EDITORIAL: Any meaningful path to de-escalation in the ongoing US-Israel war on Iran now hinges on a basic condition that has already been compromised twice: trust. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s insistence that negotiations require credible guarantees is not a negotiating tactic; it reflects the reality that previous diplomatic processes were interrupted by military action at critical moments, undermining the very premise of dialogue.
That breakdown is central to the current impasse. Iran’s position, as articulated in recent statements and diplomatic exchanges, is that it is prepared to end the conflict, but only if there are assurances that hostilities will not resume under the cover of negotiations. This demand follows two instances in which attacks were launched during sensitive phases of engagement. Under such circumstances, calls for renewed talks without addressing these precedents carry little weight.
Pakistan’s own diplomatic engagement with Tehran reflects this understanding. In his recent conversation with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, President Pezeshkian emphasised that trust must underpin any mediation effort. That point is not procedural; it goes to the credibility of the process itself. Mediation cannot function if one party believes that negotiations may again be used as a tactical pause rather than a genuine attempt at resolution.
The broader context reinforces Iran’s argument. The war, which began with coordinated US and Israeli strikes, has expanded into a wider regional confrontation marked by retaliatory attacks and escalating rhetoric. In this environment, the line between diplomacy and coercion has become increasingly blurred. Public statements calling for dialogue sit alongside threats of further military action, creating a contradiction that weakens the prospects for any durable settlement.
Iran’s outreach to the American public adds another dimension. By questioning whether the war aligns with the stated priorities of US leadership, Pezeshkian is attempting to frame the conflict not only as a regional crisis but as a policy choice with broader consequences. His argument is that continued escalation serves neither stability nor long-term strategic interests, and that the costs, both human and economic, are already evident.
The reference to guarantees is therefore critical. For Iran, ending the war is contingent on mechanisms that prevent a return to hostilities. This is reflected in its counter-proposal to the US plan, which places emphasis on halting aggression and establishing safeguards against repetition. Without such provisions, any ceasefire risks becoming temporary, with underlying tensions left unresolved.
From a diplomatic standpoint, this raises an uncomfortable question for Washington and its allies. If negotiations are to resume, how can confidence be restored after repeated disruptions? The credibility of any future framework will depend on whether it can address this trust deficit in a tangible way. Statements of intent are unlikely to suffice; what is required are verifiable commitments that alter the incentives for renewed conflict.
The implications extend beyond this particular crisis. The erosion of trust in diplomatic processes has wider consequences for international conflict resolution. When negotiations are perceived as vulnerable to interruption by force, parties become less willing to engage in good faith. This increases the likelihood of prolonged confrontations, as the space for compromise narrows.
At the same time, the continued escalation carries risks that go beyond the immediate theatre of conflict. Attacks on infrastructure, disruptions to regional stability and the potential for broader spillover effects all point to the costs of a strategy that prioritises military pressure over sustained engagement. These outcomes reinforce the argument that a return to credible diplomacy is not only desirable but necessary.
Pakistan’s position, reflected in its diplomatic outreach, aligns with this assessment. Supporting efforts to de-escalate while recognising the need for trust-based negotiations places it within a broader call for restraint and accountability. The challenge, however, lies in translating that principle into a workable framework.
The current moment presents a narrow window. Iran has signalled willingness to end the conflict under defined conditions, while external actors continue to weigh their options. Bridging this gap will require more than renewed calls for talks. It will depend on rebuilding the foundation that makes talks meaningful in the first place.
Without trust, negotiation becomes a formality. With it, there remains at least the possibility of a settlement that moves beyond cycles of escalation.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments