The continuing confrontation between the United States and Iran is a matter of grave concern not only for the two countries but for the entire region and the international community. Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of 17 June 2026 had offered a rare opportunity to move away from war and towards dialogue. Pakistan in its role as mediator. subsequently made clear that the MoU was intended to provide a framework for negotiations, including a 60-day period for addressing outstanding issues. Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar rightly described the Islamabad MoU as a credible and carefully considered framework for future negotiations. He also emphasized that diplomacy was the solution and that the next phase of negotiations, although difficult, remained possible. The significance of this approach should not be underestimated. When two heavily armed states are locked in confrontation, there can be no meaningful victory through threats alone. Military power may force temporary tactical changes, but it cannot by itself resolve the underlying political, security and economic disputes. The collapse of the understanding demonstrates a fundamental lesson: an agreement cannot survive if the parties continue to prepare for confrontation while claiming to seek peace. The latest statements from Washington make the situation even more alarming. President Donald Trump has reportedly said that, after the war, the United States intends to declare the Strait of Hormuz U.S territory, let us assume Trump declares Hormuz as US territory that only means further escalation. Such a statement is extraordinary and risks turning an already dangerous military confrontation into a much broader dispute over sovereignty and international law. Iran, for its part, has rejected the idea and maintained that it will not surrender control of the strategic waterway simply because of threats or military pressure. Whatever one’s view of American or Iranian policies, statements of this nature do not create an environment in which negotiations can succeed. Threats generate counter-threats; military deployments produce military responses; humiliation produces resistance; and confrontation tends to create its own momentum. Any prolonged disruption has consequences far beyond Iran and the United States. Higher energy prices, disruption of shipping, increased insurance costs, pressure on developing economies and instability in financial markets ultimately affect ordinary people across the world.The fact that the first attempt encountered serious difficulties does not mean diplomacy has failed. Rather, it demonstrates how urgently diplomacy is required. The United States cannot reasonably expect Iran to negotiate under continuous threats of military action, while Iran cannot expect the international community to accept indefinite disruption of a waterway vital to global commerce. Pakistan, having played a facilitating role in bringing the parties together, is well placed to encourage such an initiative. Regional countries, particularly those directly affected by the disruption of the Strait, should support a diplomatic mechanism rather than becoming parties to the confrontation. There should be an immediate cessation of provocative statements and threats from all sides. Military movements should be accompanied by maximum transparency and restraint. The parties should return to indirect negotiations through mutually acceptable mediators, with the implementation of the original MoU reviewed point by point. Difficult issues-including sanctions, nuclear concerns, frozen assets, maritime security and the status of the Strait of Hormuz-should be addressed separately rather than being allowed to become one indivisible dispute.
Most importantly, no sovereign state should be expected to negotiate while being publicly threatened with destruction, regime change or territorial dispossession. The present crisis should also serve as a warning to the international community. The United Nations and major powers must encourage negotiations before military confrontations become irreversible. The Middle East has already experienced decades of wars, proxy conflicts, sanctions and humanitarian suffering.
For Pakistan, the stakes are particularly high. Pakistan shares a long border with Iran and has repeatedly made clear that it does not want its territory or airspace used for conflict against a neighbor. Regional instability can affect Pakistan’s economy, energy security, trade, border management and internal security. Islamabad therefore has a direct national interest in preventing further escalation. The only sustainable solution is dialogue, negotiation and mutual accommodation. The Islamabad MoU provides an existing diplomatic framework and should be revived rather than discarded.
The United States, with all its military and economic power, should recognize that threats cannot permanently determine the behavior of another sovereign nation. Iran, likewise, should recognize that defiance alone cannot produce lasting security or economic prosperity. The present rhetoric of threats and counter-threats may satisfy domestic audiences, but it brings the world no closer to peace. A superpower should exercise greater responsibility in its public statements, while Iran should avoid actions that could further internationalize and militarize the Strait of Hormuz. Strength is not merely the ability to use force; true strength is the ability to prevent force from becoming necessary. The choice before Washington and Tehran is therefore stark. They can continue on the present path of threats, sanctions, military pressure and retaliation, risking a much wider and deeper destabilization or they can return to the negotiating table and give the Islamabad MoU another chance. The wiser choice is obvious. The Islamabad MoU should be revived, the rhetoric of confrontation should be toned down, and both sides should return to serious negotiations. There is no shame in stepping back from the brink. The real failure would be to continue a confrontation that neither side can conclusively win and that millions of innocent people may ultimately be forced to pay for. Pakista should continue to advocate this position without taking sides: stop the threats, stop the escalation, respect sovereignty, keep the Strait open for international commerce, and return to the negotiating table. Diplomacy may be slow and difficult, but the alternative deeper destabilization and potentially a much wider war is far more dangerous.
