Pakistan is stepping into an increasingly important diplomatic space between Washington and Tehran just as the United States prepares to intensify economic pressure on Iran. The visit to Tehran by Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, comes at a moment when military confrontation has given way to a more complicated contest involving sanctions, oil exports, shipping routes and diplomatic pressure. His mission is significant not because Pakistan can necessarily resolve the conflict on its own, but because the economic confrontation is creating incentives for both sides to reopen a channel for negotiation.

Munir arrived in Tehran on August 24 as the United States prepared to announce what Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has described as an exceptionally large financial offensive against Iran and countries that continue to support its economy. Pakistani officials have described the visit as part of Islamabad’s efforts to promote regional peace and stability, while Iranian officials have confirmed that the talks are taking place amid the continuing confrontation with Washington. Reporting has also indicated that Munir spoke with US President Donald Trump before the Tehran visit, although the details of that conversation have not been publicly established.

The timing matters because the dispute has entered a phase in which economic pressure and maritime disruption are reinforcing each other. Iran’s economy was already weakened by years of sanctions, inflation, currency depreciation and trade restrictions before the latest conflict. The United States is now seeking to extend that pressure beyond Iran itself by targeting countries, companies and financial channels that continue to sustain Iranian trade. Tehran, meanwhile, is threatening to use its remaining leverage over Gulf shipping and oil exports to raise the cost of the campaign.

That creates the central diplomatic problem for Pakistan. Any successful mediation would have to address not only the political and security disagreements between Washington and Tehran, but also the economic mechanisms that have become central to the conflict. The Strait of Hormuz, Iranian oil exports and access to international financial networks have become bargaining instruments, making the search for negotiations considerably more difficult.

Pakistan Is Trying to Open a Channel Before Pressure Deepens

Pakistan’s involvement reflects its unusual position in the regional crisis. Islamabad maintains close relations with Iran while also maintaining a strategic relationship with Washington. That gives Pakistan a potential channel that neither side necessarily has to treat as a formal concession. The country’s government has publicly framed the Tehran visit around regional peace and stability rather than announcing a detailed negotiation plan, suggesting that the immediate objective is to keep communication open rather than claim a breakthrough before talks have even begun.

The reported contact between Munir and Trump adds another dimension. If the Pakistani army chief was asked to encourage Tehran to return to negotiations, his value would lie partly in his ability to communicate positions between Washington and Iranian decision makers without requiring either government to make a public commitment. Pakistan has previously offered itself as a mediator in the conflict, and its geographical proximity to Iran gives Islamabad a direct interest in preventing the confrontation from spreading further across the region.

Yet Pakistan’s role should not be overstated. There is no public evidence that Tehran has accepted Washington’s demands or that Munir has authority to negotiate a settlement on behalf of either side. The immediate significance of the visit is therefore more limited but still important: it provides a diplomatic channel at a time when direct US-Iran talks have stalled and economic measures are moving toward another escalation.

The involvement of Oman is also relevant. Tehran has indicated that Oman’s foreign minister is expected to visit Iran to discuss the Strait of Hormuz, showing that multiple regional channels are being used simultaneously. This suggests that diplomacy is becoming increasingly focused on practical issues such as shipping and economic access, rather than waiting for a comprehensive political settlement before attempting to reduce immediate risks.

Washington Is Turning Economic Dependence Into Leverage

The United States is escalating pressure because conventional military action has not produced a stable political outcome. After months of conflict, Iran’s conventional military capabilities have been significantly damaged, but Tehran retains missile and drone capabilities and continues to possess important leverage over regional energy flows. The result is a confrontation in which military superiority has not translated into uncontested control of the economic environment.

Washington’s new strategy is designed to attack the networks that allow Iran to continue trading despite sanctions. The threatened measures are expected to place greater pressure on countries and businesses that maintain commercial and financial relationships with Tehran. That makes the coming phase different from sanctions directed solely at Iranian entities because the economic consequences could extend to third countries that decide continued trade with Iran is worth the risk.

China is particularly important because it has remained Iran’s most significant oil customer. Beijing has rejected the broader use of sanctions and pressure tactics, while also indicating that it will protect its economic interests. That creates a major obstacle for Washington because the effectiveness of an economic campaign depends partly on whether major trading partners are prepared to reduce their exposure to Iran. A sanctions regime can restrict Iran’s options, but its impact is more difficult to predict when a major economy remains willing to purchase Iranian energy and maintain commercial relationships.

The United States is therefore attempting to transform Iran’s dependence on international trade into a source of political leverage. The strategy could deepen Iran’s economic isolation, but it also carries the risk of encouraging Tehran to retaliate through the areas where it retains leverage. The Strait of Hormuz is the clearest example because disruption there can affect countries that have no direct involvement in the US-Iran confrontation.

Hormuz Makes the Economic War a Global Risk

Iran’s warnings about the Strait of Hormuz explain why the economic confrontation cannot be separated from energy security. The waterway is one of the world’s most important routes for oil and liquefied natural gas shipments, and maritime traffic has fallen dramatically during the conflict. Iran has threatened to halt Gulf oil exports if the economic pressure campaign continues and has imposed increasingly restrictive conditions on vessels seeking to pass through the strait.

That threat gives Tehran a powerful but dangerous form of leverage. Iran cannot control the global energy market indefinitely without also damaging its own ability to export oil, but a temporary disruption could still produce significant consequences for fuel prices, shipping costs and inflation. The possibility of wider disruption is already influencing energy markets, even when actual oil prices move in both directions as traders assess the probability of a diplomatic breakthrough.

The danger is particularly high because maritime incidents are continuing while diplomatic efforts remain unresolved. A projectile struck a tanker near the Saudi Red Sea port of Yanbu on August 24, according to maritime monitoring authorities, while Iranian restrictions in the Strait of Hormuz have already sharply reduced commercial traffic. The incidents demonstrate how quickly an economic confrontation can acquire a military dimension when shipping becomes part of the dispute.

For Pakistan, preventing further escalation is therefore not simply a diplomatic exercise. Instability around Iran directly affects the wider region, including Gulf states and the international energy market. Islamabad also has an interest in avoiding a prolonged crisis on its western border, particularly when Pakistan itself faces economic pressures and depends heavily on regional stability for trade and energy security.

Iran’s Economic Weakness Creates Pressure for Talks

Iran enters this phase of confrontation with serious economic vulnerabilities. Years of sanctions have restricted access to foreign investment, complicated international payments and reduced the country’s ability to integrate normally into global trade. The latest conflict has added damaged infrastructure, disrupted production and further restrictions on exports. Iran’s currency has also fallen sharply, reaching another record low against the US dollar on August 24.

Those conditions make the economic campaign potentially more damaging than another isolated round of sanctions. Iranian officials have acknowledged the country’s economic difficulties, while reports indicate concern within the government that further pressure could worsen hardship and contribute to renewed domestic unrest. The pressure is therefore aimed not simply at reducing Iran’s access to money but at increasing the economic cost of maintaining its current position.

At the same time, Iran’s resistance to previous sanctions suggests that economic pain alone may not automatically produce political concessions. Tehran has survived decades of restrictions by developing alternative trade channels and relying on relationships with countries willing to maintain economic ties. That history means the United States must weigh the possibility that harsher sanctions could strengthen Iran’s determination to resist rather than persuade it to compromise.

This is where Pakistan’s mediation becomes strategically relevant. If Washington wants economic pressure to produce negotiations rather than a wider regional confrontation, some form of diplomatic channel is necessary. If Tehran wants relief from growing economic pressure without appearing to surrender under American demands, an intermediary can provide political space for exploratory discussions.

The immediate value of Pakistan’s intervention is therefore not that it guarantees a settlement. Its importance lies in the possibility of preventing the economic campaign from becoming another trigger for military escalation. As Washington prepares to widen pressure, Tehran threatens retaliation and the Strait of Hormuz remains vulnerable, diplomacy has become the mechanism through which both sides can test whether economic confrontation can be converted into negotiations before its regional costs become even harder to control.

(Adapted from AlJazeera.com)

Categories: Geopolitics, Strategy