Pakistan facilitates Iranian agreement to allow Pakistani vessels through Strait of Hormuz
Iran agreed to allow 20 Pakistani-flagged vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz as Islamabad called it a meaningful step toward easing one of the worst energy crises in modern history.
Objective Facts
Ishaq Dar, Pakistan's foreign minister, announced the move on Saturday, posting on X that two ships would cross daily under the arrangement. Iran has agreed to allow 20 Pakistani-flagged vessels to transit the Strait of Hormuz, in what Islamabad has called a meaningful step towards easing one of the worst energy crises in modern history. The strait has been effectively shut since the United States and Israel launched coordinated strikes on Iran on February 28, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Only about 150 vessels have made it through since the war began, roughly one normal day's traffic, with maritime traffic down by 90 percent through the waterway. The government of Pakistani Prime Minister has emerged as a key facilitator between Iran and the United States as their war drags on, serving as an intermediary for messages between the two sides, with Dar speaking by phone with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Left-leaning outlets and analysts have expressed skepticism about Pakistan's credibility as a mediator, citing its history and internal constraints. Reports argued that Pakistan's influence and importance in the Gulf remains limited and gradually declining, and that the development exposes Pakistan's propaganda-driven diplomacy, which Islamabad perceives as diplomatic strength but in reality is further eroding the country's remaining influence in the Gulf and portraying it as a propagandist actor. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh criticised the Central government, calling Pakistan's emergence as a mediator a "colossal failure" of India's regional diplomacy, terming it "truly atrocious" that Pakistan is being considered for a mediating role despite its involvement in cross-border terrorism, providing sanctuary to global terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, and violations of nuclear non-proliferation norms. Analysts noted that if the war ends following this initiative, it will significantly elevate Islamabad's diplomacy, but if it continues, Pakistan will be one of the countries most harmed. Left-wing analysis emphasizes Pakistan's limited leverage, its history of failed mediation efforts, and the risks of appearing as a propagandist rather than a neutral broker.
Right-Leaning Perspective
Right-leaning outlets and Trump administration officials have presented Pakistan's mediation as a sign of diplomatic progress and Iran's weakening position. Trump said Iranian leaders "are negotiating, by the way, and they want to make a deal so badly, but they're afraid to say it because they figure they'll be killed by their own people," and stated "We're winning so big. Nobody has ever seen anything like we're doing in the Middle East with Iran." US President Donald Trump reposted Dar's post on his Truth Social account early Sunday. US envoy Steve Witkoff said "If we can convince Iran that this is the inflection point with no good alternatives for them, other than more death and destruction, we have strong signs that this is a possibility." Right-wing analysis frames Pakistan's facilitation as evidence that diplomatic pressure is working and that Iran is seeking a way out of the conflict. Pakistan has a history of brokering secret backchannel diplomacy, having brokered the secret US-China backchannel in 1971 and facilitated talks that led to the 2020 Doha Agreement.
Deep Dive
Pakistan's emergence as a key mediator reflects a convergence of geographical opportunity, diplomatic tradition, and strategic calculation. Islamabad has unique advantages: it maintains functional relationships with both the Trump administration and Iran, lacks the NATO entanglement that constrains Turkey, and has a demonstrated track record dating back to the 1971 U.S.-China backchannel. However, this latest initiative also highlights the structural constraints on Pakistan's diplomatic role. Pakistan is currently playing the role of a messenger rather than a mediator, relaying messages between America and Iran, lacking the leverage to impose solutions. The 20-ship agreement announced on March 28 illustrates this tension: it is simultaneously presented as a breakthrough by Trump officials and dismissed by critics as merely symbolic posturing that masks Pakistan's limited actual influence. The deal's significance remains contested along ideological lines. Trump's team interprets the agreement as evidence that pressure is working and that Iran's position is weakening—tangible proof that negotiation is occurring despite Tehran's public denials. Critics counter that Pakistan is merely executing a choreographed performance to appeal to Trump's desire for a diplomatic win, while the underlying positions remain irreconcilable. Two sources close to Iranian officials said that Tehran expects the diplomacy to take time, with the Iranian regime remaining skeptical of U.S. interest in a potential deal, and that Tehran believes that high energy prices provide leverage in Iran's favor. The fact that Iran's parliament is now moving to legalise the arrangement as a possible source of revenue suggests Iran may be extracting concessions while maintaining the blockade's strategic value. Looking ahead, three developments merit close attention: (1) whether Pakistan can translate message-passing into substantive negotiations; (2) whether the April 6 deadline Trump extended will trigger either a breakthrough or renewed escalation; and (3) whether Pakistan's diplomatic initiative elevates or further depletes its regional credibility. The answers will depend less on Pakistan's diplomatic skill than on whether the underlying war—still escalating militarily despite these diplomatic feints—produces conditions in which either side is genuinely ready to compromise.