Geopolitical tensions escalate as US-Iran truce deadline looms: Pakistan’s mediation struggles amid systemic sanctions and proxy conflicts

Indigenous and local conflict resolution systems in the region—such as the Pashtun *jirga* or Baloch tribal mediation—prioritize communal harmony and long-term trust over short-term agreements. These systems are often sidelined in favor of state-centric diplomacy, which privileges military and economic leverage. The erasure of these traditions reflects a colonial legacy where Western legal and diplomatic frameworks are deemed superior, despite their repeated failures in the region.

The US’s current approach echoes Cold War-era interventions, where sanctions and proxy conflicts were used to destabilize adversaries rather than resolve disputes. The 1980s Iran-Iraq War, fueled by US and Gulf state support for Saddam Hussein, set a precedent for viewing Iran as a perpetual threat. The 2015 nuclear deal’s collapse under Trump demonstrated how US domestic politics can derail multilateral agreements, undermining regional stability.

Persian diplomatic traditions emphasize *sulh* (reconciliation) and *adl* (justice), which require patience and mutual concessions—contrasting with the US’s deadline-driven approach. South Asian mediation often relies on informal networks (e.g., Sufi shrines, tribal elders) that operate outside formal state channels, offering alternative pathways to de-escalation. These traditions highlight how the US’s rigid frameworks may be ill-suited to resolving conflicts rooted in historical grievances and cultural nuances.

Sanctions regimes have been empirically shown to exacerbate civilian suffering and fuel extremism by destabilizing economies and governments (e.g., studies by the UN and academic institutions). The US’s reliance on sanctions as a primary tool of coercion lacks empirical support for achieving long-term diplomatic goals, as seen in cases like Cuba and Venezuela. Behavioral economics research suggests that deadline-driven negotiations often backfire, increasing distrust and reducing the likelihood of sustainable agreements.

Artistic expressions in the region—such as Persian poetry (e.g., Rumi’s *Masnavi*) or Sufi music—often frame conflict as a spiritual trial requiring patience and wisdom. These traditions contrast with the militarized language of 'races against time,' which frames diplomacy as a zero-sum game. The erasure of spiritual and artistic perspectives reflects a broader devaluation of non-rational forms of knowledge in geopolitical discourse.

Scenario modeling suggests that continued US sanctions and military posturing will likely lead to further regional fragmentation, with Iran deepening ties with China and Russia. A potential collapse of the truce could trigger a new wave of proxy conflicts, drawing in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Gulf states. Alternative models, such as regional security pacts (e.g., the Shanghai Cooperation Organization’s observer status for Iran), offer pathways to reduce dependence on US-led diplomacy.

Marginalized voices—including Iranian women, Baloch and Kurdish minorities, and Pakistani laborers—are systematically excluded from mainstream narratives, despite bearing the brunt of sanctions and militarization. These communities often articulate resistance through grassroots movements (e.g., the Women, Life, Freedom movement in Iran) that challenge both US hegemony and authoritarian regimes. Their exclusion from diplomatic processes reinforces the cycle of violence and erodes the legitimacy of top-down negotiations.