The foreign policy establishment is currently obsessed with a "modest" goal for a US-Iran summit. They want a deal to keep talks going. They want a handshake for the sake of the handshake. They call it "pragmatic diplomacy."
I call it a waste of jet fuel.
For years, I have watched diplomats in Islamabad and DC operate under the delusion that Pakistan is the indispensable bridge between Washington and Tehran. The mainstream narrative suggests that if Pakistan can just get both sides into the same room, the friction of the Middle East will magically lubricate.
This is fundamentally wrong.
Pakistan isn't a bridge. It is a buffer that both sides use to avoid making real decisions. By aiming for "modest" goals, we aren't preventing conflict; we are subsidizing a stalemate that costs billions and keeps the region in a state of permanent anxiety. The "keep talks going" strategy is the ultimate participation trophy of international relations.
The Myth of the Neutral Facilitator
The press loves the "honest broker" trope. It paints a picture of a wise Pakistani leadership navigating the thin line between a superpower and a revolutionary neighbor.
The reality is messier. Pakistan’s involvement isn't driven by some altruistic desire for global peace. It’s driven by a desperate need to manage its own internal instability. When Islamabad pushes for a summit, it’s looking for a reprieve from the pressure of being squeezed between US sanctions and Iranian border skirmishes.
The "modest goal" of keeping talks alive is actually a failure of imagination. It assumes that the current status quo—maximum pressure vs. strategic patience—is sustainable. It isn’t.
When you aim for "talks about talks," you give hardliners on both sides exactly what they want: time.
- Tehran uses that time to harden its infrastructure and diversify its shadow economy.
- Washington uses that time to kick the political can down the road until the next election cycle.
If Pakistan wants to be a player, it needs to stop being a waiter. A waiter brings the menu; a player dictates the price.
Why a Deal to Keep Talking is a Strategic Disaster
Let’s look at the mechanics of "modest" diplomacy. Usually, this involves a series of confidence-building measures (CBMs). Small prisoner swaps. Temporary waivers on specific non-oil goods. A vague commitment to meet again in Doha or Muscat in six months.
The "experts" claim these CBMs build trust.
Trust is not a currency in the Persian Gulf. Power is.
By prioritizing "keeping the door open," mediators actually lower the cost of bad behavior. If Iran knows that the US is committed to "the process" above all else, Iran has no incentive to stop its regional proxy expansion. Conversely, if the US knows Pakistan will always provide a backchannel, Washington has no incentive to develop a coherent, long-term regional strategy that doesn't rely on brute force sanctions.
The Economic Delusion of the Borderlands
We hear constantly about how a US-Iran thaw would be an economic boon for Pakistan. The "lazy consensus" argues that a deal would finally allow the Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline to finish.
This is a fantasy.
The IP pipeline is a pipe dream not because of a lack of talks, but because of a lack of capital and the sheer physics of regional energy markets. Even if sanctions were lifted tomorrow, Pakistan’s energy infrastructure is so riddled with circular debt and technical inefficiency that it couldn't absorb the Iranian supply without a total systemic overhaul.
Instead of chasing a "modest" summit goal, Pakistan should be brutally honest with both parties: "We can no longer afford to be your mailbox."
By acting as the intermediary for low-stakes dialogue, Pakistan assumes the risk of the relationship without any of the rewards. If a summit fails, Pakistan looks incompetent. If it succeeds modestly, the US and Iran take the credit, and Pakistan remains a debt-ridden bystander.
Stop Asking "Will They Talk?" and Start Asking "Why Should They?"
People always ask: "What is the best-case scenario for a US-Iran summit?"
They are asking the wrong question. They should be asking: "Why are we pretending a return to the 2015 status quo is possible?"
The world has changed. The JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) is a corpse. You cannot revive it with "modest" goals. The regional architecture has shifted with the Abraham Accords and the growing influence of China in the Gulf.
The "modest goal" approach is like trying to fix a shattered window with scotch tape. It looks like you're doing something, but the wind still gets in.
A superior strategy for any mediator—Pakistan included—would be to force a "Grand Bargain" or nothing at all. This sounds radical. It sounds dangerous. But it is the only way to break the cycle.
- Demand a Hard Timeline: No more open-ended "dialogue."
- Define the Red Lines Pubicly: Stop the private back-channeling that allows both sides to lie to their domestic audiences.
- Accept the Breakage: If they won't agree on the big issues (nuclear enrichment levels and regional proxy funding), then let the relationship fail.
A clean break is better than a slow bleed. A clean break forces both nations to confront the reality of their choices. A "modest" deal just hides the rot.
The High Cost of Pakistan's "Middleman" Obsession
Pakistan's foreign office spent decades refining the art of the "bridge." While they were doing that, the world’s economy moved toward tech, AI, and green energy. Pakistan stayed stuck in the 1970s geopolitical playbook.
Every hour spent trying to coordinate a "modest" US-Iran summit is an hour not spent fixing the trade deficit with the EU or building a tech corridor with Central Asia.
The "modest goal" is a trap. It is a sedative for a country that needs an adrenaline shot.
If I were sitting in the Prime Minister's office, I would tell the US and Iran the following:
"We are closing the backchannel. If you want to talk, talk directly. We have a country to build, and we're tired of being the buffer zone for your fifty-year grudge match."
The establishment will tell you this is "undiplomatic." They will say it "burns bridges."
Good. Some bridges are leading nowhere.
The obsession with "keeping talks going" is a symptom of a diplomatic class that values process over results. They want more meetings because more meetings justify their existence. They don't want a solution; they want a career.
If you want to see real change in the Middle East, stop cheering for "modest goals." Start demanding an end to the charade. Pakistan’s role shouldn't be to keep the US and Iran in the room. It should be to walk out of the room first.
The most powerful thing a mediator can do is leave.
When the buffer disappears, the two combatants are forced to look each other in the eye. That is where real diplomacy begins. Everything else is just expensive theater.
Stop settling for "modest." It’s just another word for "mediocre."
