How Pakistan Won Over Trump to Become an Unlikely Mediator in the Iran War

Pakistan’s unexpected role as a mediator in the Iran-US conflict has surprised many. Yet, this shift may not be as surprising as it seems. The country’s military chief, Field Marshall Asim Munir, enjoys favor with US President Donald Trump, who often calls him his “favourite” Field Marshall. Trump has noted that Munir possesses an intimate understanding of Iran, claiming he knows the country “better than most.”

Pakistan shares a 900km (559 miles) border with Iran, and the two nations describe their relationship as “brotherly,” rooted in shared culture and religion. Unlike other Gulf intermediaries, Pakistan lacks US air bases, offering a neutral ground for dialogue. This neutrality, however, has not been guaranteed—Pakistan faces conflict with both Afghanistan and India. Nevertheless, its willingness to engage in diplomacy could benefit its own interests, as peace between the US and Iran is seen as a strategic advantage.

The country’s balancing act is fraught with risks. Pakistan relies heavily on imported oil, much of it transported through the Strait of Hormuz. “Pakistan, I’d argue, more than almost any other country outside the Middle East has a lot of skin in the game here,” said Michael Kugelman, a South Asia expert at the Atlantic Council. “It has a compelling interest in contributing to de-escalation efforts.”

Recent economic measures reflect this precarious position. In early March, Pakistan raised petrol and diesel prices by 20%, while implementing a four-day workweek for government staff to conserve fuel. “If the war continues, economic pressures in Pakistan will escalate dramatically,” warned Farhan Siddiqi, a political science professor at Karachi’s Institute of Business Administration. The fear of nuclear escalation looms large, especially as Pakistan signs a defense pact with Saudi Arabia, designating any attack on one as an attack on both.

Concerns arise over Pakistan’s commitment to neutrality. The nation is already in “all-out war” with Afghanistan, accusing the Taliban of sheltering terrorists. Tensions with India also escalated last year, prompting fears of regional instability. When questioned about its contradictory stance, Pakistan cited years of failed negotiations for security. Siddiqi, however, highlighted another risk: the “domestic reputational cost” of involvement.

Public sentiment in Pakistan leans heavily toward Iran. After the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader in a US-Israeli strike, pro-Iran protests erupted across the country, with several demonstrators losing their lives. “Public opinion is overwhelmingly pro-Iran,” said Maleeha Lodhi, a former Pakistan ambassador to the US, UK, and UN. “Decision-makers have clearly been mindful of this.”

Pakistan’s global standing also plays a role. “It’s very sensitive to criticism that it lacks influence on the international stage,” noted Kugelman. “While not the main driver, this factor likely contributes to its current strategy.” Lodhi described the situation as “high-stakes diplomacy,” emphasizing its dual nature of risk and reward. “If it succeeds, Pakistan could rise to global prominence,” she said. “If it fails, the blame would rest on unpredictable leaders and untrustworthy allies.”

Despite the challenges, Kugelman cautioned that backlash is possible if the US and Iran simply resume hostilities with renewed intensity. “The speculation of peace talks may not prevent renewed conflict,” he said. “But Pakistan’s efforts remain a bold gamble in a volatile region.”