海角大神

In Pakistan, can the US and Iran chart a new path to peace?

The Iran war was President Donald Trump鈥檚 emphatic answer to the Obama-era nuclear arms deal. Instead of exhaustive negotiations and multilateral enforcement to end Tehran鈥檚 nuclear program, he opted for overwhelming force.

Now is his administration鈥檚 moment to chart a new course. The question is what it can accomplish essentially alone.

At times, postwar negotiations have been inflection points, germinating new ways to think about peace. The United States built a new order of international rules and institutions after World War II, specifically to bind nations together and make war less likely.

Yet, as the Iran conflict pauses, and delegates head to Islamabad for peace talks this weekend, America鈥檚 traditional allies are reluctant to help聽鈥� if they鈥檙e inclined to help at all. And the postwar international order that the U.S. built has been sidelined by Washington.

The Trump administration has been criticized for wielding security through power, not mutual trust, and the Iran war has only deepened that doctrine. That raises doubts among diplomats and experts about what the current peace talks can accomplish long-term. Without trust, peace deals risk becoming just temporary pauses between conflicts. And the effect is clear: Nations from Europe to the Gulf are seeing the need to arm up in response.

鈥淭hese postwar orders tend to have a life cycle,鈥� says Ian Lesser, a distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States in Brussels. 鈥淭he international system naturally orders itself, but sometimes it takes a cataclysm. We鈥檙e not talking about that scale, but there is a connection between conflict and the global order, especially when the global order is being questioned.鈥�

A surprising ally

The fact that the coming talks are in Pakistan is significant. It is perhaps the only country that has the trust of both the United States and Iran. Its role shows how quickly things can change.

Just a couple of years ago, in 2024, Pakistan and Iran were at a standoff themselves after Iran launched missiles at Pakistani territory. Meanwhile, President Joe Biden froze out former Prime Minister Imran Khan, famously never even talking to him. But cooler heads prevailed with Iran, and Mr. Trump鈥檚 trust came after an Islamabad charm offensive that included nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

As a result, Pakistan is at a unique moment in its history. 鈥淧erhaps for the first time, Pakistan has diplomatically placed itself in such a way that such strong adversaries trust it as the common denominator,鈥� says Pakistani politician Syed Naveed Qamar. 鈥淭his has never happened before.鈥�

That makes Pakistan crucial to the U.S. administration. 鈥淭rump had no other option except for Pakistan to work this out,鈥� says Yaqoob Khan Bangash, a foreign policy expert at the Institute of Business Administration in Karachi.

The negotiations, which are expected to start Saturday morning, will be led on the U.S. side by Vice President JD Vance and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. The list of issues they need to tackle is long and complex, including Iran鈥檚 nuclear program, its ballistic missile arsenal, its use of militant groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, and its control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Ending the fighting

One deal Mr. Vance and Mr. Witkoff might seek to model is the Gaza peace plan. There, the emphasis was on simply stopping the fighting. That deal鈥檚 longer-term aims have, so far, gone unfulfilled. 鈥淭hey鈥檝e not gotten much buy-in on the back end, such as rebuilding and troop commitments,鈥� says Laurel Rapp, a U.S. expert at Chatham House, a security think tank in London.

That is part of a pattern, she says, pointing to the Trump administration鈥檚 pledge last summer to do 90 trade deals in 90 days. 鈥淭he reality is that the arrangements are very flimsy and difficult to implement,鈥� she says. 鈥淭hey are only half negotiated, so many are not operative.鈥�

The clear advantage of going it alone is in speed and freedom. Washington can avoid the complications of dealing with multiple countries simultaneously. During the current two-week ceasefire, the Islamabad negotiators could come up with something that brings the fighting to a more permanent stop, but the challenges would then come in how to address the causes and effects of the conflict.

On opening the Strait of Hormuz, for example, Europe is likely to help. But it has set clear guidelines to ensure it is not seen as contributing to the American war effort.

鈥淕iven U.S. dominance and leverage over European allies, it can cajole and coerce if its partners are not on board,鈥� says Ole Jacob Sending, a geopolitical expert at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs in Oslo. 鈥淏ut it won鈥檛 have the same credibility if it鈥檚 solely based on pressure.鈥�

Iran is coming to these talks with a lot of leverage, Dr. Sending notes, and one way to counter that would be the enthusiastic buy-in of other states.

鈥淚f you want the long-term effects, the best way is to get other actors on board,鈥� he says.

Less restrained 鈥� and less effective?

The Iran nuclear deal 鈥� agreed to during Barack Obama鈥檚 presidency 鈥� took multiple years to negotiate, but it involved even Russia and China, giving confidence that Iran couldn鈥檛 cheat by finding workarounds.

Such agreements aren鈥檛 perfect. From Vietnam to the Iraq War, America has long chafed at having to build coalitions and follow international laws. Mr. Trump 鈥渨ants to free the U.S. from these constraints to costly and unreliable allies,鈥� says Dr. Lesser of the German Marshall Fund.

But he has also gone a crucial step further. He is not only acting almost entirely alone, he is also simultaneously undermining the mutually agreed-upon structures for global security, from the United Nations to NATO.

鈥淯nder the old order, such wars would be regionally destructive, but within an order where the U.S. was the unchallenged leader,鈥� says Dr. Lesser. 鈥淭he system now is less stable.鈥�

The Trump administration鈥檚 threats to leave NATO, attack Greenland, and abandon Ukraine have all contributed to Europe鈥檚 largest postwar defense expenditures. The Iran war is now convincing Gulf states that they need to do the same to protect themselves.

The trend points in a clear direction, adds Dr. Lesser: 鈥淚f you want to feel safe, you need to have nuclear weapons.鈥�

Ms. Rapp of Chatham House can imagine a scenario in which U.S. negotiators in Pakistan will have to craft their own version of the Iran nuclear deal.

Given the costs of the war and the fact that such a mechanism was already in place, however, Mr. Trump, she says, 鈥渨ill have a higher political hill to climb to say he got a better deal than Obama did.鈥�