E-Paper
Iran war: The real test lies beyond
This article is authored by Gouri Sankar Nag, professor & head, Department of Political Science, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, West Bengal.
The Iran war is steadily losing steam as America seems desperate for an honourable retreat as evidenced from sidelining of defence secretary Pete Hegeseth and appointing vice president JD Vance as the chief spokesperson. The transformation of the crisis that began with stupendous force projection and military escalation during the first two weeks could not achieve any of its much-vaunted objectives from destroying the enriched uranium to punishing the Iranian regime. But in the process, we witnessed how the regional crisis could be actually hydra-headed one. First, there was confusion. Trump threatened Iran with hitting its key infrastructure if Tehran continued its siege of the Strait of Hormuz. But Iran didn’t budge even in the face of this severe escalation rhetoric. Soon thereafter, Trump in his characteristic U-turn stated that Iran was eager for talks and hope of peaceful resolution required a ceasefire.
It was quite puzzling, however, because Iran denied any move either to seek any concession midway or its intent for attending any mediation or reconciliation talks unless three conditions were met which included:
- reparation for war inflicted damages
- future guarantee against any such attack to its sovereignty
- its refusal to place new limits on its missile programme.
Taken together, Iran seems stubborn from which it may be inferred that Iran must be receiving subterranean support from Russia and China. Why not, because by now it’s crystal clear that if anyone is the highest beneficiary from the Iran conflict, it is Russia which is earning huge sums of money in exchange of its sale of oil. It is a great relief for Russia especially at the time of raging debate to freeze the assets of Russia’s Central Bank to repay the long-outstanding loans and also for reparation payment under any future peace agreement. So, ceasefire won’t be a pragmatic option for Moscow. China, on the other hand, is gaining substantially on many counts as its sway in the Indo-Pacific gets larger as the US thins out and, moreover, as it receives a waiver from Iran for import of oil that it buys using the yuan.
On the other hand, the veil of confusion is intensified when we get to hear reports quoting Ukrainian President Zelenskyy that the US was pressing Ukraine to cede the eastern Donbas region to Russia before finalising any post-war security deal. If that is the case, the veracity of mediation for ceasefire with Iran is bound to be on a slippery slope.
At present, the possibility of mediation seems enfeebled due to reports of US ground force mobilisation for a short and swift invasion in Kharg island often dubbed the economic lifeline of Iran. But given that Iran seems prepared for this, it is doubtful whether the US can follow this trajectory. Iran has endured the shock of the initial phase of aerial strikes and so its position has obviously hardened. Another factor is that now the war has entered a deeper phase where it is clear that Iran’s retaliation pattern has successfully regionalised and globalised the issue.
How Pakistan has put itself in a mediating role is not clear. It can’t be said that both parties agreed to delegate this function to Pakistan. Pakistan can always engage with both sides for de-escalation of the conflict. Pakistan is not a West Asian country with direct stakes in the conflict.
After Operation Sindoor, Pakistan lost face internationally. Now this mediation brings it to the centre stage of international diplomacy with Turkey and Egypt. In his X handle, Prime Minister Shebaz Sharif stressed the imperative “to urgently bring an end to hostilities that were causing heavy loss of life, economy and property not only in Iran but across several brotherly Muslim countries.”
There are media reports that GCC members have begun doubting Pak intent in the Iran conflict especially because it sidelines direct Arab stakes. Initially Oman was playing a constructive role. Pakistan’s dire economic conditions led it to receive a $700 million loan in 2025 from the World Bank. Pakistan’s fragile economy is so much dependent on oil import from the Gulf. Does Pakistan command the trust needed for playing honest broker? Pakistan’s cannot make itself credible to the regional and global powers who often view its diplomatic overtures as frenetic attempts to secure domestic political capital and international showmanship rather than genuine conflict resolution. The complexity of the Iran-related regional landscape requires a delicate and seasoned mediator which can guarantee benign outcomes, a capacity Pakistan lacks due to its limited leverage over Tehran’s regional proxies and its own military-civilian power dynamics. Consequently, for mediation to be effective, it must be backed by a collective framework that includes stakeholders with actual influence over the conflict’s trajectory.
This article is authored by Gouri Sankar Nag, professor & head, Department of Political Science, Sidho-Kanho-Birsha University, West Bengal.
