Peacemaker’s role
Rafia Zakaria
The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.
IT is impossible as a Pakistani not to marvel at this moment. At a time when the world order has been shaken at a speed that challenges belief, Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders have accomplished a remarkable recasting of the country’s role in the world.
In a milieu where everyone is fighting — Iran against the US and Israel, the GCC countries being dragged into the conflict — Pakistan has offered to act as a peace broker. As a first effort, it delivered a 15-point US peace plan to Iran — publicly rejected but said to be still under unofficial review.
Pakistan’s emergence as a potential peacemaker reflects a new vision for its global and regional role — one that has been created by the collective effort of the country’s civilian and military leadership. It deserves to be commended because it reveals a recognition of and capitalising on stark new global realities. The first of these is a worldwide trend towards militarism.
Last year, global military spending reached a record $2.63 trillion, driven largely by Europe, which saw a sharp increase of 21 per cent. This increase is notable because it parallels a recession in the relative influence of international law. In stark terms, it means that countries have assessed the changing global order and decided — at least in monetary terms — to put their faith in weapons.
Pakistan’s role as potential peacemaker is quite a feat.
Central to this has been the reduced influence of transnational institutions like the UN, created to prevent precisely such arms races.
Pakistan is well situated to take advantage of this new trend in the world order. Historically, it has had to rely on militarism to survive in an inhospitable environment. International law, including UN resolutions mandating a Kashmir referendum, has never delivered on promises such as the plebiscite.
Despite Pakistan raising the issue again and again at the UN, little has been achieved over the decades. Indian aggression meant Pakistan had to invest in weapons even as its own population endured huge privations because of massive defence spending.
The twin realities — the failure of transnational institutions to provide security and the necessity of weaponisation — are reflected in Pakistan’s long familiarity with the conundrums confronting the rest of the world. This makes Pakistani diplomats and military leadership uniquely qualified to offer insight in making sense of the world.
Militarism may not be the ideal basis for the governance of any country, but pragmatism dictates its selection when it guarantees survival.
It is no small irony that Pakistan’s role as peacemaker in West Asia rests on its identity as a heavily militarised state. It is impossible not to note that the war on Iran, at least in the American telling, centres on the claim that Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, though internal debates have existed about pursuing such capability. Undoubtedly many in Iran — facing the onslaught of US and Israeli bombing — now wish such capability had been developed as a deterrent.
Then there is the fact that Pakistan — because of its geography and strategic importance — is accustomed to juggling complex relationships with global powers. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, its foreign policy has resembled an acrobat juggling multiple rings of fire. Unlike some other countries, Pakistan maintains close ties with China while also engaging with America.
As it happens, the very complexity of Pakistan’s foreign policy — managing relationships with powers that have divergent interests — has now become its greatest ability.
It is impossible to predict the outcome of the conflict. However, as the past year and the dramatic shifts in the world order suggest, conflict and war will be constant realities of the future. Fundamental questions, whether the petro-dollar will survive, whether the US or China will win the AI race, and what will replace the post-World War II liberal order, will not be resolved quickly.
Pakistan’s emergence as peacemaker rather than pariah state is a remarkable feat of foreign and military policy, one that capitalises on the harsh realities of existence.
The outcome of the ‘mediation’ remains unknown, but positioning itself at the centre of global relevance reflects commendable statecraft and leadership. Whether or not Pakistan is able to assist in resolving this conflict, its emergence as a state that helps rather than hurts the possibility of peace is a significant achievement in itself.
Published in Dawn, March 28th, 2026
Rafia Zakaria is an attorney and human rights activist. She is a columnist for DAWN Pakistan and a regular contributor for Al Jazeera America, Dissent, Guernica and many other publications.
She is the author of The Upstairs Wife: An Intimate History of Pakistan (Beacon Press
Rafia Zakaria
March 28, 2026
DAWN
The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.
IT is impossible as a Pakistani not to marvel at this moment. At a time when the world order has been shaken at a speed that challenges belief, Pakistan’s military and civilian leaders have accomplished a remarkable recasting of the country’s role in the world.
In a milieu where everyone is fighting — Iran against the US and Israel, the GCC countries being dragged into the conflict — Pakistan has offered to act as a peace broker. As a first effort, it delivered a 15-point US peace plan to Iran — publicly rejected but said to be still under unofficial review.
Pakistan’s emergence as a potential peacemaker reflects a new vision for its global and regional role — one that has been created by the collective effort of the country’s civilian and military leadership. It deserves to be commended because it reveals a recognition of and capitalising on stark new global realities. The first of these is a worldwide trend towards militarism.
Last year, global military spending reached a record $2.63 trillion, driven largely by Europe, which saw a sharp increase of 21 per cent. This increase is notable because it parallels a recession in the relative influence of international law. In stark terms, it means that countries have assessed the changing global order and decided — at least in monetary terms — to put their faith in weapons.
Pakistan’s role as potential peacemaker is quite a feat.
Central to this has been the reduced influence of transnational institutions like the UN, created to prevent precisely such arms races.
Pakistan is well situated to take advantage of this new trend in the world order. Historically, it has had to rely on militarism to survive in an inhospitable environment. International law, including UN resolutions mandating a Kashmir referendum, has never delivered on promises such as the plebiscite.
Despite Pakistan raising the issue again and again at the UN, little has been achieved over the decades. Indian aggression meant Pakistan had to invest in weapons even as its own population endured huge privations because of massive defence spending.
The twin realities — the failure of transnational institutions to provide security and the necessity of weaponisation — are reflected in Pakistan’s long familiarity with the conundrums confronting the rest of the world. This makes Pakistani diplomats and military leadership uniquely qualified to offer insight in making sense of the world.
Militarism may not be the ideal basis for the governance of any country, but pragmatism dictates its selection when it guarantees survival.
It is no small irony that Pakistan’s role as peacemaker in West Asia rests on its identity as a heavily militarised state. It is impossible not to note that the war on Iran, at least in the American telling, centres on the claim that Iran was close to developing nuclear weapons. Iran denies this, though internal debates have existed about pursuing such capability. Undoubtedly many in Iran — facing the onslaught of US and Israeli bombing — now wish such capability had been developed as a deterrent.
Then there is the fact that Pakistan — because of its geography and strategic importance — is accustomed to juggling complex relationships with global powers. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, its foreign policy has resembled an acrobat juggling multiple rings of fire. Unlike some other countries, Pakistan maintains close ties with China while also engaging with America.
As it happens, the very complexity of Pakistan’s foreign policy — managing relationships with powers that have divergent interests — has now become its greatest ability.
It is impossible to predict the outcome of the conflict. However, as the past year and the dramatic shifts in the world order suggest, conflict and war will be constant realities of the future. Fundamental questions, whether the petro-dollar will survive, whether the US or China will win the AI race, and what will replace the post-World War II liberal order, will not be resolved quickly.
Pakistan’s emergence as peacemaker rather than pariah state is a remarkable feat of foreign and military policy, one that capitalises on the harsh realities of existence.
The outcome of the ‘mediation’ remains unknown, but positioning itself at the centre of global relevance reflects commendable statecraft and leadership. Whether or not Pakistan is able to assist in resolving this conflict, its emergence as a state that helps rather than hurts the possibility of peace is a significant achievement in itself.
Published in Dawn, March 28th, 2026
Rafia Zakaria is an attorney and human rights activist. She is a columnist for DAWN Pakistan and a regular contributor for Al Jazeera America, Dissent, Guernica and many other publications.
She is the author of The Upstairs Wife: An Intimate History of Pakistan (Beacon Press
2015).
She tweets @rafiazakaria
Abbas Nasir
Published March 29, 2026
DAWN
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
AS missiles, drones and bombs were hitting targets on all sides of the Persian Gulf, news broke of a mediation effort led by Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt that generated a faint hope that at some stage it would result in the cessation of hostilities triggered by the brazen US-Israel attack on Iran and the latter’s retaliatory action.
However, Israel may have extinguished that hope when, in a major escalatory move, it attacked a number of steel and power plants and a nuclear facility in Iran late on Friday. These attacks came despite US President Donald Trump’s declaration that he was extending his earlier five-day deadline to another 10 and refraining from attacking such sites to give negotiations a chance. I doubt Israel would have acted alone.
Iran, which was unequivocal in threatening ‘unprecedented’ retaliation if such sites were hit, responded by issuing a list of similar targets in Israel and in Gulf States which host US bases and troops. Western security sources were expecting significant Iranian retaliation. Do the US and Israel have enough in their armouries to blunt such an assault?
Slowly but surely reports have been appearing in the usually circumspect American media that the missile interceptors of the US, Israel and their allies are running out and also that America’s inventory of Tomahawk cruise missiles is running low as they have so far launched some 800-plus of these weapons on Iran.
Not one of the stated war objectives of the US-Israel combine has been met, particularly not ‘regime change’. Iran is still raining missiles and the Hezbollah and Houthis have also joined the war.
Experts are pointing out that US companies have been asked to ramp up production of all kinds of offensive and defensive missiles but there are two impediments. The first is that they can’t be mass-produced at the drop of a hat; it will be several months, even up to a year, before they start to beef up inventories. And secondly, China owns or controls up to 98 per cent of some of the rare earth materials that are reportedly needed in the guidance and targeting systems of these missiles. It isn’t exporting them currently.
As these lines were being written, one report has suggested that in the latest Iranian missile/drone attack on a US base in Saudi Arabia, one or more E-3 AWACS planes were hit along with some aerial refuelling tankers. The significance of the damage to E-3s is that they were sent to the Middle East after Iran struck various US radars severely limiting the ability to keep an eye on incoming missiles and other projectiles.
The US media has also reported that Iran is able to make operational some of its tunnels within 48 hours of Israel-US bombing to seal off their openings. It uses these to launch missiles and access its stockpiles buried deep underground, often in rocky terrain. Iran may be in severe pain but it has clearly not lost its ability to inflict pain right back.
Meanwhile, not one of the stated war objectives of the US-Israel combine has been met, particularly not ‘regime change.’ Iran is still launching missiles, and its so-called proxies Hezbollah in Lebanon have also joined the fight and the Houthis of Yemen, too, are jumping in.
The despatch of about 10,000 US Marines and servicemen/women has been taken as an indication of some sort of attempt by the US to capture one or more Iranian islands in the Persian Gulf. But military experts argue that any such attempt seems mindless in the face of what they assess are the losses the US will have to take. Perhaps, their ground mission is elsewhere.
It seems Israel’s provocative targeting of key sites in Iran and the latter’s retaliation, some of which has already come and some is feared, may not have derailed the negotiation process. The Pakistan foreign minister is hosting his Turkish, Egyptian and Saudi Arabian counterparts soon. The presence of US and Iranian interlocutors can’t be ruled out, even as it appears unlikely.
The biggest obstacle to any move forward in any peace talks will be Iran’s experience of being attacked while in the midst of negotiations last year and earlier this year. Of course, the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, barring a few carriers Iran has flagged through, will push up energy prices to a level where the damage to the global economy and the markets will be unsustainable.
Trump is a master at double-speak. So, nothing he says can be taken at face value, as Israel demonstrated by violating his 10-day moratorium on striking power plants and other infrastructure.
Rising energy prices and the possibility of further huge damage to the Gulf energy infrastructure may force him to put a leash on Benjamin Netanyahu, the genocidal psychopath at the helm of the apartheid state, who is trampling international law and possibly even reshaping the regional security architecture to the detriment of the US itself.
Much will depend on whether the psycho can be put on a leash or will continue to wag the dog. Equally, peace moves will hinge on who gains the upper hand in the Washington, D.C. split where the vice president and the CIA director are said to favour an end to the war and the secretaries of war and state believed to be firmly in Bibi’s lap.
abbas.nasir@hotmail.com
Published in Dawn, March 29th, 2026
Crisis meeting
Editorial
Editorial
Published March 28, 2026
DAWN
WITH a catastrophic war raging on the nation’s borders, it is imperative that the civilian and military leadership continue to consult each other and other stakeholders in order to steer Pakistan through these stormy waters.
On Thursday, with the US-Israeli war on Iran on the agenda, President Asif Zardari chaired a high-level meeting of the nation’s top officials to discuss a way forward. The moot was attended by the prime minister, chief of defence forces, key cabinet ministers and the PPP chief. The meeting stressed the need for “national consensus and public awareness” related to the challenges spawned by the aggression.
As a neighbour of Iran, and located at a stone’s throw from the Gulf, Pakistan is especially vulnerable to the fallout of this conflict, as well as the shockwaves that are shaking the global economy. Of particular concern to those in attendance were Pakistan’s economic and energy security issues. Such consultations should continue, particularly if the conflict drags on.
In fact, parliament should play a more active role, with lawmakers briefed on the evolving situation. In the past, parliamentary consultation has proved successful in shielding the country from geopolitical storms. The Yemen quagmire — in which Arab states wanted Pakistan to participate in the anti-Houthi campaign — is a case in point. The legislature wisely advised against stepping into the Yemeni imbroglio.
In a similar vein, Pakistan should try and avoid being pulled into offensive operations against Iran. Tehran’s attacks on its Gulf neighbours are indeed unwise and complicate matters. But Pakistan cannot afford to get sucked into the Gulf vortex, and risk its fragile internal stability. The Gulf states are Pakistan’s friends and allies, and the country must do all it can to support them; sending surplus food supplies to help them tide over the crisis is one example of what can be done. At the same time, Iran, too, has deep cultural and historical links with this country; getting involved can negatively affect Pakistan’s internal sectarian dynamics.
Therefore, Pakistan should try and stay neutral. The path this country is currently pursuing — trying to find a diplomatic off-ramp — is the best available option. Pakistan is in a unique position; it enjoys a measure of trust with Iran, while its ties with the Arabs, particularly the Saudis and the UAE, are excellent, even though greater clarity is needed on the mutual defence agreement signed with Riyadh last year. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has exhibited a marked liking for Pakistan’s current civil and military leadership.
Pakistan cannot be expected to work miracles to end this brutal conflict. But it can surely act as a facilitator to help all belligerents reach a peaceful and just settlement.
Published in Dawn, March 28th, 2026
WITH a catastrophic war raging on the nation’s borders, it is imperative that the civilian and military leadership continue to consult each other and other stakeholders in order to steer Pakistan through these stormy waters.
On Thursday, with the US-Israeli war on Iran on the agenda, President Asif Zardari chaired a high-level meeting of the nation’s top officials to discuss a way forward. The moot was attended by the prime minister, chief of defence forces, key cabinet ministers and the PPP chief. The meeting stressed the need for “national consensus and public awareness” related to the challenges spawned by the aggression.
As a neighbour of Iran, and located at a stone’s throw from the Gulf, Pakistan is especially vulnerable to the fallout of this conflict, as well as the shockwaves that are shaking the global economy. Of particular concern to those in attendance were Pakistan’s economic and energy security issues. Such consultations should continue, particularly if the conflict drags on.
In fact, parliament should play a more active role, with lawmakers briefed on the evolving situation. In the past, parliamentary consultation has proved successful in shielding the country from geopolitical storms. The Yemen quagmire — in which Arab states wanted Pakistan to participate in the anti-Houthi campaign — is a case in point. The legislature wisely advised against stepping into the Yemeni imbroglio.
In a similar vein, Pakistan should try and avoid being pulled into offensive operations against Iran. Tehran’s attacks on its Gulf neighbours are indeed unwise and complicate matters. But Pakistan cannot afford to get sucked into the Gulf vortex, and risk its fragile internal stability. The Gulf states are Pakistan’s friends and allies, and the country must do all it can to support them; sending surplus food supplies to help them tide over the crisis is one example of what can be done. At the same time, Iran, too, has deep cultural and historical links with this country; getting involved can negatively affect Pakistan’s internal sectarian dynamics.
Therefore, Pakistan should try and stay neutral. The path this country is currently pursuing — trying to find a diplomatic off-ramp — is the best available option. Pakistan is in a unique position; it enjoys a measure of trust with Iran, while its ties with the Arabs, particularly the Saudis and the UAE, are excellent, even though greater clarity is needed on the mutual defence agreement signed with Riyadh last year. Meanwhile, the Trump administration has exhibited a marked liking for Pakistan’s current civil and military leadership.
Pakistan cannot be expected to work miracles to end this brutal conflict. But it can surely act as a facilitator to help all belligerents reach a peaceful and just settlement.
Published in Dawn, March 28th, 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment