The following is an analysis of the outcomes of negotiations between the United States and Iran, facilitated by Islamabad.
The international political arena is constantly witnessing both overt and covert competitions. Smaller countries are often exploited as tools within this landscape. Major powers attempt to utilize the territories, political spaces, and sovereignty of smaller nations for their own objectives. In this regard, the Pakistani military regime has been utilized as a pawn for years – sometimes to orchestrate conflicts, sometimes as an instrument of pressure, and sometimes as a diplomatic showpiece.
While the Pakistani military regime considers these actions a success for its diplomacy, in reality, they have generated significant problems both domestically and internationally. This is because the military regime, in order to implement foreign strategies, neglects its own core interests and regional considerations. This policy has also impacted the negotiations between Iran and the United States, as the Pakistani military regime is considered a close ally of the United States, a perception which has undermined the progress of the talks.
The setting was prepared, but a climate of trust was absent. Despite Pakistan’s role as host, it was unable to strengthen the fragile balance of trust between the two parties. A mediator is expected to play a practical role in reducing differences and finding common ground, but the Pakistani military regime lacked the impactful political and diplomatic influence to encourage both sides to show flexibility or pressure them to compromise. Consequently, the negotiations remained confined to the level of a meeting, failing to achieve any practical results.
When a meeting isn’t managed by a neutral and trustworthy intermediary, the chances of success are slim. In sensitive negotiations such as those between the United States and Iran, the most crucial element is the building of trust. However, when the host’s role is subject to political affiliations, it is natural for the talks’ original objective to be undermined.
The United States attempted to push the negotiation process forward through pressure and strategic influence, seeking to establish itself as the primary director within the decision-making mechanism. Conversely, Iran adopted a resistant and cautious approach to protect its national interests and political independence. Attempts to achieve objectives through pressure and imposed strategies, ignoring the political realities of the opposing side, will never succeed. This will prolong both war and the negotiation process.
The Islamabad meeting failed to produce any practical changes. The entire meeting resembled a political show. The hope of reducing differences was not realized, and the discussions encountered a hardening of positions instead of progress. It appears that the management of the process was confronted with fundamental shortcomings. Simultaneously, the long-standing political and security differences between the United States and Iran also impacted the outcomes of the negotiations, as these countries have deep and entrenched conflicts regarding regional influence, sanctions, and security concerns. With so many issues at stake, resolving this crisis through a single meeting or limited talks is not possible.
It is necessary that this show transitions to more practical diplomacy, and the heavy burden of the region's future should not be carried on the false shoulders of these empty meetings and short-term hostings. Any war or confrontation between the United States and Iran will cause great suffering not only for the parties involved but also for the region. Therefore, it is essential to create a climate of trust instead of pressure and confrontation, and to arrange the next table for negotiations in a third country that has a high level of trust between the two nations and can bring the talks out of the current impasse. The success of such negotiations depends on a change in intentions, the building of trust, and the creation of impartial diplomatic grounds. If these efforts are not made, the current crisis between the United States and Iran will tilt the region's security balance towards further instability.
[Link to website]
تبصره
ـــــــــــــــــــــ
اسلام آباد کې د امریکا او ایران د مذاکراتو پایلې
حریت راډيو ـ افغانستان
نړیوال سیاسي ډګر تل د پټو او ښکاره رقابتونو شاهد پاتې شوی. د کوچنیو هېوادونو رول پکې اکثره د وسیلې په توګه کاریږي. زبرځواک هېوادونه هڅه کوي چې د کوچنیو هېوادونو له خاورې، سیاسي فضا او حاکمیت څخه د خپلو موخو لپاره استفاده وکړي. په دې لړ کې پاکستانی پوځي رژیم له کلونو راهیسې د یوې کارېدونکې مُهرې په توګه استعمال شوی. کله د جګړو د تنظیم، کله د فشار د وسیلې او کله د ډیپلوماټیکي نندارې په شکل.
سره له دې چې پاکستانی پوځي رژیم دا چارې د خپلې ډیپلوماسۍ بریا بولي، خو د واقعیت له زاویې یې په کور دننه او بهر لوی مشکلات زېږولي؛ ځکه پوځي رژیم د پردیو ستراتیژیو عملي کېدا لپاره خپل اصلي لوری
#Afghanistan #Iran #Islam #Pakistan
Afghanistan 🇦🇫
Quds News Network
