Of all the diplomatic oddities thrown up by the four-month-old Iran war, perhaps none is as understated, yet as revealing, as this: Israel finds itself watching the endgame being negotiated through Pakistani good offices.
And it is, by its own admission, distinctly uncomfortable with the arrangement.
That discomfort comes at a curious moment. Across the Atlantic, the debate is no longer simply about how the war was fought but about who emerged politically stronger from it.
Recent commentary in The New York Times has argued that the United States failed to achieve many of its original objectives and that Iran has succeeded in shaping the terms of the post-war diplomatic process.
Meanwhile, Pakistani media is rejoicing in Islamabad’s role in brokering the ceasefire and shepherding the negotiations toward a formal settlement.
The contrast is striking: while parts of the American strategic community are questioning the outcome, Pakistan is presenting itself as the architect of peace.
In the words of Yaniv Revach, Israel’s consul general to Midwest India, Israel was not pleased that Pakistan had emerged as the mediator between Washington and Tehran.
As per media reports, the Americans and President Donald Trump are running the diplomatic track, and Jerusalem “trusts the American government to take care of Israeli security interests.” Yet the discomfort is evident.
This is worth sitting with because it cuts against the grain of how the Pakistan-Israel relationship is usually discussed. For decades, the two countries have maintained discreet channels of communication despite the absence of formal ties.
That Israel now appears uneasy with Pakistan’s diplomatic centrality suggests the concern is not Pakistan’s role itself, but what that role may translate into.
Pakistan’s refusal to join the Abraham Accords despite repeated American encouragement offers a clue. The question is not about ideology but about leverage.
Pakistan has concluded that its value to Washington as a conduit to Tehran does not require any formal repositioning toward Israel.
More strikingly, Washington appears willing to accept that calculation, suggesting that securing a diplomatic channel to Tehran currently matters more than pressing Islamabad on normalization.
Geography as leverage
This is the crux of what should inform both Indian and Israeli observers. Pakistan’s mediating role is not simply a function of this war.
It reflects a deeper reality: Pakistan’s location astride Iran, Afghanistan, and the Gulf gives it a form of strategic relevance that repeatedly survives periods of tension with Washington.
The discovery of Osama bin Laden near Pakistan’s premier military academy, years of mutual distrust, and recurring economic crises have not made Pakistan dispensable.
Geography, as a form of power, rarely requires goodwill.
Seen this way, Israel’s unease is less about Pakistan’s intentions in this negotiation than about the precedent it creates. Every round of diplomacy conducted through Islamabad reinforces Pakistan’s claim to be a useful intermediary between the West and some of the region’s most difficult actors.
For New Delhi, the lesson is not that Pakistan has won anything tangible from this war. Yet the symbolism surrounding the June 19 Geneva signing ceremony is difficult to ignore.
Pakistan has announced that it will host the formal signing of the US-Iran agreement after months of shuttle diplomacy involving Washington, Tehran, and Islamabad.
Pakistan is not merely providing a venue; it is positioning itself as the bridge through which the post-war settlement is being concluded.
Whether this proves to be an episodic gain or a lasting strategic shift remains unclear. Pakistan has leveraged international crises before without fundamentally altering its long-term position. Yet this moment is different in one respect: Islamabad has placed itself at the center of a major diplomatic process without making any corresponding concessions on its relationship with Israel.
Who gets a seat at the table
Four months in, the Iran war continues to dominate headlines, but trust remains scarce among all the principal actors. The most striking feature of the diplomatic process is not simply Pakistan’s presence, but Israel’s relative absence.
A war that began with direct Israeli stakes is now being concluded through a framework shaped largely by Washington, Tehran, and Islamabad. Israel is involved and consulted through American channels, but it is not visible at the table.
That outcome reflects the preferences of both Iran and Pakistan, neither of which had any interest in legitimizing an overt Israeli role in the negotiations.
Symbolism matters in diplomacy.
The image of Pakistan hosting the signing ceremony while Israel watches from the sidelines reinforces a narrative of diplomatic relevance that Islamabad will seek to convert into political capital long after the guns fall silent.
Whether the arrangement ultimately delivers a durable peace is another matter.
For now, however, Pakistan appears to have emerged as the principal diplomatic beneficiary of the process. Yet diplomatic relevance is rarely without a price.
Having benefited from Washington’s trust at a critical moment, Islamabad may eventually find that the conversation shifts from “what it can offer the US” to “what the US expects in return,” including on issues where Pakistan has long resisted external pressure.
The writer holds a PhD from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. She is a senior fellow at the Centre for New Age Warfare Studies, Delhi, a visiting research fellow at the Centre for National Security Studies in Bangalore, and a former researcher of India’s National Security Advisory Board.