Iran War: 'What Makes Both Sides Trust Pakistan'?

'Is it a balance of distrust or something else at play here?'

"Is Pakistan playing the role of a mediator? Which means will they be at the table making suggestions, negotiating with both sides -- or are they providing a place where both sides will negotiate and they [Pakistan] will sit outside the room? This is not clear... We should get out of this mindset that anything that involves Pakistan is a minus for us," says Ambassador Gurjit Singh, India's former envoy to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia and ASEAN, discussing the ceasefire and Pakistan's role as negotiator with Rediff's Archana Masih.

What is you reading of this two-week ceasefire? And what happens next?

It is good that some sanity has prevailed and both sides are now agreed to a ceasefire. It is very important because the world was being dragged into the US-Israel war against Iran for no particular reason. This war had no clear end.

According to Iran's 10-point plan, it will open the Strait of Hormuz, but at a cost; it will not give up its ballistic missiles programme nor give up its nuclear weapons and there has been no regime change.

So, the Iranians seem to have come out quite unscathed other than the destruction that they have suffered.

What about the Americans?

It seems that the Americans wanted a pull-out. This was leading to an everyday battle and then a stalemate.

The two warring sides need to start talking now.

However, there are two dangers.

One, they won't agree on many points because many conditions put forth by the Iranians will not be agreed to by the Americans and vice versa.

A good negotiation always comes down to a lowest common denominator of say 5 points.

What would the 4-5 compromise points be from the 10 and 15 points laid out by both countries?

Ideally, these guarantees could be things like ensuring no further attacks, reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran agreeing not to use their proxy groups.

The last point poses a problem because Israel doesn't seem to be a part of the ceasefire conversation.

Also the Israelis are saying that Lebanon is not covered under the ceasefire. This means they will continue their action in southern Lebanon against Hezbollah -- while the Iranian 10-points includes Lebanon. So there's already a mismatch.

It remains to be seen how much Americans can control the Israelis because in the last few days, Israel has been heavily attacking Iran through aerial warfare.

And the Iranians should not say that they are not carrying out any attacks, but the Houthis or Hezbollah are.

For the ceasefire to work, there has to be control on all proxies.

The negotiations are happening in Pakistan. What do you think will happen next?

I am keeping my fingers crossed. The negotiations are going to happen in Pakistan, which makes me wonder what makes both sides trust Pakistan?

Is it a balance of distrust or something else at play here?

It also remains to be seen who physically turns up for the negotiations.

Will it be Vice President J D Vance who is in Budapest holding up the Viktor Orban government which is about to lose the election or who else?

There are a lot of uncertainties but at least for the first time, both sides have agreed to three things -- they are willing to talk, they have a basis for those talks and a venue for the talks.

That in itself is a positive start.

Is this a diplomatic win for Pakistan?

Is Pakistan playing the role of a mediator? Which means will they be at the table making suggestions, negotiating with both sides -- or are they providing a place where both sides will negotiate and they [Pakistan] will sit outside the room?

This is not clear.

If they are playing a mediating role, then certainly it's an important win for them. If they are just a service provider, then there would be a face-to-face talk between Iran and the US.

There is also a third option.

Sometimes the two parties don't want to talk to each other face-to-face. So, what happens is they sit in separate rooms and the mediator goes from one room to the other carrying messages.

My understanding is they will be talking face-to-face. It is not clear whether Pakistani delegates will be inside the room.

During the India-Pakistan Tashkent talks in 1966, Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin brought the two sides together and made sure that talks don't break down.

It is hard to see if Pakistan has the capacity to play that kind of role. Pakistan cannot confidently guarantee that the talks will not break down. After all, they have to negotiate with a superpower and with Iran which believes it has won the war.

Both the countries consider themselves to be in a position of strength which makes the dynamics difficult to manage.

Should India be concerned about the spotlight that Pakistan has received?

No, we should get out of this mindset that anything that involves Pakistan is a minus for us.

What matters is the bigger picture. We should view this as the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, restoring energy supply lines and bringing peace back to our region.

That is what really matters. Whether it happens in a room in Pakistan, frankly should not be a major concern for us.

What should concern us more is the role China is playing behind the scenes with Pakistan.

When Pakistan first made this offer of negotiations, its foreign minister travelled to China. The Chinese are playing a quiet role and are perhaps guiding Pakistan or at least consulting with Pakistan.

Of course, this role could have been played by Turkey or Egypt or Oman. But Oman having burnt its hands last time, decided not to step in. Turkey, meanwhile, may not be completely trusted by America.

Egypt probably facilitated talks with Iran.

Pakistan did this because it gives them some international stature at a critical point for their economy. They need to build their international image. And among the leaders of Oman, Turkey, Egypt and Pakistan, President Trump seems to have the best relationship with Field Marshal Aseem Munir.

Do you think this will make the Trump-Munir relationship cosier than what it was before?

If it succeeds, yes. But please remember, playing the role of a mediator is a very dangerous game. You could fail for no fault of yours.

Pakistan is desperate enough to take such a gamble. So, I presume their understanding is, if it fails, can you really be worse off than where you are now?

If it succeeds, Munir will be more favoured by Trump.

Is it Advantage Iran and a reduction of American stature, if not loser?

American stature has definitely been reduced because they have not been able to achieve any of their aims.

Regime change? No.

End of ballistic missiles? Evidently no.

End of nuclear stockpile? No.

End of the Houthis and the Hezbollah? No.

They have destroyed Iran, but in the process, instead of regime change through internal upheaval, they have consolidated the further rise of the IRGC, and sidelining the main government.

Iran by surviving the war has shown that they are not defeated.

• THE IRAN WAR

Feature Presentation: Aslam Hunani/Rediff