US geopolitical leverage: Trump administration leveraged Pakistan to broker Iran ceasefire amid escalating tensions

Indigenous and local perspectives in border regions (e.g., Baloch, Pashtun communities) are entirely absent from this narrative, despite their disproportionate suffering from cross-border violence. These communities have long-standing traditions of conflict resolution that prioritize local autonomy over state-level negotiations, which are often seen as imposed by external powers. Their exclusion reflects a broader pattern of state-centric conflict management that marginalizes grassroots agency.

The US has repeatedly relied on Pakistan as a proxy mediator in regional conflicts, from the Soviet-Afghan War to the War on Terror, creating a cycle of dependency and resentment. The 2015 Iran nuclear deal’s collapse under Trump mirrors past US reversals on agreements (e.g., Camp David Accords), highlighting a pattern of diplomatic whiplash driven by domestic political cycles. This episode also echoes Cold War-era proxy wars where regional actors were instrumentalized to avoid direct confrontation.

In many non-Western traditions, ceasefires are not seen as endings but as strategic pauses to regroup, reflecting a cyclical rather than linear view of conflict. The concept of 'third-party mediation' is culturally contingent; in South Asia, it often involves non-state actors (e.g., tribal elders) rather than governments, which are viewed with suspicion. Iran’s approach to ceasefires is shaped by its historical experience of foreign intervention, where temporary truces are seen as necessary but insufficient for lasting peace.

Conflict mediation research shows that ceasefires brokered by external actors without local buy-in often fail to address root causes, leading to recurring violence. The Trump administration’s approach aligns with 'coercive diplomacy' theory, where threats are used to extract concessions, but this method has a poor track record in achieving durable outcomes. Structural factors like economic sanctions (e.g., US withdrawal from the JCPOA) are empirically linked to increased regional instability and reduced mediation success.

Artistic traditions in the region often depict ceasefires as fragile moments of respite in an otherwise unending cycle of violence, as seen in poetry and folk music from Iran and Pakistan. Spiritual frameworks, such as Sufi or Buddhist teachings, emphasize the futility of prolonged conflict and the need for compassionate engagement, which are absent in this geopolitical framing. The absence of artistic or spiritual voices in mainstream narratives reflects a broader devaluation of holistic conflict resolution approaches.

A systemic failure to address the underlying drivers of US-Iran tensions (e.g., sanctions, nuclear ambiguity) suggests this ceasefire will be temporary, with escalation likely if structural issues persist. Scenario modeling indicates that without addressing Pakistan’s domestic constraints (e.g., economic crisis, military influence), its mediation role will remain unsustainable. The rise of China as a regional power complicates future ceasefire efforts, as it may undermine US-led initiatives or offer alternative mediation pathways.

The voices of civilians in border regions (e.g., Sistan-Baluchestan, Balochistan) are entirely excluded, despite bearing the brunt of violence. Women’s groups and local NGOs in Pakistan and Iran, who often lead grassroots peacebuilding, are sidelined in favor of state-level negotiations. The framing also ignores the role of ethnic minorities (e.g., Kurds, Baloch) whose historical grievances fuel ongoing conflicts but are rarely addressed in diplomatic processes.