Iran’s sharp criticism and stalled negotiations have put Pakistan’s mediation under scrutiny, exposing gaps between Islamabad’s diplomatic claims and ground realities in the US-Iran crisis.
Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf arrives in Islamabad with a high-level delegation ahead of ceasefire talks with the United States on April 11, 2026. (Photo: Xinhua via IANS)
Pakistan’s attempt to present itself as a serious peace broker between the United States and Iran has run into a deeper credibility crisis, with an Iranian lawmaker calling the decision to discuss Tehran’s nuclear issue in Pakistan a “strategic mistake” and fresh criticism pointing to a widening trust deficit.
The remarks come at a time when Islamabad has been actively projecting itself as a central mediator in the US-Iran crisis to reclaim global relevance. But with Iran yet to confirm participation in the next round of proposed talks, and Pakistani officials publicly waiting for Tehran’s response, the situation is increasingly raising a pointed question: is Pakistan mediating the crisis, or merely overstating its role in a bid to stay geopolitically relevant?
Advertisement
Mahmoud Nabavian, a member of the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, posted a clip of his interview to SNN TV and said on X, “Putting the nuclear issue on the negotiation table in Pakistan was a strategic mistake.”
Advertisement
“In the Pakistan negotiations, we made a strategic mistake. We should not have put the nuclear issue up for negotiation,” Nabavian said, as quoted by Iran International.
“By doing so, the enemy became bolder,” he added.
According to Iran International, Nabavian said the United States had demanded that Iran’s 60 per cent enriched material be removed and blocked for 20 years, a demand Tehran did not accept.
Pakistan has sought to position itself as a neutral bridge between Washington and Tehran at a time when the ceasefire remains fragile. But the absence of confirmation from Iran has left Islamabad exposed, with its claims of diplomatic traction not translating into outcomes.
Tehran’s silence has undercut Islamabad’s claim of being a trusted channel.
The collapse of 21 hours of earlier talks in Islamabad has further added to the skepticism, with key disagreements over Iran’s nuclear programme remaining unresolved.
Criticism is no longer limited to political statements. Investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill has questioned whether Pakistan is acting as a neutral intermediary at all.
“What we are seeing is a masterclass in stalling,” Scahill said during a recent broadcast. “Pakistan presents itself as the bridge between Washington and Tehran, yet every ‘promised outcome’—from sanctions relief to maritime security—seems to evaporate the moment the US delegation departs Islamabad.”
He added, “It raises the question: is Pakistan brokering peace, or is it managing Iran’s decline on behalf of the Trump administration?”
Iranian officials have also begun voicing similar concerns. State media has flagged what it described as Pakistan’s “inconsistent behaviour”, even calling its role a “double game”, alleging that while Islamabad offers mediation publicly, it remains closely aligned with US strategic interests.
Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei told IRIB, “We entered negotiations in good faith, but the success of this process depends on the seriousness of the mediator to convey positions accurately, not to facilitate ‘excessive demands’ from the American side.”
Pakistan’s mediator role comes with structural limitations that are difficult to ignore. It has its own tensions with neighbours, including Iran and Afghanistan, while its foreign policy continues to be heavily influenced by the military establishment.
Its economic vulnerability adds another layer. Pakistan remains heavily dependent on external financial support and energy imports, with inputs indicating that more than 85 per cent of its oil needs and nearly all LNG supplies come from Gulf countries. The impact is already being felt at home. With energy supplies under strain, the government has had to cut back working days and even shut schools at times just to manage consumption.
Geography adds another layer to the urgency. Pakistan shares a long, sensitive border with Iran, which means any escalation is not a distant crisis but something that can spill over quickly. But being close to the problem does not automatically make Islamabad a credible problem-solver.
Put together, these pressures suggest Pakistan’s mediation push is not just about strategy, but also about compulsion. Hosting big-ticket talks may grab attention. But right now, the results just aren’t there. The gap between looking influential and actually delivering is hard to miss.
While Pakistan saw the Islamabad talks as a way back into global politics, it also hoped to regain some semblance of relevance. At the same time, it appeared keen to return to the US administration’s good graces and score points against India.
Now, Islamabad finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place. Its manoeuvres – taking both the US and Iran along different tracks – are being called out by sections of the Iranian leadership.
For now, Pakistan’s peace pitch appears caught between American pressure, Iranian distrust and its own need to project global relevance.
The Islamabad talks were meant to establish Pakistan as a credible diplomatic bridge. Instead, what’s emerging is a pattern of stalled outcomes, mixed signals and rising criticism, all of which are beginning to lay bare the limits of that ambition.
Advertisement
