysts suggest that inconsistencies in communication and interpretation of the ceasefire terms may have undermined Islamabad’s credibility as a mediator.
Critics argue that the gap between what different parties believed they had agreed to reflects shortcomings in Pakistan’s handling of the negotiations. As a result, Islamabad now faces increasing pressure to clarify its role and explain how such critical misunderstandings emerged.
