Nournews: The visit by Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan’s army chief, to Tehran comes as Iran-Pakistan relations continue to move toward broader and deeper cooperation. Islamabad has also sought in recent months to act as a mediator, creating a path toward ending the war between Iran and the United States and containing its regional and global consequences. However, the political and military realities today are fundamentally different from those at the outset of the initiative, and mediation cannot make meaningful progress without taking these changes into account.
Neighborhood: The Enduring Pillar of Tehran-Islamabad Ties
Iran and Pakistan are two neighboring countries that have chosen greater engagement and convergence as pillars of their foreign policies. The Islamic Republic of Iran has consistently emphasized closer ties with neighboring countries under its “neighborhood-first” approach, without setting limits on the scope of these relations. Pakistan holds a particularly important position given its long border with Iran, especially as the two countries face shared challenges, including security threats, terrorist groups and foreign interference aimed at creating instability and separatism.
Economically, Tehran and Islamabad are pursuing a $10 billion trade target, with a significant share of this cooperation expected to take place through border terminals, border markets and economic centers. Counterterrorism and sustainable security are also key areas of cooperation, pursued through defense agreements and joint military exercises. From this perspective, Asim Munir’s visit should be seen as a natural continuation of the growing convergence between Tehran and Islamabad — a process with the potential to deliver significant gains for both countries.
Mediation Will Fail Without a Change in U.S. Behavior
Pakistan has sought in recent months to mediate between Iran and the United States, with those efforts culminating in the Islamabad memorandum of understanding and its signing by the two countries’ presidents in June. Islamabad held extensive consultations with both sides, as well as regional and extra-regional actors. But U.S. maximalist demands, Trump’s failed prescriptions, attempts to break Iran’s resolve through military strikes, efforts to provoke regional countries, violations of commitments and Washington’s insistence on playing by the Israeli regime’s rules have effectively obstructed the path to an understanding.
Under these circumstances, mediators need to incorporate one fundamental principle into their calculations: Iran has remained committed to the terms of the understanding, and its responses have been reactions to U.S. violations and aggression. Mediation therefore only makes sense if, rather than demanding that Iran retreat from its legitimate rights, it focuses on bringing about a tangible change in U.S. behavior.
It is impossible to claim the role of mediator while remaining silent in the face of aggression, violations of commitments and Washington’s destabilizing policies, and at the same time asking Iran simply to exercise restraint. A genuine mediator must recognize the balance of responsibility rather than shift pressure from the aggressor onto the victim.
Economic Warfare: A New Test for Mediators
The expansion of the Iran-U.S. confrontation into the economic arena is another reality that mediators need to examine more closely. Having failed to impose its demands on Iran through military and diplomatic means, the United States has once again turned to intensified economic pressure, sanctions and blockade. Although such policies have been in place for decades, their implications cannot be overlooked under current circumstances.
A naval blockade and tighter sanctions are incompatible with the spirit of the Islamabad understanding, as well as with the principles of international law and humanitarian norms. The natural expectation, therefore, is that mediators should work to lift the blockade and counter U.S. sanctions policies rather than allow economic pressure to become a tool for extracting concessions from Iran.
Nor should remarks by some Iranian officials about economic difficulties, or the central bank governor’s statement that no foreign-exchange relief followed the Islamabad understanding, be interpreted as signs of weakness or economic failure. Openly acknowledging difficulties and calling for greater public unity is a sign of transparency and realistic crisis management, not an indication of collapse. Iran’s economic resilience over the past decades, including through periods of war and severe sanctions, is clear evidence of this reality.
At the same time, economic assessments should not be one-sided. Mediators should also factor in the state of the U.S. economy, its heavy debt burden, rising energy costs and mounting domestic pressures. Contrary to the assumptions of the architects of maximum pressure, economic pressure can have a boomerang effect, turning the cost of pressuring Iran into a burden for the U.S. economy itself.
The Strait of Hormuz Will Not Return to the Past
Whether Asim Munir’s visit carries a message of renewed diplomacy or serves as a prelude to another round of developments, one reality remains unchanged: the region and the Strait of Hormuz will not return to the conditions that existed before the war.
Iran continues to emphasize diplomacy, but it does not consider its security and sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz negotiable. At the same time, it has shifted its approach from “strategic patience” to “punishing the aggressor and taking preemptive action in the face of threats.” Mediators must therefore operate based on the region’s new realities and avoid demands such as restoring the Strait of Hormuz to its pre-war status.
Iran has kept the diplomatic channel open, while also upgrading its defense capabilities and emphasizing its missile, drone and air-defense readiness. Tehran’s message is clear: diplomacy has meaning only when backed by deterrence, and if the naval blockade continues, it will be broken using all available capabilities.
From this perspective, the real mission of mediators is not to force Iran into retreat, but to compel the United States to reverse course on aggression, broken commitments and maximum pressure. Only a change in Washington’s behavior can pave the way for mediation that is genuine, balanced and capable of producing results.
Nournews