Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced Tuesday that Islamabad is prepared to host negotiations aimed at ending the US-Israeli war against Iran. The announcement comes after speculation that Pakistan may play a mediating role in potential peace talks, marking a significant diplomatic initiative at a moment when military escalation continues unabated in the Middle East.
The Pakistani offer represents an attempt by Islamabad to position itself as a neutral broker capable of facilitating dialogue between adversaries in one of the most serious regional conflicts in recent years.
Pakistan’s Formal Announcement of Readiness
Prime Minister Sharif wrote on the social media platform X: “Pakistan welcomes and fully supports ongoing efforts to advance dialogue to end the war in the Middle East, in the interest of peace and stability in the region and beyond.”
He added: “Subject to the agreement of the United States and Iran, Pakistan is ready and honored to be the host country to facilitate meaningful talks with decisive results for a comprehensive settlement of the ongoing conflict.”
Conditionality of the Pakistani Offer
Sharif’s language reflects careful diplomatic positioning, emphasizing that the offer is conditional on agreement from both American and Iranian sides. Pakistan does not wish to appear as imposing itself as a mediator without acceptance from both parties.
Indications of Active US-Iran Diplomatic Channels
Iran’s Foreign Ministry indicated Monday that it had received messages from “friendly countries” suggesting that the United States is requesting negotiations to end the war, according to Iran’s official news agency (IRNA).
This Iranian signal suggests that communication channels between the parties have begun activating and that genuine diplomatic efforts are underway.
Direct Pakistani Contacts with Iran and United States
Prime Minister Sharif stated that he had spoken with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, promising him Pakistan’s government assistance in establishing peace in the region.
Additionally, Pakistani Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar stated he had conducted a telephone conversation with his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi.
Multi-Level Mediation Efforts
Communications at different levels—presidential and ministerial—indicate the seriousness of Pakistan’s efforts to present itself as a trustworthy mediator.
Official Pakistani Foreign Ministry Statements
Pakistani Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Tahir Hussain Andrabi told AFP that Pakistan “is always ready to host talks” and “has consistently called for dialogue and diplomacy to promote peace and stability in the region.”
Indicators of Pakistani Military-US Diplomatic Contacts
Imran Ali Chaudhry, Pakistan’s former ambassador to Oman, told 92 News that Pakistan’s military chief of staff recently held talks with American negotiators in the Persian Gulf.
Military Dimension of Mediation
The involvement of Pakistan’s military chief of staff in negotiations suggests that Pakistani mediation may encompass military and security dimensions, not merely diplomatic efforts.
Pakistan-Iran Relations
Long-standing good relations exist between Iran and Pakistan. Islamabad condemned the assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and congratulated his son and successor Mojtaba on his selection as his successor.
Shia Population and Domestic Pressure
Shia Muslims constitute approximately 10 to 15 percent of Pakistan’s population. Khamenei’s assassination sparked violent riots targeting American diplomatic missions throughout Pakistan.
This reflects that Pakistan’s Shia population may influence the government’s agenda and create internal pressure on the Pakistani government regarding Iran policy.
Germany Criticizes War as Violation of International Law
In a separate development, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated Tuesday that he has a “deep disagreement” with the United States and described the US-Israeli war against Iran as a “violation of international law.”
Unusual Harshness from German President
Steinmeier’s statements are unusual in their harshness, particularly from a president of a country traditionally allied with the United States. Germany typically demonstrates restraint in openly and sharply criticizing American policies.
References to Transformation in American Policy
The German president said that just as the situation will not return to what it was before Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, “there will be no return to before January 20, 2025,” when Donald Trump returned to the White House for a second term.
Turning Point in US-European Relations
This German comment reflects that Trump’s return represents a turning point in US-European relations, and that Europe may be unable to return to previous policy frameworks.
Loss of Trust in American Policy
Steinmeier stated during an event marking the 75th anniversary of the founding of Germany’s Foreign Ministry: “The disagreement is very deep, and trust in American policy has been lost, not only among our allies, but around the world.”
Global Impact of Lost Trust
Steinmeier clarifies that the problem is not confined to German-American relations but extends to the global level, where nations have lost confidence in American reliability.
More Cautious Position of German Chancellor
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz strongly criticized Iranian leadership and supported several major objectives of the US-Israeli war. However, he stated that if Berlin had been consulted in advance, “we would have advised against waging the war.”
Divergent Positions Within German Leadership
The contrasting positions between the president and chancellor reflect internal German tensions about how to handle the new American policy.
Describing War as “Catastrophic Political Mistake”
Steinmeier described the war as a “catastrophic political mistake” and an “unnecessary war that could have been avoided.”
He stated: “Realism means being pragmatic in our dealings with this American administration and focusing on our core interests… but realism also means not abandoning our principles.”
Balancing Interest and Principle
Steinmeier attempts to balance the practical necessity of dealing with the United States against commitment to international principles and international law.
Different Worldview
Steinmeier added that the “American government has a worldview different from ours, a view that does not respect established rules, partnership, or the trust that has been painstakingly built.”
He said: “We cannot change that, but we must deal with it. But this is my conviction: we have no reason to adopt this worldview.”
German Rejection of “America First”
This German position reflects clear rejection of “America First” policy and of the pattern based on military force.
Reactions to Steinmeier’s Statements
Volker Beck, chairman of the German-Israeli Society, attacked Steinmeier’s statements, calling them “completely inappropriate.”
He said the Iranian system “threatens Israel and has waged war on its existence for years,” accusing Steinmeier of “ignoring these dangers.”
Division in German Public Opinion
This response reflects divisions within German public opinion and political elites regarding how to assess the war.
Context of Previous German Criticism
This is not the first time the German president has criticized the United States. In January, shortly after intervention and arrest of the president in Venezuela, Steinmeier spoke of “collapse of values” in the United States, emphasizing that the world should not be allowed to transform into a “den of thieves.”
Pattern of Repeated Criticism
The repetition of criticism suggests that the German president seeks to mark a clear distinction in Germany’s position toward the Trump administration’s policies.
International Significance of German Position
Although Steinmeier’s position is largely ceremonial, his words carry significant weight in Germany. Additionally, Steinmeier is regarded as a respected international figure (he is a former foreign minister), which gives his statements global weight.
Broader Context
German criticism comes amid wider European discussion about how to handle new American policies. Europe attempts to balance the strategic necessity of maintaining the Atlantic alliance against international values and principles.
International Law Concerns
Steinmeier’s characterization of the war as violating international law reflects growing concerns among international legal experts and governments about the legality of US military operations without formal congressional authorization or UN Security Council approval.
Legal Questions Over Military Operations
Questions have been raised about whether the US-Israeli operations meet the threshold for self-defense under international law or whether they constitute unprovoked aggression requiring UN authorization.
Conclusion:
Pakistan’s offer to host peace talks and Germany’s sharp criticism of the war reflect a complex international landscape. On one hand, Pakistan seeks to play a mediating role to gain regional influence. On the other hand, Germany—a traditional American ally—is strongly criticizing the war, reflecting a growing divide in Western positions on American policies. The question remains whether either the American or Iranian side is genuinely ready to sit at the negotiating table, or whether these are merely diplomatic maneuvers to buy time and exert influence. Pakistan’s mediation offer and Germany’s principled stance suggest that international pressure for de-escalation is mounting, even as military operations continue unabated.
