As Washington and Tehran test fragile diplomatic channels, regional powers are competing for the right to shape the future of Middle East negotiations
After threatening to destroy Iran’s “whole civilization” a few hours before the deadline he set for Iran, US President Donald Trump suddenly announced a two-week ceasefire that continues to this day, though it remains fragile. Throughout this time, the White House has been urgently pushing the narrative about an active negotiation process with Iran, which is supposedly yielding results. Washington still talks about progress and work on a framework agreement, though Tehran has accused Washington of violations and the US military remains ready to resume combat operations at any moment.
Tehran’s skepticism is understandable: On two previous occasions, negotiations with the Trump administration only brought about an escalation of the conflict. During the hot phase of the war, Tehran publicly refuted Trump’s claims about forthcoming negotiations, labeling the reports misleading and false. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has frequently been mentioned in the Western media as a negotiator on the Iranian side, said Washington used fabricated reports of talks to manipulate the oil markets. This is difficult to dispute; indeed, as soon as Trump mentioned negotiations with Tehran, oil prices began to drop. While they didn’t return to the $72 per barrel mark seen just before the start of the conflict on February 28, they demonstrated a positive trend.
According to Tehran, Trump’s repeated statements about negotiations serve not to initiate dialogue with Iran but rather to project an image that the White House is in control of the escalation, holds the diplomatic initiative, and if necessary, can present any interim outcome as the president’s personal success. In other words, the public emphasis on negotiations appears to be an effort to create a political exit strategy – essentially a way to emerge unscathed, even if no significant strategic breakthrough occurs. This interpretation aligns with how the Trump administration intensifies its rhetoric while simultaneously speaking of productive contact.
The international media quickly picked up on this. However, the question of who could become a mediator between Washington and Tehran is no longer a priority. Most media outlets have agreed that the talks will probably be held in Pakistan. And indeed, Islamabad mediated the ceasefire, which considerably increased Pakistan’s political weight. As a result, the focus of the discussion has shifted. Instead of wondering whether negotiations are possible, the media is preoccupied with a more practical question: Will they be held in Pakistan, and will Islamabad be an effective mediator?
Why Pakistan?
In early April, reports emerged that Pakistan is one of the most probable venues for future negotiations. Around the same time, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry officially announced negotiations between Iran and the US, which were indeed held on April 11. They ended without results, while no resumption of hostilities was reported, but the US began a blockade of Iranian ports. At present, according to media reports, the US and Iran continue to exchange proposals for a final settlement specifically through Pakistani diplomatic channels.
Pakistan’s role as a mediator in this conflict is far from coincidental. As the only Muslim nuclear power, Pakistan holds exceptional symbolic and strategic weight in the Islamic world. This status lends Islamabad additional legitimacy as a mediator in security-related matters and issues of regional balance. Moreover, Pakistan possesses a crucial asset that many other regional states lack: It can maintain working relationships with both Iran and the US. Reports from several Western media outlets indicate that Islamabad has been involved in relaying proposals, and Pakistan is being considered as a platform for further contact. Furthermore, US initiatives were communicated to Tehran through Pakistan, and Islamabad has been conducting regional consultations involving Türkiye and Egypt.
For Pakistan, this role is advantageous for several reasons. Firstly, Pakistan seeks to assert its diplomatic agency and demonstrate that it is not merely a peripheral player in South Asian politics. Secondly, Islamabad is interested in preventing regional instability at its borders, since unrest in Iran automatically elevates risks to Pakistan’s security, trade, and interfaith harmony. Thirdly, by acting as a mediator, Pakistan can enhance its image as a nation pursuing a more autonomous foreign policy than it did 15-20 years ago. Historically, it has long been viewed as a US ally and a component of the anti-India balance. However, in recent years, Pakistan has significantly diversified its international ties, strengthened relations with China, shown increased interest in cooperating with Russia, and generally aimed for greater sovereignty. This shift undoubtedly boosts its appeal for Iran, which requires a mediator that is not too closely aligned with American interests but is also not overtly antagonistic toward Washington. Nonetheless, US influence in Pakistan remains strong, meaning Islamabad can be politically acceptable to Tehran while being practically useful to America. These two factors – Islamic legitimacy and existing communication channels with Washington – position Pakistan as one of the most promising candidates for mediation in the current landscape.
Pakistan itself remains entangled in a web of conflicts. On the one hand, its ongoing rivalry with India continues to heighten tensions and complicate the regional landscape in South Asia. On the other hand, unresolved issues with Afghanistan, which escalated into armed clashes at the end of February, still haven’t been effectively addressed. If Pakistan can prove its effectiveness as a negotiation platform, and if the US and Iran manage to reach a peace agreement (as challenging as that seems), Pakistan’s geopolitical stakes will rise significantly. This shift would allow Pakistan to engage with its neighbors from a position of greater strength.
Why not Oman?
Oman traditionally played the role of mediator between Iran and the US. For many years, it was viewed as the most suitable venue for sensitive US-Iran contact. It was seen as a cautious, reserved, and pragmatic mediator that didn’t overly politicize the process. In 2025, Oman again served as a platform for indirect discussions on nuclear issues between the US and Iran. However, these talks (two rounds of talks, in fact) didn’t yield any results, and Oman’s mediation efforts failed. It wouldn’t be fair to say that Oman was responsible for this failure; rather, the inconsistency of the White House, which fluctuated between pressure tactics and willingness to negotiate, ultimately empowered the hawks and the ‘war party’ in Washington to start the risky venture. Oman may have failed as a mediation platform, but it wasn’t its fault.
Nevertheless, it’s premature to count Oman out, since no one knows the result of the negotiations in Pakistan. Oman’s primary strength lies in the trust it has built with both sides and its reputation as a reliable and discreet channel for conveying messages. Even if Oman’s position as the main negotiator has weakened, it remains the most recognizable and institutionally familiar mediator. However, it is no longer the only intermediary. While Oman remains useful, it has lost its exclusivity. Consequently, other potential mediators have emerged, and for now, Pakistan has been chosen as the main venue for negotiations.
What about Türkiye?
Türkiye remains another serious contender. Its position is unique, since it is the only Muslim country in NATO and plays a significant role in the bloc. Türkiye is not a peripheral player in the Euro-Atlantic architecture; it is an independent center of power capable of navigating complex multilateral dynamics. Ankara maintains institutional access to Western capitals, has extensive experience in engaging with Iran, and boasts well-developed regional diplomacy. Reports suggest that Türkiye effectively conveys messages between the US and Iran and was considered a potential venue for contact. While Ankara hasn’t provided much commentary to the press, it has subtly mentioned the existence of a certain negotiation track.
Why is it logical for Türkiye to be a mediator in the current conflict? For Ankara, the Iran conflict is not a distant concern; it’s directly tied to its own national security. The Turkish leadership is not interested in the complete collapse of Iran, its fragmentation, or prolonged destabilization along its borders. A weakening of central authority in Iran could trigger a chain of events that Türkiye perceives as highly dangerous: Increased instability at the border, new waves of refugees, the heightened activity of Kurdish groups on both sides of the border, and an overall expansion of the area of strategic turbulence close to Turkish territory. Ankara is genuinely concerned about being drawn into conflict and about the repercussions of a weakened Iranian state, particularly as they relate to the Kurdish factor and significant migration issues.
For these reasons, Türkiye is potentially positioned to act not just as a relayer of messages between Washington and Tehran but as a key player deeply invested in de-escalation. It wields considerable political influence, has established diplomatic channels, a regional military status, and is driven by a clear motivation to prevent the Iranian crisis from spiraling out of control. Unlike the Gulf Arab monarchies, Ankara isn’t viewed as an adversary by Tehran. Furthermore, Türkiye can engage with the US through the lens of strategic interests and the NATO framework – an advantage that neutral mediators don’t have. This positions Türkiye as one of the most pragmatic mediators available, especially if the negotiations require not just the transmission of signals but also substantial political backing. Moreover, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would certainly be pleased if the conflicting sides conclude some sort of a peace deal on Turkish soil.
Perhaps Egypt?
Egypt was also mentioned several times as a potential negotiator. Its candidacy is more contentious compared to Türkiye or Pakistan; however, this also makes it an interesting option. Cairo has attempted to adopt a different stance compared to its Arab counterparts; it doesn’t completely align itself with the anti-Iran coalition even as it condemns Tehran’s actions, particularly those that threaten maritime safety, energy supplies, and regional stability. It’s quite possible that Egypt is already engaged in regional diplomatic consultations, advocating for an end to the conflict while maintaining close ties with the US.
The relationship between Cairo and Tehran is difficult to label as either friendly or overtly hostile. Following the ousting of the Muslim Brotherhood regime in 2013, a significant ideological and political rift emerged between Egypt and Iran. Iran viewed this movement with notable sympathy and continued to maintain contact with it, while Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi built his legitimacy on suppressing Islamist movements. Over the years, however, regional dynamics have shifted. Cairo cautiously pursued more pragmatic engagement with nations with which it previously had strained relations, including Iran. This marked a gradual pivot towards a more flexible approach towards Tehran, though they never became real allies.
This ambiguity could render Egypt a potentially valuable mediator. It may not be an ideal partner for Iran, but is not a discredited figure in Tehran’s eyes either. On the other hand, Egypt maintains strong ties with the US, boasts significant standing in the Arab world, and has its own interest in reducing regional tensions – especially since the conflict surrounding Iran disrupts energy markets, logistics, and jeopardizes Egyptian economic interests.
The Bab-el-Mandeb Strait – a narrow yet critically important link in global maritime logistics – deserves particular attention in this regard. Should the Ansar Allah movement (the Houthis) decide to fully or partially block this strait, the repercussions would directly affect Egypt, since the strait serves as the gateway to the Red Sea – and consequently, the Suez Canal. For Egypt, this isn’t just a geopolitical issue; it’s a matter of economic survival. The Suez Canal is a vital source of foreign currency for Egypt, forming a cornerstone of its macroeconomic stability. Revenue from transit traffic contributes significantly to the national budget and plays a crucial role in maintaining the country’s balance of payments. If the canal were to become effectively paralyzed – due to decreasing traffic, security threats, or a de facto blockade – Egypt would face a severe financial blow. This scenario could lead to a sharp decline in foreign earnings, increased pressure on the national currency, a growing budget deficit, and heightened socioeconomic tensions. We are not just talking about a local escalation, but a potential rupture of one of the key trade routes connecting Asia and Europe.
In other words, while Egypt might not be the chief architect of negotiations, it could emerge as a politically acceptable participant within a broader mediating coalition.
Ultimately, the discussion about potential mediators demonstrates the lack of a robust negotiating mechanism and a crisis in the traditional mediation model. Trump aims to discuss negotiations as if they were already underway and under his control; Iran denies this, demonstrating its unwillingness to accept a narrative imposed by Washington. Oman remains a traditional but not exclusive mediator. Pakistan appears to be one of the most promising options due to its ties to the Islamic world, strategic significance, and established communication channels with both sides. Türkiye holds considerable political power and is interested in preventing the disintegration of the regional order. As for Egypt, its candidacy is more questionable, but it could take part in the negotiations in a multilateral format.
Most importantly, the issue of mediation boils down to the question of who can address the conflict in the Middle East through some form of diplomacy. If Trump is indeed trying to establish a public narrative for a future deal, then those who are currently fighting for a chance to become mediators are also fighting for a chance to convert the crisis into political capital. In this context, a negotiator is not merely a messenger, but someone who gains the right to shape the framework for resolving the conflict.