Turkey, Egypt, And Pakistan Step Into A Dangerous Gap – OpEd |
Where the silent diplomacy has taken foot upon more than one capital at the same time, it is generally a sign that the menace is real, but it is also true that the menace of retiring before the precipice. That is in the same way that the media efforts being communicated by Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan trying to convey messages between the United States and Iran in the past two days must be seen. It is not theatre. It is not a side story. Actual job is in the effort to prevent more dramatic disaster. The elderly of the three countries are said to have made separate talks with White house ambassador, Steve Witkoff and the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi. The fact that, although there has been violence and threats, rationality of politics has not completely broken down is more important in the region at the moment, in case mediation is underway and progressing.
The back-channel diplomacy is seldom viewed as feeble, covert, and peripheral by people. This follows the opposite of the situation in such cases. Public statements normally are written to domestic audience, to friends, to enemies, and to the next news cycle. Privacy Survival messages are written privately. The states with the trusted intermediaries are generally assuming the intent of testing the desires, defining limits and creating space towards a compromise, without forcing any of the parties in the state of humiliation. This is highly important to any conflict between US and Iran, whereby symbolism, ego and home pressure can turn a manageable crisis to a life-threatening crisis.
It is also educative that Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan are chosen. These do not work randomly as conveyors. In both of them, there are connections, interests, and regional status, which is why it is possible to have words across the lines that other people are unable to cross so easily. Turkey has been trying so long to make sure that it is able to define itself as a regional power capable of negotiating with rival camps at the same time. Egypt remains a political burden in the Arab politics and has a strong interest in ensuring that another fire would not be lit in its region. Pakistan, in its turn, has its reasons, strategic importance, and certain interest in avoiding the war that can shake the entire Muslim world and contribute to the increase of instability in South and West Asia. None of these countries are moralistically neutral, since states are hardly ever moral. Nonetheless, it is not the necessity to be neutral.
The content of the negotiations which is reported is of particular importance at this stage. When the discussion is really a termination of war and a resolution of all outstanding issues then this cannot be a mediation which is the buying of time to have a pause. It is interested in an effort to transform crisis management to political settlement. It is a far more difficult thing, yet that is the solitary serious thing as well. The advantage of the interim good is that the interim good does not follow the interim good, but the interim good that has not the deeper understanding. Should Washington and Tehran be willing to negotiate indirectly or even directly the larger variety of issues, disregarding immediate military actions would simply be to imply that the two parties can calculate the cost of letting events run their course.
This does not mean that it will bring about a breakthrough. Far from it. The US and the Iran interactivity history is full of rat overtures, distrust and eleventh-hour change of heart. Any information conveyed by any intermediary is at the risk of not being received, or received too late, or received by some on-the-ground news. Both the hardliners will find strategies of derailing the process. Any labour strike, any misunderstanding of intentions, any attempt to gain any advantage before a deal is negotiated can ruin the discussions. This is the reason why the development of mediation should not be considered something certain. However, any crumbly progress is progress and when a crisis is at hand, that is all that matters.
It also contains a larger lesson concerning the kind of diplomacy that the region needs. In the long-run, the external forces are likely to treat the regional states as clients or spectators. This episode suggests something other than that. Middle powers are not totally irrelevant. Direct channels can be blocked yet regional players can offer space. The nations that are widely perceived to be too fragmented, too overwhelmed or too selfish can as well contribute to the prudent role on a case when the other alternative is chaos. That should not be romanticized. Self-interest is not subject to being removed through the mediation. But self-interest may as well serve to make peace as it may serve to make war. When the three countries, Ankara, Cairo and Islamabad believe that the wider war would harm them all then they are doing the right thing in their bid to foil the wider war. It is generally the most preferable combination in the international politics.