US escalates regional interventionism: Trump leverages Pakistan as proxy for Iran negotiations amid geopolitical fragmentation

Indigenous and local communities in Pakistan’s border regions (e.g., Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) have long resisted US military presence due to its role in fuelling militancy, displacement, and environmental degradation. Their knowledge of regional power dynamics—rooted in centuries of tribal governance and cross-border trade—contrasts with the US’s top-down, militarised approach. However, their perspectives are systematically excluded from formal negotiations, reinforcing a cycle of violence and marginalisation.

The US’s current strategy echoes Cold War-era interventions in West Asia, where Pakistan was a key ally in arming anti-Soviet forces (1980s) and later in the 'War on Terror' (2001–present), both of which destabilised the region. The 1979 Iranian Revolution and subsequent US hostage crisis set a precedent for US-Iranian relations, where mutual distrust has been weaponised for domestic political gain. Historical patterns show that military threats and coercive diplomacy rarely yield durable peace, instead entrenching cycles of retaliation and proxy warfare.

In West Asian diplomacy, non-state actors like Hezbollah (Lebanon) and the Taliban (Afghanistan) have historically played pivotal roles in shaping regional power balances, yet are excluded from Western-mediated talks. The concept of 'resistance' (muqawama) in Shia Islam, which frames Iran’s regional policy, is often misinterpreted in Western media as mere aggression rather than a response to perceived existential threats. Alternative conflict-resolution models, such as the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), demonstrate that multilateral diplomacy can succeed when economic incentives outweigh military posturing.

Research on conflict resolution (e.g., Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009) shows that coercive diplomacy has a success rate of less than 20% in achieving sustainable agreements, while mediation involving neutral third parties (e.g., Oman, Qatar) has a higher efficacy. The US’s reliance on military threats ignores the psychological and economic toll of sanctions, which studies (e.g., UNICEF, 2020) link to increased child mortality and poverty in Iran. Meanwhile, Iran’s nuclear programme has been subject to rigorous IAEA inspections, contradicting the narrative of unchecked aggression.

In Persian poetry and Sufi traditions, the concept of 'adab' (ethical conduct) is central to resolving conflicts, a stark contrast to the US’s militarised approach. Iranian cinema (e.g., Abbas Kiarostami’s 'Taste of Cherry') often explores themes of existential crisis and moral ambiguity, reflecting a cultural aversion to binary narratives of 'good vs. evil' that dominate Western geopolitics. Meanwhile, Pakistani folk music (e.g., qawwali) frequently critiques foreign intervention, framing it as a violation of spiritual and communal harmony.

Scenario modelling suggests that continued US military threats could push Iran toward deeper alliances with Russia and China, exacerbating a new Cold War dynamic in West Asia. A potential collapse of Pakistan’s civilian government due to domestic unrest (e.g., economic crisis, military coup) could further destabilise the region, creating a vacuum for non-state actors. Conversely, a revival of the JCPOA framework—expanded to include regional security guarantees—could reduce tensions, but requires US willingness to abandon coercive tactics.

Women’s rights activists in Iran and Pakistan have long warned that militarisation exacerbates gender-based violence, yet their voices are excluded from high-level talks. Refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) from Afghanistan and Syria—who bear the brunt of regional conflicts—are entirely absent from the narrative, despite their lived experiences offering critical insights. Minority communities (e.g., Hazara in Pakistan, Ahwazi Arabs in Iran) are often scapegoated in nationalist rhetoric, further marginalising their perspectives on peacebuilding.