Power of building bridges

From ceasing a deadly war to attempting a permanent peace between two archrivals carrying decades of grievances against each other is a significant accomplishment. Strategically, Pakistan has demonstrated to the world that, if given the opportunity to mediate with sincerity of purpose and trust, it can deliver. This is in addition to the fact that Pakistan itself remains among the worst affected countries, both economically and in terms of its diplomatic sensitivities and vulnerabilities in Iran and the Gulf region.

Pakistan's position as a bridge between competing interests, rather than being confined to rigid alignments, has been widely acknowledged and appreciated. A brief review of mediations carried out over the last forty years highlights the uniqueness of this case. In the past, mediations were either undertaken by superpowers to secure dominance and expand their spheres of influence or carried out with their strong backing to exert diplomatic pressure and economic leverage. In contrast, this mediation involves a superpower and its post-Cold War's oldest adversary, facilitated by a country with no covert intent, but driven by its own geostrategic and economic imperatives.

If the conflict continues, the stakes for Pakistan are immediate and serious. Our economic recovery remains highly vulnerable to external shocks. Oil price volatility and fluctuations in remittances from the Gulf alone are capable of disrupting the entire recovery framework. In this context, it would not be an overstatement to say that Pakistan's proactive diplomatic role is less a choice and more a necessity.

Pakistan is, in effect, redefining the significance of mediation in a transitional phase of the changing world order. As this conflict between the United States and Iran may well be among the last major confrontations under a fading unipolar system, Pakistan's efforts could be seen as early indicators of mediation practices in an emerging multipolar order.

In all that's happening, what are the tangible gains for Pakistan? In my view, the most important dividend lies in enhanced diplomatic credibility. A sincere and meaningful role in easing tensions reinforces Pakistan's standing as a responsible stakeholder in regional stability. Seen against the backdrop of a fragmented international system, this positions Pakistan as a credible advocate of peace and strengthens its voice in existing and emerging multilateral forums.

Secondly, while mediation should not be framed as a bargaining exercise for economic gains, it can create space for reorienting economic relationships within and beyond the region. A stabilising role in ending a dangerous conflict provides Pakistan with a legitimate opportunity to seek greater economic cooperation, particularly in energy and regional trade connectivity. It also strengthens the case for international support aimed at economic cooperation, not as a concession, but as recognition of constructive engagement.

Thirdly, Pakistan's efforts underline that, in a changing geopolitical environment, maintaining working relations across divides enhances policy flexibility and reduces overdependence on any single axis. In a fluid and transitional global order, such balance is a strategic asset.

Internally, the dividends are equally important. A lasting peace would reduce spillover risks, including sectarian tensions, border instability, and broader uncertainties affecting regional balance. Equally, this external relevance must be used to put our own house in order. Improving law and order through consistent application of the rule of law, meaningful reform in governance, and fostering political harmony and unity across all segments are vital steps that require immediate attention.

Beyond these immediate considerations lies a more subtle opportunity. Pakistan's role in facilitating dialogue between two adversaries reinforces a principle it has consistently advocated at regional and international forums: that engagement, not confrontation, remains the only sustainable path to conflict resolution. It is time to recognise the relevance of this principle in the context of South Asia as well. If India is to draw any lesson from developments in its immediate neighbourhood, it is that peace and stability cannot be secured without meaningful dialogue. If peace, rather than hegemony, is the priority, then India should see value in Pakistan's demonstrated commitment and resume sustained engagement, not as a concession, but as a shared responsibility. Stability in South Asia, like that in the Gulf, cannot be achieved in the absence of dialogue.

In a world of divergent interests, Pakistan's ability to build bridges is itself a form of power. These moments must be used to strengthen diplomatic credibility, accelerate economic recovery, put our own house in order, and renew our commitment to dialogue, both beyond and within South Asia.