Brief diplomatic episode or turning point

The Middle Eastern crisis continues to unfold, but all the scare and fright that the Iran war had created now seems to take a backseat as diplomacy leads and creeps forward and creates hope. Pakistan has taken a leading role, and the work of its Prime Minister and the Chief of Defence Staff is paying dividends as both office-holders have engaged in untiring shuttle diplomacy in recent days. The optimism that we witness today would not have been possible if both the US and Iran had not shown flexibility. It seems now that both are willing to offer concessions, which bodes well for diplomacy to succeed. Had it not been for the restraint shown by the Gulf States when their territory came under Iranian attack, there would have been no space and the enabling environment for diplomacy to succeed. Not very long ago, the world was on the threshold of another great war, with the American president promising to end the Iranian civilisation and send it back to the Stone Age, from where it would never come back. The Iranians, on their part, were adamant that they needed no ceasefire, instead a complete end to the round of aggressions it is subjected to despite its engagement in peace talks and negotiations. This dangerous deadlock needed creative diplomacy and skillful statecraft, both of which Pakistan provided.

The biggest challenge for diplomacy now is to ensure that the ceasefire holds. The fact that Israel has agreed to a 10-day ceasefire in Lebanon reflects that both the US and Iran have reached some kind of agreement. Lebanon is a separate front in this war, but it is part of a bigger regional security complex that is dominated and influenced by both Israel and Iran. Despite the current Israel-Lebanon talks being termed unique, as these are the first direct talks being held between the two countries, the prospects of anything substantial happening remain limited. The ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon is a direct reflection of how Iran foresees a deal coming through with the US. President Trump's instruction to the Israeli Prime Minister to halt any further bombing in Lebanon also shows that both the US and Iran are close to striking a deal. The legal authority in Lebanon lies with the government of Lebanon, which is engaged in talks with Israel, but the military authority on the ground is with Hezbollah, which remains strongly under the strategic influence of Iran. Hezbollah is not likely to give up on its armed resistance, as Iran will continue to use this resistance to leverage concessions in the main theatre of war.

One cannot predict a Lebanese future in isolation. The concessions being conceded in the main theatre of war are linked with the concessions being offered by Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. A likely deal in Lebanon can be that both Israel and Hezbollah push back their forces and allow UN peacekeepers an expanding role. It is least likely that Hezbollah will disarm itself, which is a key demand of Israel. Yet, if a broad agreement is reached between the US and Iran, and Israel also agrees to withdraw its forces from Southern Lebanon, the possibility of Hezbollah agreeing to disarm may result. This might still not happen until the core issue of Palestine is resolved. Lebanon is politically and militarily too weak to enforce the disarmament of Hezbollah, and Israel, at best, can create a security and buffer zone in Southern Lebanon, but cannot diminish altogether Hezbollah's ability to continue attacking Israel.

Back to the main theatre of war, where an air of optimism has been created by the mediation efforts of Pakistan following a 21-hour round of talks in Islamabad earlier last week. The second round of talks is now expected in Islamabad, with President Trump declaring that the conflict is 'very close to over'. If Pakistan continues to play this pivotal role and can convert this fragile peace into a durable settlement, then the way the world has looked at Pakistan for a very long time may eventually change. Pakistan's new status may no longer be that of a security state but a diplomatic state that can influence global affairs.

For decades, the world viewed Pakistan primarily through a security lens – Afghanistan, India and terrorism. Becoming a mediator in a major global conflict clearly signals an intent and repositioning of Pakistan towards diplomatic relevance. The global perception that Pakistan is a hard country that has historically utilised only hard power to seek solutions to its problems may also change. However, the pathway to becoming a soft power is not easy and demands consistency, not a one-off event glory. In the future, Pakistan should not be seen just as a state that can provide a relatively neutral venue and a trustworthy communication channel, but also a state whose true soft power is built on legitimacy and trust through effective governance, transparency, rule of law, and the consistent delivery of public services. The credibility of a state is nourished only in an environment in which state institutions are seen acting in the interest of their citizens rather than just the elites. Domestic credibility leads to a stronger global image and credibility which can, in turn, lead to Pakistan not just becoming a possible diplomatic hub but an attractive hub of foreign trade and transit investment. Success in diplomacy is not a recipe to fix our national economy. The impact of successful diplomacy without internal reforms is likely to remain symbolic rather than material.

There is a general perception that the current diplomatic episode is a turning point in Pakistan's history. I fear that if we do not take immediate measures to strengthen our political and economic stability and stop remaining averse to the pressing problems posed at home, this may actually be remembered as a brief diplomatic episode and not a turning point in our history.