Stockholm, April 16 (NationPress) The assertion that Pakistan acted as a pivotal peace mediator in the recent Iran-US discussions in Islamabad is largely a matter of public relations rather than a reflection of geopolitical truth, as highlighted in a report released on Thursday.

In an article for the Italian Institute for International Political Studies (ISPI), Jagannath Panda, who leads the Stockholm Center for South Asian and Indo-Pacific Affairs (SCSA-IPA), noted that while Pakistan may have facilitated communication during the talks, it did not influence the strategic outcomes.

Panda stated, "Pakistan faces an ongoing dilemma: a nation cannot effectively present itself as a peace facilitator while grappling with unresolved issues surrounding militancy, selective security policies, and persistent internal instability. Until these foundational concerns are addressed, Pakistan's diplomatic achievements will appear more significant in headlines than they are in reality," he remarked.

He pointed out that the current ceasefire involving Iran, Israel, and the United States was fundamentally determined by considerations of hard power, deterrent capabilities, energy vulnerabilities, and the messaging of major powers.

"Pakistan's geographical position may have facilitated connections, but it did not inherently make it the designer of the ceasefire. In truth, larger powers were seeking any available avenues, and Pakistan happened to be one such avenue, not 'the avenue,'" commented Panda, who is also a Professor at the University of Warsaw's Department of Regional and Global Studies.

He emphasized that doubts about Islamabad's role as a peacemaker stem from its long-standing credibility issues regarding peace and counterterrorism.

"For years, Islamabad has been accused of differentiating between 'good' and 'bad' militant groups based on strategic benefit. Militant factions targeting India and operating in Afghanistan have consistently undermined Pakistan's global reputation, and when Pakistan itself has suffered from terrorism, international observers have remained skeptical of its selective enforcement," he explained.

Additionally, he noted that Pakistan's historical ties with Iran have often been inconsistent. Issues such as border conflicts, militant actions in Balochistan, sectarian tensions, and competition for regional influence have intermittently strained these relations. Consequently, Tehran is unlikely to depend solely on Islamabad's assurances when its core security interests are at stake, Panda analyzed.

Thus, he concluded that Pakistan's involvement in the ceasefire episode should be viewed less as the emergence of a reliable mediator and more as a temporary utility of a convenient channel.

"Islamabad found itself 'in the right place at the right time' due to its maintained communication lines with Iran, functional relationships with Gulf nations, and its relevance to both the United States and China. However, being a channel does not equate to being the channel. A true mediator drives outcomes through built trust and recognized neutrality; Pakistan, in contrast, was valuable primarily because greater powers were in search of any feasible path to de-escalation," he articulated in ISPI.