Pakistan's Mediation Bid in West Asia Conflict Amid Nuclear Smuggling Past

"This is not mediation. It is control. Whoever defines the room defines the outcome. And this file defines security: Israel, the US, the Gulf, the West, and India. There is only one answer: not Pakistan. Pakistan can pass messages. It cannot hold an agreement. A mediator gives up interest. Pakistan cannot. A state with an interest is not a middle ground. It is a side," Shay Gal, an Israeli analyst, wrote in The Eurasian Times.

"The state that produced the A Q Khan network, which supplied enrichment technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea, cannot act as the guardian of an arrangement meant to restrain Iran. The party that created the problem does not guarantee its solution," he added.

The expert noted that for years, Washington was unable to dismantle terror sanctuaries in northwestern Pakistan despite heavy reliance on the Pakistani military and massive investment.

"In 2026, the assessment remains severe: terrorism, conflict zones, escalating attacks, and rising casualties. A state struggling for continuity, infrastructure security, and control over sensitive spaces does not build an agreement with Iran. It seeks respite. 'Pakistan' is not a transparent political term. The actor managing this file in practice is not an open civilian system operating under effective oversight, but first and foremost the military establishment," Gal stressed.

According to the report, if the development unfolds, Pakistan could gain an enhanced standing in Washington after years of suspicion.

"A softening of criticism over its priorities. Reduced pressure around its missile programme, defined at the end of 2024 as an emerging threat to the United States and already sanctioned. A deeper sense of indispensability in the eyes of Riyadh and the White House alike. An internal gain: the legitimisation of the military establishment's primacy as Pakistan's international point of contact", it noted.

The report said the war has exposed Pakistan's vulnerability to energy shocks and spillovers from the crisis, even as it continues negotiations with the International Monetary Fund, while any shift from the battlefield to talks quickly affects energy prices.

"It changes market expectations and expands Islamabad's room for action. Returning Iran to an American track, even partially, puts back on the table the logic of projects and relief measures that have been frozen under sanctions, including energy corridors between Iran and Pakistan," the Eurasian Times report stated.

Expressing concerns over Pakistan's controversial record in fuelling regional instability, the report further said, "If Washington chooses Pakistan because it is available, not because it is right, it repeats the same pattern: placing crises in the hands of those who profit from them. Such an agreement does not remove the threat. It defers it. Israel rejects it in advance."

- IANS