A war imposed, a peace shaped by Riyadh and Islamabad |
A war imposed, a peace shaped by Riyadh and Islamabad
https://arab.news/rzq6q
The Islamabad meeting of the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkiye and Egypt has now produced a clear and consequential outcome: Pakistan has been firmly established as the principal venue for potential US-Iran talks, with both sides expressing confidence in its facilitation.
This ministerial quad reflects a consolidation of trust around a single channel at a time when the conflict has expanded beyond initial theaters, now stretching from the Gulf into the Red Sea, and increasingly affecting global shipping lanes and energy flows.
This outcome builds directly on the earlier Riyadh consultations held on March 18, where foreign ministers from over a dozen Arab and Muslim countries issued a unified position condemning attacks on civilian infrastructure, including energy facilities, airports and desalination plants, and called for adherence to international law and immediate de-escalation.
The Islamabad meeting reinforces that same direction, reflecting a coordinated diplomatic process in which engagement is continuous and structured through active channels.
The most consequential element of the Islamabad outcome is the confirmation that both Washington and Tehran are prepared to engage through a Pakistan-facilitated process.
In a conflict marked by deep mistrust, the emergence of a mutually accepted venue is strategically significant. It creates a channel through which proposals — including earlier frameworks involving de-escalation steps, limits on missile activity and sequencing of commitments — can be exchanged and tested.
The fact that this process is supported by regional actors and backed by international stakeholders, including China and the UN, enhances its credibility at a critical juncture.
Pakistan’s ability to secure this level of confidence is rooted in sustained and balanced diplomacy. Islamabad has maintained engagement with Washington, Tehran, Riyadh and Beijing simultaneously, allowing it to transmit proposals, manage timelines and preserve communication at a time when direct contact remains limited.
This positioning has been reinforced by coordinated leadership across the state. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has provided political direction and engagement at the highest level, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar has actively led the diplomatic outreach, and Field Marshal Asim Munir has ensured strategic stability and alignment across security institutions.
Together, this has enabled Pakistan to emerge as a credible facilitator in a highly volatile environment.
Saudi Arabia’s role in shaping the broader diplomatic environment remains central. Under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Defense Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, the Kingdom has demonstrated restraint while facing direct security pressures.
This includes missile and drone attacks targeting critical infrastructure, as well as broader risks to maritime routes.
Despite this, Saudi Arabia has refrained from direct escalation, maintaining a focus on stability and diplomatic resolution.
This approach is consistent with the Kingdom’s recent strategic trajectory. Saudi Arabia normalized relations with Iran through the Beijing agreement, supported Oman-led diplomatic efforts in Geneva and maintained engagement until the final stages before escalation.
Even now, its position remains anchored in de-escalation. Claims circulating in some Western media suggesting that Saudi leadership is encouraging further military escalation are not grounded in fact. The Kingdom’s conduct has consistently reflected restraint, not escalation.
It is equally important to address attempts to portray divisions between Saudi Arabia and its partners.
The Riyadh consultations of March 18 produced a clear and unified position, including condemnation of Iranian attacks on civilian infrastructure and reaffirmation of the right of states to defend themselves under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
The Islamabad outcome aligns with this position. There is no evidence of divergence; rather, there is continuity in both substance and strategic intent.
At the same time, the actions contributing to the current crisis must be assessed clearly. The targeting of civilian infrastructure, including oil facilities, ports and airports, has imposed direct costs on Gulf states that have not initiated this conflict.
The disruption of shipping routes around the Strait of Hormuz has affected global energy flows, with millions of barrels of oil per day at risk of disruption. These developments have implications not only for regional stability but also for global markets.
The reactivation of proxy dynamics adds further complexity. The increasing role of groups such as the Houthis, including missile activity extending toward Israel and pressure on Red Sea shipping lanes, reflects a shift toward indirect escalation.
This is particularly significant given Saudi Arabia’s prior investment in stabilizing Yemen, including ceasefire arrangements and development support. The return to proxy-based escalation undermines these efforts and increases the risk of further regional spillover.
Saudi Arabia’s response has been measured but firm. The Kingdom has reinforced its defensive posture, including strengthening air defense systems and enhancing coordination with partners, while avoiding actions that could widen the conflict.
The significance of the Islamabad meeting lies in what it has established: a credible diplomatic pathway at a time of escalation. Dr. Ali Awadh Asseri
The significance of the Islamabad meeting lies in what it has established: a credible diplomatic pathway at a time of escalation.
This reflects a clear strategic calculation: that long-term stability and economic transformation — particularly under Vision 2030 — depend on avoiding escalation while maintaining deterrence.
The broader expansion of the conflict also raises important questions regarding external involvement. The increasing military presence of the US in the region, including naval deployments and air defense systems, signals a deepening engagement that risks prolonging the conflict.
For Gulf states, which are directly exposed yet not party to the initiation of the war, the consequences are immediate. This includes risks to infrastructure, economic disruption and uncertainty in investment flows, including large-scale commitments that underpin global economic growth.
In this context, Islamabad’s emergence as a diplomatic hub carries particular significance. It represents one of the few remaining channels through which structured engagement between the principal parties remains possible.
The fact that both Washington and Tehran have accepted this channel — and that it is supported by key regional actors — gives it strategic weight. It does not resolve the conflict, but it preserves the conditions necessary for resolution.
The Saudi-Pakistan partnership underpins this development.
It is a relationship built over decades, encompassing defense cooperation, economic ties and deep institutional trust. Recent coordination between Riyadh and Islamabad has reinforced this partnership, particularly in the current crisis.
This cooperation is defensive in nature, focused on safeguarding sovereignty and maintaining regional stability, rather than projecting power beyond immediate security needs.
Looking ahead, the significance of the Islamabad meeting lies in what it has established: a credible diplomatic pathway at a time of continued escalation.
The gap between Washington and Tehran remains substantial, and the risks of miscalculation persist. However, the existence of a trusted channel, supported by aligned regional actors, creates space for de-escalation and structured negotiation.
In a conflict that continues to expand across domains, this may be the most important development.
While others have contributed to escalation, Riyadh and Islamabad have worked to contain it — ensuring that even in the midst of conflict, diplomacy remains not only possible, but active.
*Dr. Ali Awadh Asseri is deputy chairman of the International Institute for Iranian Studies in Riyadh and a former Saudi ambassador to Pakistan.