DIPLOMATIC DEADLOCK

Pakistan’s Double Game and the Crashing Trust in Iran-US Talks"

                                    April 23, 2026 | By Mitin Sheth (Shanilohit)

                                                    Executive Summary

The Iran-US talks have entered a fragile and contentious phase, with Pakistan’s role as mediator now under sharp scrutiny. Iranian state-controlled media has accused Islamabad of playing a “double game,” directly targeting Army Chief General Asim Munir. Tehran alleges that Pakistan has tilted toward Washington while sidelining Iran’s proposals, undermining trust and stalling negotiations. This controversy reflects the complex interplay of regional rivalries, Pakistan’s balancing act between the US and Iran, and the broader struggle for influence in West Asia. The fallout threatens not only the credibility of Pakistan’s mediation but also the stability of regional diplomacy at a time when tensions remain high.

The diplomatic row between Iran and Pakistan over mediation in US-Iran talks has become one of the most striking developments in recent months. At the heart of the controversy is Tehran’s accusation that Islamabad, under the stewardship of Army Chief General Asim Munir, has failed to act as a neutral broker. Iranian media has gone so far as to accuse Pakistan of duplicity, claiming that while it presents itself as a mediator, it has in fact aligned with Washington’s demands. This rare public criticism of Pakistan by Iranian state-controlled outlets underscores the depth of mistrust and the fragility of ongoing negotiations.

Iran’s frustration stems from its belief that Pakistan mishandled its formal negotiation proposal. According to Tehran, its 10-point framework, which had previously been acknowledged by US President Donald Trump, was routed through Pakistan but never received a proper response from Washington. Instead, Iranian commentators allege that Pakistan introduced 15 to 16 new American demands, effectively sidelining Iran’s original framework. This, they argue, weakened Iran’s bargaining position and reflected a clear shift away from neutrality. For Tehran, this was not simply a procedural misstep but a deliberate act of duplicity that undermined its diplomatic leverage.

The criticism directed at General Asim Munir is particularly significant. As Pakistan’s Army Chief, Munir wields enormous influence over foreign policy, especially in matters involving security and diplomacy. By naming him directly, Iranian media has signaled that it views the military establishment, rather than civilian leadership, as responsible for the alleged double game. This personalisation of criticism is unusual in Tehran’s discourse and suggests a serious breakdown in trust. It also highlights the perception that Pakistan’s military, long seen as the ultimate arbiter of foreign policy, is steering the country’s mediation efforts in a way that favors Washington.

Pakistan’s public messaging has further complicated matters. Statements suggesting imminent progress in talks were dismissed by Tehran as misleading and designed to shape global perception rather than reflect reality. Iranian officials insist that they have refused to participate in a second round of negotiations, contradicting reports from Islamabad that talks were moving forward. This divergence in messaging has deepened suspicions that Pakistan is attempting to manipulate narratives to bolster its own diplomatic standing while sidelining Iran’s concerns.

The broader context of US-Iran relations adds another layer of complexity. The United States has extended the ceasefire indefinitely, but continues to enforce a naval blockade of Iranian ports. Tehran views this as a violation of agreements and even an “act of war.” Iran has made clear that it will not negotiate under coercion, insisting that pressure tactics must stop before meaningful dialogue can resume. Washington, meanwhile, demands a unified proposal from Tehran, leaving the door technically open but practically stalled. In this environment, Pakistan’s role as mediator was supposed to provide a bridge. Instead, it has become a source of contention.

Regionally, Pakistan’s alleged duplicity has implications beyond Iran. Islamabad has long sought to balance its ties with Washington and Tehran, leveraging its position to maintain influence in West Asia. However, accusations of a double game risk damaging its credibility as a neutral broker. For Iran, Pakistan’s perceived tilt toward the US is a betrayal that undermines trust. For Washington, Pakistan’s alignment may be useful in the short term but could backfire if Tehran withdraws entirely from talks. For other regional actors, including Israel and Gulf states, the controversy reinforces doubts about Pakistan’s reliability as a mediator.

Domestically, Pakistan faces its own challenges. The perception of a pro-US tilt has sparked resentment among its Shia community, complicating internal stability. The military’s dominance in diplomacy, embodied by General Munir, raises questions about whether Islamabad can truly act neutrally. Critics argue that Pakistan’s mediation efforts are less about fostering peace and more about securing strategic advantages, whether in terms of military aid, economic support, or regional influence. This perception of self-interest further erodes trust in its role as a mediator.

The accusations of duplicity also reflect a broader pattern in Pakistan’s foreign policy. Historically, Islamabad has been accused of playing a double game in various contexts, most notably in its dealings with the US and Afghanistan. While presenting itself as a partner in counterterrorism, Pakistan was often accused of harboring militant groups. This history of duplicity has created a reputation that now colors its role in US-Iran talks. For Tehran, Pakistan’s mediation is not simply suspect but part of a broader pattern of behavior that prioritizes self-interest over genuine neutrality.

The fallout from this controversy is significant. For Iran, the accusations serve as a warning that it will not tolerate perceived duplicity. By publicly criticizing Pakistan, Tehran signals its determination to protect its bargaining position and resist pressure tactics. For Pakistan, the controversy threatens its credibility as a mediator and raises questions about its ability to balance competing interests. For the US, the alignment with Pakistan may provide short-term leverage but risks losing a channel of communication if Tehran withdraws. For the region, the row adds instability to an already fragile landscape, complicating efforts to de-escalate tensions.

Looking ahead, the prospects for meaningful dialogue remain uncertain. Iran has signaled openness to talks but only under conditions of respect and equality. The US insists on a unified proposal, while Pakistan’s role as mediator is now under serious question. Without trust, mediation cannot succeed. The accusations of a double game highlight the importance of credibility in diplomacy. For Pakistan, rebuilding trust will require transparency and a genuine commitment to neutrality. For Iran and the US, the challenge is to find a framework that allows dialogue without coercion. Until then, negotiations are likely to remain stalled, with the risk of escalation ever present.

Mitin Sheth (Shanilohit)

(Senior Columnist with Janmabhoomi Group of Newspapers | Author | Geopolitical Analyst)

                                                             Disclaimer

This article is based on publicly available news reports and analyses. It does not represent endorsement of any political position or actor. Diplomatic negotiations are fluid, and interpretations of events may vary across sources. Readers are advised to consult multiple perspectives for a comprehensive understanding of the evolving Iran-Pakistan-US dynamic.

 "Independently authored work. AI tools were used only for supportive tasks (research, translation, editing, image generation, and grammatical/punctuation correction). Final content and creative direction are the author’s own".

Copyright © 2026 Mitin Sheth (Shanilohit). All Rights Reserved.

All content, including text, original research, and AI-generated visual assets featured on 'World and Words,' is the intellectual property of the author. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law.