Can Pakistan Bring The US And Iran Back To The Negotiation Table?

Pakistan’s effort to keep the United States and Iran on a diplomatic path is facing a major test, with fresh military strikes and accusations of violations threatening the ceasefire framework Islamabad helped build.

The June 17 memorandum of understanding (MoU), signed by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif alongside Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and US President Donald Trump, was meant to extend the ceasefire and create a route towards longer-term negotiations. But analysts say Pakistan’s ability to influence the outcome remains limited as Washington and Tehran return to confrontation.

The renewed conflict has raised a difficult question for Pakistan and other mediators, including Qatar and Oman: can diplomacy restore talks when both sides increasingly view military pressure as a way to strengthen their position?

Islamabad’s mediation comes under pressure

Pakistan’s diplomatic push began after the war started on February 28. Islamabad hosted talks in April, marking the first time in four decades that US and Iranian officials had sat together for discussions.

Pakistan’s army chief and interior minister travelled to Tehran several times during the process. In late March, Islamabad also helped secure a Chinese-backed peace framework alongside its own diplomatic efforts.

The effort reached a high point on June 17, when Sharif signed the MoU between Washington and Tehran. Standing in front of a wooden panelled bookshelf, the Pakistani prime minister held up the document for cameras after signing it, highlighting an agreement that was expected to extend the ceasefire and open a path for further engagement.

The agreement was later discussed at the Burgenstock summit in Switzerland. But within weeks, the understanding began to fall apart.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued two statements in recent days expressing “deep concern” over renewed US-Iran hostilities. On Monday morning, the US launched another round of attacks on Iran, which responded with missile and drone strikes against multiple Gulf and Arab countries it accused of hosting American military bases.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said mediators, including Pakistan, Qatar and Oman, remained involved and were continuing efforts to revive dialogue. At the same time, he warned that Iran would continue responding to what it described as US non-compliance with the MoU.

Pakistan has continued diplomatic outreach despite the fighting. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar spoke by phone with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Sunday, saying dialogue and diplomacy remained “the only viable path” to resolving the crisis.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also spoke with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian on Friday, warning that “hard-earned” peace gains were at risk. Dar separately held talks with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud on Saturday.

A mediator without the power to enforce

The latest fighting marks at least the third breakdown of the April 8 ceasefire.

After the first round of Islamabad talks broke down, the US imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ships in the Strait of Hormuz. The US and Iran then attacked ships in the days that followed.

After the June 17 MoU was signed, Iran attacked several ships it claimed had passed through the Strait of Hormuz without permission, triggering another confrontation with Washington.

The Iranian tanker strikes last week pushed tensions further. US attacks since then have hit at least 10 provinces in Iran, killing a soldier, several fishermen in Hormozgan province and a firefighter in Sistan and Baluchestan, according to Iranian authorities.

A railway bridge on a trade corridor linking Iran with Central Asia and China was also struck, along with a bridge near Mashhad used by mourners travelling to the funeral of former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The conflict has also drawn Qatar more directly into the crisis. Iranian missiles and drones struck the Gulf state on Sunday, with debris from interceptions injuring three people, including a child, according to Qatar’s Ministry of Interior.

Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has accused Washington of violating “nearly all parts” of the June agreement within 25 days of its signing, citing attacks on transport infrastructure and fishing vessels.

Baghaei said on Monday that Iran had “acted in good faith” throughout the process, but added that “each time the other party has failed to meet its obligations, we did not uphold ours, and we will continue to act in this manner.”

Javad Heiran-Nia, director of the Persian Gulf Studies Group at the Center for Scientific Research and Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, told Al Jazeera that the MoU was never designed to settle the deeper dispute between Iran and the United States.

“The MoU deferred key and substantive issues to future negotiations and functioned primarily as a tactical instrument to halt hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping,” he said.

Heiran-Nia said Iran viewed control of the waterway as “a strategic asset; not merely a coercive lever, but a deterrent tool”, and appeared “prepared to accept the risk of war to preserve this strategic advantage”.

Mediators, he said, lacked the tools to resolve the dispute unless military developments changed the balance of power between Iran and the United States.

Pakistan, Qatar and Oman face narrowing options

Pakistan’s room for manoeuvre has become more limited as both Washington and Tehran have hardened their positions over the Strait of Hormuz, according to Dania Thafer, executive director of the Gulf International Forum in Doha.

“Pakistan is in a situation where it is highly dependent on both parties, as it always has been, but right now, Iran is bent on establishing its control over the Strait of Hormuz,” she told Al Jazeera.

Thafer said Pakistan had little ability to reduce tensions while both sides remained in “an escalatory phase”.

“Once they feel they have reached a point where the balance tips in favour of one side or the other, then perhaps they will return to the negotiating table,” she added.

Qamar Cheema, head of the Islamabad-based Sanober Institute, argued that Pakistan still has diplomatic influence.

He pointed to US Vice President JD Vance’s recent remarks crediting Pakistani Field Marshal Asim Munir’s role in the process as evidence that Islamabad’s military-diplomatic channel carries weight in Washington.

“Pakistan enjoys trust, and that’s why both sides pick up the phone and call Pakistani leadership any time to remove a stumbling block,” Cheema told Al Jazeera.

Cheema argued that Pakistan’s ability to maintain communication with both sides was itself an important part of its mediation role.

However, Heiran-Nia said the Strait of Hormuz issue was not always within Pakistan’s mediation role.

“Iran had previously removed the Strait of Hormuz issue from Pakistan’s mediation agenda, as the matter was essentially bilateral between Tehran and Muscat,” he said.

Tehran, he explained, did not want the issue placed inside a broader negotiation package under Pakistani mediation because that would have given Washington greater room for political manoeuvre.

Direct Iran-Oman talks followed, but Heiran-Nia said US military pressure and economic sanctions threats against Oman had placed Muscat under considerable strain and prevented meaningful progress.

He also warned that the attacks on Qatar could affect Doha’s role as a mediator, although it did not appear ready to withdraw.

“Qatar does not currently appear inclined to withdraw,” he said, adding that “Iran should not assume that Doha’s patience is limitless.”

Mustafa Hyder Sayed, executive director of the Pakistan-China Institute in Islamabad, said Gulf states were caught between maintaining ties with Iran and allowing US military access.

“The GCC countries are caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. They want a functional relationship with Iran while not openly declining the use of their bases and territory by the United States, because they understand they cannot choose their neighbours,” he told Al Jazeera.

Hormuz remains the dispute at the centre

At the centre of the dispute remains the same unresolved question: who controls passage through the Strait of Hormuz and under what conditions.

Iran maintains that the MoU gave it authority over transit through the waterway. The United States rejects that interpretation.

On Monday, Trump announced that Washington was reinstating a naval blockade of Iranian ships and would impose a 20 percent tariff on other ships attempting to pass through the strait.

Before the latest escalation, negotiators had explored a possible compromise.

Heiran-Nia said the two sides discussed a formula under which commercial vessels would coordinate passage with Iran and a designated Arab Gulf state, allowing “both parties [to] claim a degree of victory”.

The talks stalled before reaching a conclusion after they were interrupted by the funeral of Khamenei, who was killed on the first day of the war in joint US-Israeli air strikes.

Since then, military pressure has overtaken renewed negotiations.

“The prevailing trajectory now is the continuation of military strikes in an effort to shift the balance of power. Yet, there remains a risk that strategic calculations on either side could spiral beyond control,” Heiran-Nia said.

Thafer said neither side had formally abandoned the MoU despite the latest fighting.

“Iran is framing this current round of escalation as a violation of the MoU rather than a reason to exit it, which means there could still be light at the end of the tunnel,” she said.

She said both sides were responsible for breaches of the agreement, pointing to Iran’s attacks on shipping and Washington’s revocation of Iran’s oil sale licence and military attacks. But she added that the agreement remained formally in place.

Its future, she said, depends on which side gives ground over the Strait of Hormuz. Iran retains what Thafer described as a “snapback capability” to disrupt shipping whenever it chooses.

“It is, militarily, very difficult to fully neutralise that Iranian capability. We will have to wait and see where the leverage finally sits,” she said.

Cheema argued that Iran’s own conduct would largely determine how the crisis develops.

“Iranian authorities seem ambitious and aggressive, and are looking to take risks to project power, which makes it less likely that any agreement will reach a final conclusion. That means interventions from mediators will keep coming.”