US envoy diplomacy in Pakistan amid Iran tensions: Systemic patterns of proxy conflicts and regional power struggles

Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems in the region—such as Pashtunwali (the Pashtun code of honor) and Persian diplomatic traditions—prioritize honor, hospitality, and long-term relationship-building over zero-sum power games. These systems have historically resolved conflicts through jirgas (tribal councils) and *panchayats*, mechanisms that emphasize collective well-being over individual state interests. The US envoy model, however, dismisses these as 'informal' or 'unreliable,' reflecting a colonial-era disregard for non-Western governance.

The US-Pakistan-Iran triangle has been a flashpoint since the 1950s, when Pakistan became a US ally in the Cold War, hosting American military bases near Iran. The 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan further entrenched the region as a proxy battleground, with Pakistan serving as a US-backed conduit for mujahideen funding. The Taliban’s emergence in the 1990s—directly tied to these interventions—was a direct consequence of this geopolitical chessboard, yet mainstream narratives treat these events as isolated incidents rather than systemic patterns.

Cross-culturally, diplomacy in West and South Asia has often been mediated through trade routes, religious networks, and cultural exchanges rather than state-to-state negotiations. For example, the Silk Road facilitated centuries of peaceful coexistence between Persian, Arab, and South Asian civilizations, while the Ottoman *millet* system allowed religious and ethnic groups to self-govern under a pluralistic empire. The US envoy model, by contrast, operates within a Westphalian framework that prioritizes sovereign states over transnational or communal identities.

Academic research on proxy conflicts (e.g., Karl Deutsch’s *Nationalism and Social Communication*) demonstrates that external interventions in regional disputes often exacerbate instability by empowering hardline factions over moderates. Studies on the 'resource curse' (e.g., Michael Ross’s *The Oil Curse*) show how militarized diplomacy in resource-rich regions like the Middle East fuels corruption and prolongs conflicts. The envoy model’s reliance on coercive diplomacy (e.g., sanctions, military threats) aligns with these findings, which predict higher conflict recurrence rates in such scenarios.

Artistic and spiritual traditions in the region often frame conflict as a disruption of cosmic or communal balance, requiring rituals of reconciliation rather than military solutions. Persian poetry (e.g., Rumi’s *Masnavi*) and Sufi traditions emphasize the futility of vengeance and the necessity of forgiveness, themes absent in secular diplomacy. Similarly, Pakistani folk traditions like *qawwali* and *dastan-goi* (storytelling) have historically preserved narratives of resilience and coexistence, offering alternative models to state-led conflict resolution.

Future scenarios for the region suggest that continued reliance on envoy diplomacy will likely lead to escalation, as seen in past cycles (e.g., 2001 Afghanistan invasion, 2015 Iran nuclear deal collapse). Alternative models—such as Track II diplomacy (involving civil society) or economic integration (e.g., China’s Belt and Road Initiative)—could reduce tensions by addressing root causes like poverty and sectarianism. However, these require long-term commitments, which are incompatible with electoral cycles in the US and short-term geopolitical gains.

Marginalized voices—such as Afghan refugees, Baloch separatists, and Iranian women’s rights activists—are systematically excluded from diplomatic narratives, despite their direct stake in the outcomes. Pakistani civil society groups, including labor unions and student movements, have historically opposed US interventions but are framed as 'radical' or 'unrealistic.' Similarly, Iranian reformists and Kurdish communities in both Iran and Pakistan are often dismissed as 'divisive' rather than as key stakeholders in peacebuilding.