On June 17, the United States and Iran electronically signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) aimed at permanently ending the war between the two countries and on other fronts, including Lebanon and, by extension, Israel. The document was signed by US President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, as well as Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif.
Sharif called the deal the “Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding,” which he said he “approved” as a “mediator.”
However, hours after the digital signing of this agreement, unrest erupted when talks scheduled to take place on Friday in Switzerland between the United States and Iran to implement the peace agreement were abruptly canceled. Although such disruptions are inevitable and, indeed, predictable in a complex peace process, they are a stark reminder that true stability is still far away and that immense challenges lie ahead.
The cancellation of the talks came after Israel accused Hezbollah of killing four Israeli soldiers. A wave of Israeli airstrikes on southern Lebanon followed, killing at least 18 people.
Technical negotiations were scheduled to begin in the Swiss village of Obbürgen just two days after the signing of the memorandum of understanding. The document aims to open a crucial 60-day window to negotiate a permanent deal on Iran’s nuclear program and restore oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
The fragility of the process was highlighted by the White House, which said it hoped to “start technical negotiations as soon as possible” while announcing that Vice President JD Vance, who is leading the negotiations on behalf of the Trump administration, would no longer travel to Switzerland.
“The logistics of these negotiations have never been simple or predictable. At this time, the vice president is not leaving tonight,” a White House spokesperson noted Thursday evening.
Nonetheless, the signing of the MoU marks the culmination of remarkable efforts by Pakistan and other countries, including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, to secure a deal between Iran and the United States after more than three months of war. Pakistan’s important role in maintaining an open dialogue between Iran and the United States has been widely recognized. Pakistan’s policymakers have every reason to welcome this unprecedented achievement.
Although the implementation negotiations are at an early and very volatile stage, Pakistan hopes that these obstacles can eventually be overcome. If the peace process can be sustained, the fundamental question for Islamabad remains: what does a successful long-term deal mean for Pakistan’s future, its development, and its ties with Iran and the United States?
As the war in West Asia draws to a close, Iran appears strategically well placed.
The MoU strengthens Iran’s position in several key ways. The United States and its regional partners have pledged to create a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran. Ballistic missiles have been removed from central discussions. It allows Iran to mix enriched uranium at sites in Iran under the supervision of the IAEA. He allows Iran to freely sell its oil, lifts all kinds of sanctions and ends the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon.
The United States and Israel carried out a series of highly deadly attacks on Iran, but the latter not only absorbed these attacks, but also survived. The government in Tehran has managed to keep cities and towns functioning. Despite the elimination of senior leaders and officials of key institutions, Iran’s governance structure remains intact. Iran also retained control of the Strait of Hormuz and forced the United States to opt for a settlement on terms unacceptable to Washington just weeks ago.
At the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran, Trump declared that any deal with Iran must result in the country’s “unconditional surrender”, thereby setting maximalist war goals for the United States. “After that, and after the selection of a GREAT AND ACCEPTABLE leader or leaders, we, and many of our wonderful and very courageous allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better and stronger than ever,” the US president wrote on his Truth Social platform.
Iran’s absorption of U.S. and Israeli bombardment and emergence with a state structure intact and under control is no small victory, especially as its economy is reeling from years of U.S. sanctions.
Analysts pointed out that the United States “entered the war triumphant and will likely leave very weakened.” “President Trump lost,” Jonathan Lemire wrote in The Atlantic.
“The United States finds itself weaker – diminished militarily, strategically, economically and perhaps morally,” Lemire argued, emphasizing that the war achieved “none of the goals Trump initially named.” Instead, “it only empowered hard-liners in Tehran and arguably emboldened them to one day seek nuclear weapons.”
Although these developments will have a considerable impact on all countries in West Asia, their effects on Pakistan, which played the role of key mediator, will be significant.
Although the peace process is in its early stages and challenges are likely in the coming months, Pakistan is widely expected to see an influx of investment, trade and dollars. Pakistanis hope that the long-delayed Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline will finally be completed, providing much-needed energy aid.
Besides, people also hope that Iran, now a reliable ally with an economy open to the world, will boost Pakistan’s economic prospects. It is hoped that Pakistan will now be able to get discounted oil from Gulf countries after its huge contribution to regional stability, alongside the influx of new investments as Islamabad seeks to capitalize on its enhanced global stature.
Moreover, Pakistanis expect that Islamabad’s role in helping the United States exit the war to save face will lead to better bilateral relations.
But the United States and Pakistan have a long history of strong military cooperation, followed by periods of neglect toward Pakistan. For example, the United States provided weapons and other logistical support to the Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s. But once the Soviets left, the United States no longer saw any use for Pakistan and even imposed sanctions on it.
People hope that this story of American neglect towards Pakistan after getting its aid will not be repeated.
The least Pakistanis expect from the United States, after helping them out of war, is that it will now allow Pakistani companies to engage in Iran’s oil and gas sector, potentially benefiting the public directly. However, this optimism is often tempered by past experiences of transactional alliances that left Islamabad bearing the costs long after Washington left.
This raises the question of whether this time the rewards will match the risks taken by the country in this role of mediator between the United States and Iran.
After the war, Pakistan undoubtedly became a major player in West Asia. It can be argued that the country has apparently benefited from playing a Middle Eastern role or identity alongside that of traditional South Asia. While immediate security concerns over India and Afghanistan anchor Pakistan to its South Asian identity, its expanded footprint in West Asia has generated immense geopolitical dividends and strengthened its global standing and diplomatic influence.
This could not have happened solely because of its South Asian identity, where it is often linked to crises with India or Afghanistan and rarely attracts the same global attention that it achieved through mediation of that crisis in West Asia. By positioning itself as a mediator, Pakistan has increased its visibility beyond its immediate neighborhood, which could offer it new avenues of influence over energy policy, Gulf security, and the broader dynamics of the Muslim world.
The challenge for Pakistan, however, is to put its house in order. Pakistan faces several internal adjustments regarding the state of governance and the economy that may need to be resolved before it can fully benefit from its growing global profile.
Political commentator Khurram Hussain noted in an article in Dawn that after the war, “may Tehran choose to remember us” [Pakistan] kindly, and Washington’s decision to reward us generously are matters beyond our control.
“These are other people’s decisions, taken in other people’s capitals, for their own reasons,” he said. “What is within our control is the only thing that has ever mattered, and it is the only thing that we keep putting off,” he said, emphasizing the need for domestic reforms.
Indeed, reforms are urgently needed in key sectors such as taxation, energy policy, anti-corruption measures, transparency and institutional strengthening for Pakistan to translate its new geopolitical profile into tangible public gains and sustainable development.
In Pakistan’s history, the country’s fortunes have often oscillated between what FS Aijazuddin expressed in an article in Dawn: “spectacular successes and unforgettable failures.” This essentially means that every time Pakistan has achieved something remarkable geopolitically, it has been let down by domestic complications.
While the diplomatic path is in its infancy and remains vulnerable to failure, Pakistanis remain hopeful that this time will be different and that the true benefits of their historic mediating role will ultimately reach the people.