WASHINGTON: Pakistan finds itself at the crossroads of war. It is also at the crossroads of diplomacy and regional power shifts. Geography and timing shape this position. The personal ties its leaders have cultivated at the highest levels also influence it, US media note.
The US is working to arrange a meeting in Pakistan. The purpose is to discuss an off-ramp. Two administration officials said this according to CNN. In other words, Washington is actively exploring Islamabad as a venue for de-escalation.
NBC News reported in its bulletin. Two regional sources and a US official confirmed a 15-point US plan to end the war. The plan had been delivered to Iranian officials through Pakistan.
The BBC quoted two Pakistani officials. They said the proposal addressed sanctions relief and a rollback of Iran’s nuclear programme. It also includes limits on missiles and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Through this strait, a fifth of the world’s oil is shipped.
Meanwhile, Iran has issued its own plan via state TV. The plan calls for a halt to killings of its officials. It guarantees against further attacks. Reparations for the war are included. The plan demands an end to hostilities and Iran’s “exercise of sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz”.
However, several major US outlets also cited President Trump. He claimed at a Republican fundraiser on Wednesday night that Iran was holding talks with the US. Iran was reluctant to acknowledge it publicly due to potential repercussions.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that the talks “are productive … and they continue to be.”
Tehran’s public message could not be more different. Iranian parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf wrote on X: “No negotiations have been held with the US.” Fake news is used to manipulate financial and oil markets. It is also used to escape the quagmire in which the US and Israel are trapped.
This is not merely a disagreement over facts; it reflects two very different political environments. In Washington, projecting that negotiations are underway serves multiple purposes. It reassures markets and signals control. It also presents diplomacy as an alternative to escalation. In Tehran, denying talks reinforces resistance and avoids the appearance of yielding under pressure.
The more important development may not be what Tehran says publicly. The crucial factor might be who is consolidating power behind the scenes.
Washington-based Iranian scholar Vali Nasr has argued that attention has focused on Qalibaf. However, the appointment of former IRGC General Zolqadr deserves more attention.
He explained: “Ghalibaf may be the hot ticket for the White House, but Zolqadr is the reality on the ground.”
Nasr added, “Zolqadr is Mojtaba’s man, and his selection shows that Mojtaba is in charge.”
He noted that Israel’s campaign has not moderated Tehran. Instead, it hardened Tehran: “All Israel’s decapitation has achieved is transferring power in Tehran to the most hawkish part of the IRGC.” Zolqadr comes from that wing.”
Zolqadr had a hand in suppressing protesters in 1999. He also suppressed protesters in 2009. Furthermore, he was instrumental in Ahmadinejad’s elections to the presidency. Nasr concluded that his elevation “does not suggest there will be talks with the US.” Instead, it points to a much more aggressive Iranian posture.
If Nasr’s interpretation is correct, it complicates Washington’s optimism. Even if backchannels exist, the centre of gravity in Tehran may now lie with figures less inclined toward compromise.
There is also a revealing debate unfolding inside the United States about the culture of power itself.
Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, speaking to The New York Times, said he was disappointed by what he described as a “bravado” atmosphere being communicated from the top. He recalled serving with elite forces who accomplished extraordinary missions “without boasting about them”. They were not “braggadocious; that simply was not how they behaved.”
He warned that much of today’s force is 18 years old and “highly influenceable”.
“If young service members internalise rhetoric suggesting superiority, they may conclude that this is how they ought to think and behave — that they are inherently superior.”
In reality, he noted, only a small fraction of personnel need to be capable of “kicking down doors”. The vast majority serve in intelligence, communications, and logistics — the enablers who make precision possible. Promoting the idea that “everyone should look like me”, he argued, “would be a disaster”.
McChrystal’s warning speaks to a broader tension: the difference between projecting strength and exercising it with restraint.
For Islamabad, the possible role in facilitating talks is not about spectacle. It is about quiet leverage — geography, access, and timing.
But if Tehran’s internal balance has shifted decisively toward IRGC figures, Pakistan’s diplomatic window may be narrower than Washington’s public confidence suggests.
The contradiction is stark: Washington says talks are “productive”; Tehran says there are none. Analysts warn that power in Iran may now rest with those least inclined toward negotiation.
Pakistan’s relevance, as The New York Times observed, has grown — and so has its exposure. Whether Islamabad becomes the venue for a genuine breakthrough, or merely the stage for competing narratives, will depend on how dynamics unfold in both Washington and Tehran.
The Author
Discover more from News Network Plus
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
