A report highlights that a potential agreement between the US and Iran is predicted to falter, not due to flaws in diplomacy but because of inherent structural contradictions within the geopolitical framework, particularly the ongoing reliance on Pakistan as a strategic intermediary. The suggestion of Pakistan hosting or mediating US-Iran talks is deemed strategically concerning, reflecting a trend in US foreign policy that elevates Pakistan’s role beyond its historical conduct.
Najib Azad, a prominent politician and leader of the Bawar Movement in Kabul, expressed reservations about Pakistan’s strategic depth doctrine, emphasizing its historical implications. He pointed out Pakistan’s past involvement in supporting Afghan fighters during the Cold War through Operation Cyclone, which led to the establishment of militant networks with enduring regional influence.
Pakistan’s role as a frontline ally in the post-9/11 war on terror, while receiving US aid, has been marred by concerns over its counterterrorism strategies, militant safe havens, and the blurred lines between different militant groups. The complex relationship between Pakistan and the US, characterized by cooperation and contradictions, has persisted over the years and extended to conflicts in the West Asia region.
Azad underscored Pakistan’s historical reliance on controlled instability to maintain strategic importance, noting that periods of tension reinforce its position as a key player. However, the concept of Pakistan as a neutral mediator faces challenges due to its historical record, which lacks credibility, neutrality, and a consistent commitment to long-term stability, essential for effective mediation.
Allegations of Pakistan’s links to militant organizations in South Asia have raised concerns both domestically and internationally. Former Pakistani leaders have acknowledged the country’s past policies involving militant actors, shaping perceptions of Pakistan as a regional actor and its role in diplomatic processes. Engaging with Pakistan may offer short-term benefits for US policymakers but could pose long-term strategic risks in achieving lasting peace agreements.
