Qamar Bashir
At a moment when the world stood dangerously close to a catastrophic regional war capable of dragging humanity toward economic collapse and even nuclear confrontation, Pakistan accomplished something that few nations in modern history have ever achieved. Through persistence, strategic wisdom, diplomatic resilience, and calculated engagement with opposing powers simultaneously, Pakistan helped prevent the Middle East from falling into total destruction and the world economy from sliding into chaos.
What military alliances, aircraft carriers, sanctions, missile strikes, assassinations, cyber warfare, and diplomatic threats failed to accomplish was ultimately challenged through dialogue, persuasion, trust-building, and geopolitical balance.
Pakistan emerged not as a military conqueror, but as a stabilizing force capable of influencing some of the world’s most dangerous rivalries at a critical historical moment.
The war began with overwhelming momentum in favor of the United States and Israel. Under what Washington called “Operation Epic Fury,” Iran faced unprecedented military, financial, and geopolitical pressure. Israel’s strategic planners believed they were approaching the realization of a long-term objective: permanently weakening Iran, dismantling its missile and drone capability, reducing its regional influence, and reshaping the Middle East in Israel’s favor.
At the beginning of the conflict, nearly every major analyst believed Israel would emerge as the biggest strategic winner.
Iran was isolated, Gulf states were anxious, energy markets were panicking, and the Strait of Hormuz — through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s energy supplies transit — became the focal point of global fear.
Oil prices surged, shipping insurance costs exploded, inflation intensified worldwide, and stock markets across continents became unstable. Governments feared a global recession deeper than the financial crisis of 2008.
My own analysis during the early phase of the conflict was that everybody was losing, but only Israel was winning.
Yet history often changes because of one unexpected factor — strategic wisdom exercised at the right moment. Pakistan emerged as that factor.
Pakistan understood something many world powers failed to fully appreciate. This conflict was not merely about Iran’s nuclear ambitions or Israel’s security concerns. It was about the future geopolitical architecture of the Middle East, control of global energy routes, strategic domination, and the possibility of dragging the world toward a wider confrontation involving nuclear-capable states.
The danger was real. The United States possesses enormous nuclear arsenals. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear capability. Iran was being accused of moving closer to nuclear threshold status. If the war had continued to escalate uncontrollably, the possibility of mutually assured destruction could no longer have been dismissed as theoretical.
Pakistan recognized that danger earlier than many others. In that atmosphere, Pakistan chose diplomacy over silence.
Field Marshal Asim Munir’s statement became symbolic of Pakistan’s commitment when he reportedly declared with conviction that Pakistan would not allow Iran to fall. At the time, many dismissed the statement as political rhetoric.
Yet Pakistan gradually transformed those words into strategic action. Quietly, carefully, and persistently, Islamabad built trust simultaneously with Tehran, Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Ankara, Riyadh, Doha, and other key capitals, effectively bypassing Israel, reducing it to inconsequential in the mediation process and frustrating all its objectives of starting the war.
Despite repeated attempts by influential Israeli circles and hardline lobbies in Washington to sideline Pakistan from the mediation process, Islamabad remained central because all parties eventually recognized one reality: Pakistan possessed credibility with opposing camps simultaneously.
Iran trusted Pakistan’s intentions. Gulf countries trusted Pakistan’s balance. China and Russia trusted Pakistan’s strategic judgment. Even Washington eventually realized Pakistan had become indispensable in preventing total escalation.
The emerging 60-day framework agreement reflects that diplomatic achievement. Instead of discussions centered exclusively on dismantling Iran, the negotiations shifted toward reopening the Strait of Hormuz, reducing naval confrontation, ending hostilities across multiple fronts including Lebanon, and establishing timelines for broader future understandings.
This represented a dramatic reversal of battlefield realities.
At the beginning of the war, Iran reportedly faced enormous pressure to surrender key elements of its uranium enrichment capability, missile program, drone infrastructure, and regional strategic influence. Israeli strategic thinking envisioned a transformed Middle East where Iran’s long-term deterrence capability would be permanently dismantled.
Discussions even emerged regarding alternative regional energy corridors bypassing the Strait of Hormuz through routes linked to Israeli-controlled infrastructure and the Red Sea. The dream of “Greater Israel” appeared increasingly visible through expanding buffer zones in Gaza, southern Lebanon, Syria, and potentially beyond.
Today, much of that strategic vision lies shattered.
Instead of negotiating surrender, Iran is negotiating from resilience. The focus has shifted away from total dismantlement toward maritime management, phased arrangements, timelines, and future diplomatic understandings.
Iran emerged bloodied but strategically unbroken. Lebanon was spared the scale of destruction inflicted upon Gaza. A wider regional war was paused. Most importantly, the world economy was protected from what could have become the largest energy and financial collapse in modern history.
The economic implications of this diplomatic intervention are staggering.
Had the Strait of Hormuz remained blocked for a prolonged period, global oil prices could have reached catastrophic levels. Energy-importing countries across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America would have suffered devastating inflationary shocks.
Food prices, electricity costs, transportation expenses, fertilizer production, and industrial manufacturing costs would all have surged simultaneously. Hundreds of millions of vulnerable people — potentially more than a billion globally — could have been pushed below the poverty line.
At the same time, Gulf desalination plants, ports, oil facilities, refineries, shipping infrastructure, and industrial zones worth trillions of dollars stood exposed to destruction. The war was already costing the United States tens of billions of dollars while shaking global financial confidence.
Pakistan’s diplomacy helped prevent that nightmare.
This explains the visible anger and panic among hardline supporters of the war in Washington and Israel. Republican figures such as Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Roger Wicker, Tom Cotton, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton openly criticized the emerging framework because they believed the war should continue until Iran was strategically crushed.
Lindsey Graham described the arrangement as a “nightmare for Israel.” Ted Cruz warned that Iran could emerge stronger. Roger Wicker argued that everything achieved through “Operation Epic Fury” could become meaningless. Mike Pompeo compared the emerging framework to what he considered the failures of the Obama-era nuclear agreement.
Their outrage itself reflects the scale of Pakistan’s diplomatic success.
For decades, Pakistan was often portrayed internationally through the narrow lenses of instability, extremism, economic weakness, or political crisis. Yet this conflict revealed another Pakistan — a nuclear-armed middle power capable of balancing global contradictions and preventing a catastrophic war involving some of the world’s most dangerous rivalries.
Pakistan demonstrated that strategic intelligence, diplomatic patience, resilience, and credibility can sometimes achieve what overwhelming military power cannot.
At the same time, Israel’s global image has suffered unprecedented damage. The destruction in Gaza, the deaths of thousands of civilians and children, devastation in Lebanon, accusations of ethnic cleansing, and growing criticism from Europe and international institutions weakened Israel’s moral standing globally. Countries that once remained silent increasingly questioned Israeli actions. Public sympathy that once overwhelmingly favored Israel significantly eroded.
The United States also realized that unlimited military escalation carried unbearable economic and political costs. The conflict exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains, energy security, military overstretch, and domestic political stability.
But Pakistan’s accomplishment goes far beyond being merely its greatest diplomatic success. In terms of geopolitical significance and prevention of global destruction, this achievement stands comparable to — and in some respects exceeds — many celebrated diplomatic breakthroughs in modern history. The Camp David Accords prevented another Arab-Israeli war. The Cuban Missile Crisis diplomacy pulled the United States and Soviet Union back from the brink of nuclear annihilation. The Dayton Accords ended the Bosnian conflict. The historic rapprochement between China and the United States in the 1970s transformed two hostile powers into diplomatic partners and reshaped the global balance of power.
Yet even that historic opening was significantly facilitated through Pakistan’s quiet diplomacy, when Islamabad served as the trusted bridge between Beijing and Washington at a time when both countries lacked formal diplomatic relations and viewed one another as ideological enemies. Pakistan quietly helped create one of the most important geopolitical transformations of the twentieth century.
Today, decades later, Pakistan has once again demonstrated a diplomatic capability of historic magnitude.
Unlike superpowers that imposed outcomes through military occupation, coercion, or economic domination, Pakistan achieved influence through trust, strategic balance, credibility, and dialogue. This time, Pakistan helped prevent a conflict involving multiple war fronts, nuclear-capable states, collapsing energy routes, and a possible global economic meltdown.
History often celebrates nations for conquering territories and winning wars. Pakistan may ultimately be remembered for something far greater: helping prevent a regional conflict from evolving into a catastrophe capable of destabilizing the entire international system.
The writer is Press Secretary to the President (Rtd),Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France,Former Press Attaché to Malaysia and Former MD, SRBC.He is living in Macomb, Michigan
