A path to peace in West Asia beyond Pakistan talks

A much-talked-about meeting finally took place in Pakistan. The Foreign Ministers of Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Egypt sat together with Pakistan, in Islamabad on March 29, to explore ways out of the war in West Asia. Just before this, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had a long conversation with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian. Then, Pakistan Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar was in China to hold talks on restoring peace and stability in West Asia. All this sounds grand but is only a tiny step in a long process, where the devil lies in the details.

Ceasefire requirement

The very first step is to hammer out a ceasefire. That will happen only when both sides — the United States/Israel and Iran — either concede victory or have exhausted themselves to a standstill. In the first regard, it is unclear what the U.S. sees as a ‘win,’ with U.S. President Donald Trump shifting goals rapidly — from denuclearisation to regime change, and, after a whole rung of leaders in Iran were killed, to an undefined ‘surrender’. As of now, it seems that the U.S.’s ultimate objective is to control the Strait of Hormuz, similar to its ‘securing’ of the Panama Canal.

Similarly, Israel’s early call for a people’s uprising in Iran after the assassination of their Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei does not stand scrutiny. Any intelligence agency worth its salt would know that any ‘uprising’ requires a carefully selected group to lead it, either within or outside the country. Moreover, such a move must happen in the first few weeks of war.

Beyond that, any leadership would be hard-pressed to negotiate an end to war in the face of a furious public. It seems, then, that Israel’s objective was to decimate, once and for all, Iran’s entire capability to strike. That point has not yet been reached, as is clearly apparent. Therefore, Tel Aviv will remain lukewarm toward an end to the war.

In terms of the subject of ‘exhaustion’, the U.S., of all sides, witnessed one of the largest non-violent marches in American history. True, the ‘No Kings’ protest was not specifically against the war, but it still counts politically. Meanwhile, at least two aircraft carriers of the United States have moved out of range, amid reports of munitions shortages. Israel is being hit, regardless of the famed ‘Iron Dome’ — its air defence system — though the extent is debatable. Iran is bleeding, and badly. Each side has summarily rejected the demands of the other — at least in public.

Second, mediation is a process. The first step is a ceasefire, which is no easy task when there is zero trust. The U.S., after all, attacked Iran even as negotiations were on. Washington, in turn, accused Israel of unilaterally attacking the Pars gas field, causing a serious escalation. In this case, a ceasefire will need a force capable of enforcing it; primarily, only a physical presence can provide security guarantees. That needs a United Nations mandate to be legal in what is an entirely illegal war.

In sum, a UN Security Council (UNSC) member will have to vote for a peacekeeping force that can act in case of transgressions. That is farcical, even assuming that the U.S. would heed a despised UN.

Revisiting history

There is, however, a way out. In the 1956 Suez Crisis, when Egypt nationalised the Suez Canal, France and the United Kingdom blocked UNSC action. The General Assembly passed the ‘Uniting for Peace’ resolution which authorised peacekeepers in a rare move that bypassed the UNSC. It brought peace, but only because a U.S. President, in this case Dwight D. Eisenhower, twisted allies’ arms. In sum, the UN only works when a strong country decides it should

Third is the question of troop contributors. Presumably, that will include Egypt, Türkiye and Pakistan, all with large standing armies. Egypt recognises Israel, and Türkiye is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Pakistan may consider a token presence rather than having to honour its Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement with Saudi Arabia, which was signed in 2025. Mr. Dar’s visit to China yielded only a five-point peace plan, which also called for the delivery of humanitarian aid. This will require some presence of aid agencies, presumably under UN cover.

Primarily, China is expected to persuade Iran to accept a ceasefire, though ‘persuasion’ will require something more concrete than a plan. A direct security commitment is out of the question. No one wants a third world war. Other countries, such as Indonesia and Malaysia — both of whom support the Pakistani initiative — may weigh in, with the whole effort funded by the Gulf countries.

So far, so good. But Iran does not entirely trust the mediators. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are allegedly pushing the Americans to attack Iran and ‘finish the job. In 2024, the Pakistanis bombed Iran, and Türkiye’s Kurdish problem has Iranian tentacles.

A role for New Delhi

India had best keep out of such dubious ventures, though it should talk to all sides to prevent escalation. While China is an unlikely partner in this, there is also Australia, the Southeast Asian countries and India’s neighbours, all of whom have been hit hard by the energy crisis.

This might be the time for Indian diplomacy to fire up and rally the ‘Global South’ at the UN, fostering a united opposition to the war and pushing for a lasting ceasefire. A global voice must be heard, not just through a single channel, no matter how busy. That might just be the impetus that the UN needs.

Tara Kartha is a former Director, National Security Council Secretariat

Published – April 03, 2026 12:08 am IST