The world is watching as the US-led security architecture collapses, with missile and drone attacks hitting nearly every Gulf Cooperation Council member, marking the first time in history that Iran struck all six GCC members simultaneously. On the other hand, more than 100 US aircraft were in the air. Bases and warships across the region, all moving with the same mission: to break Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, but what really is leading to these endless conflicts is merely the result of the complex geopolitics of the region, which dates back to the early 20th century
The Middle East, for the past 80 years, has been prone to wars that have transformed the region each time, especially in 1948, after the creation of the State of Israel, which entirely changed the geopolitical dynamics of the region. Along with the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel and the entire Arab world’s assurance collapsed. Then followed the Iran-Iraq war between 1980 and 1988, which turned Tehran into the most feared, most isolated power in the region; then, in 1991, a US-led coalition drove Iraq out of Kuwait and cemented American military presence in the Gulf for a generation; and, unforgettably, in 2003, the US invaded Iraq . Five wars, different decades, different players, but each time the dynamics changed, the geopolitics was altered. The only thing to remain common was the American hegemony on which the Gulf region has rested, on an unwritten security rule in which America guarantees their safety, in exchange for the global economy running on oil priced in dollars under the Petrodollar Pact.
In the current scenario, the US launched Project Freedom in May 2026 with the aim of crushing Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. The mission needed Saudi Arabia’s runways and airspace, which they denied, wanting de-escalation instead. The perils of saying no to the US came at a cost: Washington threatened to delay delivery of the missile interceptors that shield Saudi oil infrastructure from Iranian attacks, and Riyadh eventually relented, and the mission resumed. But the damage wasn’t undone: by July, Washington was reportedly weighing a further, more punitive step, withdrawing roughly 2,300 troops, fighter jets, and the Patriot air defence batteries that shield that same Saudi oil infrastructure. But Saudi Arabia wasn’t alone in this dilemma. Oman’s foreign minister, who’d spent months quietly mediating between Washington and Tehran, said he was dismayed that the strikes undercut real diplomacy. Turkey’s president Erdogan called the strikes a clear violation of international law. The region is war-weary.
Once again, the principal state actors in the Middle East conflict are back to using gunpowder to settle the conflict. This is because none of the states is willing to compromise on what each considers its core security interests. Iran seeks recognition of its sovereignty and strategic power while maintaining significant ties with major powers like Russia and China. The US seeks to prevent nuclear proliferation, maintain regional stability and preserve its alliance with Israel. Arab Gulf states seek security while avoiding entanglement in major wars.
However, there is one country that appears to be benefiting from the conflict that is Israel, which seeks enduring guarantees against existential threats leaving this war with the clearest tactical win in the region. This means the war has big losers: Gulf states paying for the missile and the interceptor that stops it, and Iran paying in isolation and wrecked infrastructure, which leads to Israel’s strengthening strategic position, as destroying Iran’s nuclear sites was its principal goal.
While some principal state actors may gain strategic and political advantages from the conflict, others have sought diplomatic pathways to prevent further escalation. In this situation, Pakistan has positioned itself as a mediator rather than a participant in the conflict.Pakistan being a credible mediator required it to maintain a restrained stance, as it shares a 900-kilometre border with Iran while also maintaining significant strategic and defence ties with Saudi Arabia. Pakistan has sought to maintain its regional relationships. Islamabad officially condemned the attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel, as well as Iranian attacks on the Gulf states; this neutral stance translated into action. Pakistan helped broker a two-week ceasefire, which was later extended, and on March 29 brought together the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia in Islamabad to build support for regional de-escalation. That groundwork fed into the first round of the Islamabad Talks proper on April 11 and 12, the actual direct negotiations between the US and Iran hosted in Islamabad, which ended without an agreement but kept the diplomacy alive. This led to Pakistan emerging as a central mediator, making notable efforts towards conflict resolution.
These diplomatic efforts were further demonstrated through high-level engagements. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal General Asim Munir held talks with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and invited the Iranian foreign ministry to talks in Islamabad, as the two sides edged toward negotiations that eventually produced the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, signed on June 17. When a fresh round of fighting threatened to unravel the truce again in July, Pakistan’s foreign ministry warned that renewed conflict was “in no one’s interest,” and urged both sides to honour the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding it had brokered, especially when Islamabad was fighting its own war against the Afghan Taliban and grappling with fuel costs and Gulf remittances taking a hit at home. Mediating a war next door, while fighting one of its own.
The Islamabad Memorandum should be seen not as the end of a ceasefire, but the beginning of a political process aimed at sustained regional cooperation. A stable Middle East will not emerge from the military victory of one side, but through a mutually agreed political forum that can create a regional order. As a peace broker, Pakistan should extend its role beyond achieving a ceasefire and work towards creating a political framework that encourages dialogue and cooperation. The future of the Middle East should seek ways to avoid wars and move from conflicts to cooperation.
