Asif Haroon Raja
Image, reputation, respect, and goodwill are far greater achievements for a nation than temporary material gains.
For the first time, Pakistan is being widely acknowledged and admired across the world for its valour during the four-day conflict with India, as well as for its diplomatic brilliance and mediation efforts.
Iran, the United States, and several Arab States have placed considerable trust in Pakistan, which remains steadfastly committed to ending the conflict in the Persian Gulf that is adversely affecting the global economy.
World leaders, along with the UN and the OIC, are now looking towards Pakistan with hope and expectation to help restore peace in the volatile Middle East. This is a unique moment in Pakistan’s history and one that should make every Pakistani proud.
The illegitimate invasion of Iran led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting international oil and gas supplies and severely affecting the global economy.
Pakistan is among the countries most heavily impacted, as a substantial portion of its annual budget is consumed by oil import expenses.
Energy crises inevitably lead to inflation, rising prices, currency devaluation, food shortages, and numerous other social and economic challenges.
While spoilers such as Israel and India, and to some extent the UAE, are attempting to sabotage the peace process and obstruct an agreement that has nearly reached fruition, internal spoilers within Pakistan are pursuing their own agendas.
They seek to portray every positive step taken by the government and the military in a negative light.
Having little credible criticism left, these detractors are now propagating the narrative that Pakistan will gain nothing in return for its diplomatic initiatives and mediation efforts.
Their narratives are carefully crafted to discredit the government and the military leadership.
Even the Herculean efforts of Pakistan’s security forces to eradicate terrorism are undermined by those who question why terrorism has not yet been completely eliminated despite decades of war, immense sacrifices, and the expenditure of vast national resources.
These hidden adversaries within are among the gravest threats to Pakistan’s integrity and sovereignty. Their social media platforms remain relentlessly focused on maligning Pakistan and tarnishing its international image.
For them, selfish motives and narrow political interests take precedence over the wellbeing, honour, and global standing of Pakistan.
The efforts undertaken by Pakistan under the stewardship of Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir to restore regional peace are rooted in sincerity, honesty of purpose, and freedom from personal ambition or materialistic motives.
They have placed their trust in Allah and are working tirelessly to prevent the region from descending into a far greater conflict.
So far, Allah has rewarded their dedicated efforts. Pakistan has achieved several milestones that have surprised the world and stunned its adversaries.
The most valuable achievement of all is the trust, goodwill, and respect Pakistan has earned internationally. Material benefits are bound to follow, and the groundwork for future gains has already been laid.
Muslim Countries and the Abraham Accords with Israel
Nearly two decades ago, Saudi Arabia made the implementation of the two-state solution, or the Shah Abdullah Initiative 2002, a prerequisite for normalization with Israel. Without it, normalization was simply not possible — and, in reality, it still is not possible today.
Certain Muslim circles object to this position by arguing that Israel itself is an illegitimate state. However, instead of considering a gradual and practical approach, they often give preference to emotional reactions, despite the immense suffering and oppression endured by the Palestinians.
A workable solution, compatible with the prevailing global environment, has become a practical necessity and demand of the time.
Before October 7, 2023, when Saudi Arabia was subjected to intense pressure to sign an agreement with Israel, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman reportedly stated that if he independently endorsed the Abraham Accords, he could face the threat of assassination.
Very few people are aware of the fact that many Israelis themselves were uneasy over the possibility that normalization could eventually transform Saudi Arabia into a major economic power, because economic strength enhances a country’s administrative structure, political influence, defence capabilities, and diplomatic leverage. Hints of this concern even appeared indirectly in an Israeli newspaper.
One indication of this, according to critics, is that under the pretext of attacks involving the United States and Israel, Israel allegedly established two secret military bases in Iraq and targeted Saudi oil and gas infrastructure in order to cripple the Saudi economy while using Iran as a cover.
A similar situation, they argue, has confronted the United Arab Emirates despite its normalization agreement with Israel. In the face of threats linked to Iran, neither Israel’s closeness nor India’s partnership proved truly effective for the UAE’s defence.
Israel’s broader policy, according to this viewpoint, is to encourage Muslim countries toward normalization so that global public opinion — including the European Union, Britain, and the United States — perceives Israel as a powerful yet peaceful state accepted by many Muslim nations.
At the same time, however, Israel is seen as unwilling to tolerate the ideological, historical, political, economic, and military rise of neighbouring Muslim states.
Therefore, it allegedly misses no opportunity to engage in covert destabilizing activities behind the scenes.
One important reality is that in last year’s nuclear technology agreement between Saudi Arabia and the United States, it was Israel that repeatedly insisted upon strict monitoring and control over the entire system.
Likewise, who has been pressuring the United States not to allow Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium beyond a certain level? Again, the answer given is Israel.
Who reportedly advised the United States against providing Saudi Arabia with upgraded F-35 fighter jets? Once again, Israel.
In light of these realities, it is misleading to claim that the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023, and Iran’s confrontation with Israel merely interrupted the normalization process between Saudi Arabia and Israel.
At least in Saudi Arabia’s case, even a concealed endorsement of normalization appears nearly impossible under current circumstances.
The reality, according to this perspective, is that whether normalization occurs or not, Israel does not wish to see the surrounding Arab States become economically, militarily, or politically strong.
Thus, while Israel publicly advocates normalization with Arab States, it simultaneously seeks ways to undermine their economies and educational systems.
Part of this strategy, critics argue, involves distracting Arab youth under the banner of liberalism, while simultaneously spreading Islamophobia worldwide through media and social media campaigns.
Taking into account the hesitation among Arabs and other Muslim nations toward normalization, Israel, according to this argument, devised another approach: by carrying out mass killings of Palestinians and forcibly occupying the remaining Palestinian territories, the Palestinian issue itself could be erased once and for all — eliminating the problem entirely.
Undoubtedly, the United Nations, the United States, Britain, and even major Muslim countries may appear helpless before Israel, but global public opinion and the collective conscience of humanity have increasingly become a nightmare for Israel.
Consequently, Israel now frequently raises the issue of antisemitism across the world.
In any case, time will tell to what extent Muslim rulers, officials, and elite classes are influenced by — or choose to resist — what critics describe as a ruthless and violent state.
Rejuvenation of Abraham Accords by Trump
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey have officially dismissed recent diplomatic pressure to join the expanded Abraham Accords, standing firm on their conditional recognition of Israel.
This trilateral resistance comes directly after the United States proposed integrating these major Muslim-majority nations into the normalization agreements as a mandatory prerequisite for a broader regional peace settlement.
The diplomatic push, announced by US leadership in late May 2026, aimed to leverage a potential security deal with Iran by expanding the Accords across the Middle East and South Asia.
In response, Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif explicitly ruled out participation, stating it clashed with the nation’s fundamental ideologies and strict passport policies.
Concurrently, Saudi Arabia reiterated its steadfast demand for an irreversible pathway to an independent Palestinian State, while Turkey maintained its strong opposition amid the ongoing regional conflicts, refusing to bypass its long-standing conditions for peace.
Foreign policy analysts suggest this collective rejection significantly stalls Washington’s strategy to forge a rapid, region-wide normalization framework without resolving core historical disputes.
This unyielding stance by Islamabad, Riyadh, and Ankara has rapidly mobilized domestic public support and signaled a formidable resistance against external geopolitical directives.
Consequently, international mediators will likely be forced to fundamentally restructure their approach to diplomacy, potentially reshaping the future of the unresolved Palestinian issue.
Nuclear Issue Blocking Peace Deal
A central obstacle blocking a final peace agreement between the United States and Iran remains the nuclear issue — particularly Iran’s uranium enrichment programme and its stockpile of highly enriched uranium.
Washington insists that Tehran must either surrender or severely limit its enrichment capabilities under strict international monitoring, while Iran maintains that peaceful nuclear enrichment is its sovereign right and refuses to completely dismantle its programme.
The dispute is further complicated by Israeli pressure on the United States to prevent Iran from retaining any capability that could potentially bring it close to nuclear weapons production in the future.
Iran, on the other hand, views such demands as an attempt to permanently deny strategic and technological parity in the region.
As a result, despite progress on ceasefire arrangements and regional de-escalation, the unresolved questions surrounding uranium enrichment, stockpile disposal, sanctions relief, and long-term inspections continue to obstruct a comprehensive peace settlement between Washington and Tehran.
Prospects of Settlement
There are still realistic prospects for a settlement, but the chances depend on whether both sides are willing to accept a compromise formula rather than insist on maximalist positions.
At present, neither the United States nor Iran appears eager for a prolonged confrontation.
Washington wants to avoid another destabilizing Middle Eastern conflict, particularly after the economic and strategic costs of recent regional wars.
Iran, despite projecting resilience, also faces economic strain from sanctions, internal pressures, and the risk of deeper regional isolation.
These factors create incentives for diplomacy. The most likely path to a settlement would involve:
Iran agrees to cap uranium enrichment at a lower level.
Stricter and longer-term international inspections.
Gradual sanctions relief by the United States.
Regional security guarantees aimed at reducing Israeli and Gulf Arab concerns.
However, the biggest obstacle remains mutual distrust. Tehran fears that any concession could later be reversed by a future US administration, as happened after the American withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement.
Meanwhile, the US and Israel remain suspicious that Iran could eventually retain the technical capability to move toward weaponization if political conditions change.
Israel’s security concerns and domestic politics in both Washington and Tehran also complicate matters considerably. Even if negotiators reach a technical understanding, selling it politically at home is another challenge altogether.
Therefore, while a complete breakthrough is difficult, a limited or phased agreement remains possible — especially if regional powers quietly encourage de-escalation rather than confrontation.
About the Author
Brigadier (Retd) Asif Haroon Raja, SI (M) is a war veteran. He is Command and Staff Course and War Course qualified, holds an MSc in War Studies, and served as Defence Attaché in Egypt and Sudan, as well as Dean of the Corps of Military Attachés in Cairo.
He is a defence, security, and geopolitical analyst, international columnist, author of five books, former Chairman of Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Patron-in-Chief of Centre for Development Studies Think Tank, Director of Meesakh Research Centre; he regularly appears on media platforms.
