US Pushed Pakistan To Broker Iran Ceasefire Before Deadline Amid Oil Price Fears: Report

Pakistan’s role in brokering a temporary ceasefire between the United States and Iran is facing scrutiny after a report suggested that the initiative was largely driven by Washington rather than independent diplomacy.

According to a report by Financial Times, the Trump administration pushed Islamabad to step in as an intermediary amid rising oil prices and concerns over the stability of global energy supplies. The effort focused on persuading Iran to agree to a pause in fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil route.

As per the report, citing people familiar with the matter, Pakistan acted primarily as a channel for US messaging, presenting proposals to Tehran in a way that would be more acceptable to the Iranian leadership.

Pakistan’s role was to present the deal as coming from a fellow Muslim-majority state, in the hope it would be more acceptable to Tehran.

Pakistan’s involvement was therefore less about shaping the terms of peace and more about delivering a message crafted elsewhere. The arrangement allowed the US to maintain pressure while avoiding direct escalation at a sensitive moment in the conflict.

The report posed serious questions about Pakistan’s independent diplomatic stance as it suggests that Islamabad was not a neutral broker but rather a convenient channel for Washington to push the temporary ceasefire deal. Even as the US sharpened its tone against Iran, Islamabad appeared quick to step in and project itself as a mediator, while largely carrying proposals that echoed American strategic interests rather than offering any independent or balanced peace initiative.

US President Donald Trump had earlier announced a two-week ceasefire, describing a proposal from Iran as a “workable basis” for negotiations. Behind the scenes, however, Washington had been leaning on Islamabad for weeks to help secure the truce.

Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, is said to have played a key role in the backchannel diplomacy, holding a series of calls with senior US officials including Trump, Vice President JD Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff.

While Pakistan publicly projected itself as a neutral peacemaker, the report suggests its role was more limited, acting as a conduit for US proposals rather than shaping the terms of the agreement. Islamabad reportedly circulated a US-drafted framework, relayed Iran’s responses, and explored ceasefire timelines.

The mediation effort was complicated by internal divisions within Iran, particularly among factions of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as escalating regional tensions, including Israel’s operations in Lebanon.

Pakistan’s handling of the announcement also drew attention after Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif mistakenly posted a “draft” version of the ceasefire message, raising questions about the coordination behind the move.

Despite progress on paper, the ceasefire remains fragile, with multiple risks to its stability — including tensions around the Strait of Hormuz and the possibility of further regional escalation.

The developments have cast doubt on Pakistan’s ability to act as an independent mediator, with analysts suggesting its involvement was shaped more by strategic alignment with the United States than by neutral diplomacy.