Geopolitical tensions strain Pakistan’s mediation role as US-Iran proxy conflicts escalate in Lebanon and beyond

Indigenous and traditional mediation systems in Pakistan and the broader Middle East, such as the Pashtun jirga or the Iranian tradition of 'ahl al-hall wa al-'aqd' (those who loosen and bind), offer decentralized conflict resolution mechanisms that bypass state failures. These systems emphasize restorative justice, intergenerational dialogue, and community accountability, contrasting with the transactional nature of state-led diplomacy. However, their erasure from mainstream narratives reflects a broader devaluation of non-Western knowledge systems in geopolitical analysis.

The current US-Iran proxy dynamic is a continuation of Cold War-era interventions, where both superpowers instrumentalized regional proxies to avoid direct conflict, as seen in Afghanistan during the 1980s or Lebanon during the 1975-1990 civil war. The 1953 US-backed coup in Iran and the 1979 Islamic Revolution created a permanent state of distrust, while the 2003 US invasion of Iraq destabilized the region and empowered Iranian-backed militias. These historical precedents demonstrate how short-term geopolitical gains lead to long-term structural instability.

Cross-culturally, proxy conflicts are often justified as 'defensive' or 'preventive,' but their roots lie in colonial-era border-drawing and the artificial creation of states without coherent national identities. In South Asia, the Durand Line (1893) and Sykes-Picot Agreement (1916) divided ethnic and religious groups, creating the conditions for modern proxy wars. Indigenous frameworks, such as Ubuntu in Southern Africa or the Andean concept of 'buen vivir,' emphasize relational governance over zero-sum power struggles, offering alternatives to the state-centric model of conflict resolution.

Academic research on proxy warfare (e.g., Stathis Kalyvas, Andrew Mumford) highlights how external actors exploit weak states by funding and arming local proxies to achieve strategic goals while minimizing direct costs. Game theory models of deterrence (e.g., Thomas Schelling) show that proxy conflicts emerge when direct confrontation is too costly, but these models often ignore the feedback loops where local proxies gain autonomy and pursue their own agendas. The scientific literature also underscores the role of economic incentives—arms sales, sanctions evasion, and resource control—in sustaining proxy wars, which are rarely addressed in diplomatic narratives.

Artistic and spiritual traditions in the region offer symbolic frameworks to critique proxy warfare. Persian poetry, for instance, often uses the metaphor of the 'divided house' to describe societies torn apart by external manipulation, as in the works of Rumi or Hafez. Sufi orders in Pakistan and Iran have historically mediated conflicts through music, poetry, and communal rituals, framing peace as a spiritual rather than political act. Meanwhile, Lebanese musicians like Marcel Khalife or Pakistani artists like Sheema Kermani use their work to challenge the militarization of culture and advocate for grassroots solidarity.

Future scenarios for de-escalation in the region include the rise of transnational civil society networks that bypass state-level negotiations, such as the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom or the Transnational Institute’s work on arms trade transparency. Another model is the 'confederal' approach, where decentralized governance (e.g., Rojava in Syria or Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan) reduces the appeal of proxy warfare by empowering local communities. However, these models require addressing the structural incentives for proxy conflicts, including arms sales, sanctions, and the geopolitical benefits of maintaining ambiguity in negotiations.

Marginalised voices—including Pakistani journalists like Taha Siddiqui, Iranian feminists like Masih Alinejad, and Lebanese activists like the families of the disappeared in the 1975-1990 civil war—are systematically excluded from diplomatic narratives. These voices often frame proxy conflicts as part of a broader struggle against authoritarianism, economic exploitation, and foreign interference, rather than as a 'regional rivalry.' Their exclusion reflects a power structure where elites in Washington, Tehran, and Islamabad control the narrative, while local populations bear the costs of proxy wars.