Kurdish Policy Analysis

US President Donald Trump said Friday he had agreed to continue talks with Iran, but the ceasefire was "over.

"Iran asked us to continue talks. We agreed, but the United States has told them openly and clearly that the ceasefire is over," Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Meanwhile, Trump told the New York Post that he had "left instructions" to deal with Iran if they succeeded in carrying out any plan to assassinate him, and threatened an unprecedented response.

He said: "I have been on their target list for a long time. This is the reality we are dealing with... The only thing is that I have left instructions, if any misfortune should befall me, to be bombed in a manner unparalleled before."

Asked about reports that Israel had given him intelligence this week about an Iranian plan to target him, he said there were no new Iranian plans as far as he knew, but insisted Tehran had been trying to assassinate him for years.

Meanwhile, efforts are reportedly underway to revive diplomatic channels to restore "understanding" between Washington and Tehran. In this context, Pakistani security agencies said on Friday that Tehran was working towards a diplomatic solution despite the recent attacks by the United States.

Sources in Islamabad said the Iranian side had asked Pakistan, which is acting as a mediator, to inform the United States of its readiness to negotiate.

The talks are said to have been held through various channels between the two neighboring countries. Among other developments, a meeting was held between Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Iraqchi and Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir that lasted until late Thursday night.

On the Israeli side, Iran's Supreme National Security Council Secretary Mohammad Baqir Zulqader threatened to retaliate against any attack targeting his country's infrastructure, warning that Israel would not be immune. “As we have stated before, any attack on infrastructure will be responded to, and the criminal Zionist regime responsible for these atrocities will not be protected from our response,” he said.

In this context, two Israeli sources, according to a report by CNN, said that the Trump administration does not want Israel to be involved in this confrontation, because of the risk of losing control of the conflict.

Between Trump's threats and Pakistan's mediation, the Washington-Tehran relationship appears to be entering another volatile phase in which military coercion and diplomatic engagement are unfolding simultaneously. While President Donald Trump has revived the language of "maximum pressure" and warned Tehran against pursuing activities that could threaten U.S. interests or regional allies, Pakistan has quietly emerged as a potential intermediary capable of reopening channels of communication between the two long-standing adversaries.

The result is a familiar but increasingly dangerous paradox: escalating rhetoric on the surface accompanied by discreet diplomatic efforts behind closed doors. Whether these parallel tracks lead toward de-escalation or another regional crisis may shape Middle Eastern security for years to come.

Trump's Renewed Pressure Campaign

Since returning to office, President Donald Trump has signaled that his administration intends to maintain an uncompromising posture toward Iran. The White House has repeatedly warned that Washington will not tolerate any attempt by Tehran to accelerate its nuclear program, threaten freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf, or expand the operational capabilities of its regional proxy networks.

The administration's messaging combines economic pressure, military deterrence, and diplomatic isolation. Officials argue that sustained pressure is the only language the Iranian leadership understands, while simultaneously leaving open the possibility of negotiations if Tehran fundamentally alters its regional behavior.

This dual-track strategy reflects Trump's long-standing approach: negotiate from a position of overwhelming leverage rather than mutual compromise.

Pakistan's Emerging Diplomatic Role

Amid rising tensions, Pakistan has positioned itself as one of the few regional actors capable of maintaining productive relations with both Washington and Tehran.

Islamabad occupies a unique geopolitical position. It shares a lengthy border with Iran, maintains longstanding security cooperation with the United States, enjoys increasingly close strategic ties with China, and has cultivated stronger relations with Gulf Arab states over the past decade.

These overlapping relationships provide Pakistan with diplomatic flexibility that few regional powers possess.

Pakistani officials have repeatedly emphasized regional stability, recognizing that a direct confrontation between Iran and the United States would have immediate consequences for Pakistan's own security, trade, refugee management, and border stability.

Rather than publicly taking sides, Islamabad appears to favor quiet diplomacy aimed at preventing miscalculations.

Can Mediation Actually Work?

Historically, numerous countries—including Oman, Qatar, Switzerland, and Iraq—have attempted to facilitate communication between Washington and Tehran. Some achieved temporary breakthroughs, while others merely reduced immediate tensions without producing lasting agreements.

Pakistan's potential advantage lies less in replacing these established mediators than in complementing existing diplomatic channels.

Its military establishment maintains credibility in Washington, while its political leadership retains working relationships with Tehran. This creates opportunities for confidence-building measures that might otherwise prove difficult through formal diplomatic mechanisms.

However, mediation faces significant structural obstacles.

The fundamental disagreements extend far beyond nuclear issues. They encompass Iran's ballistic missile program, regional proxy groups, sanctions relief, energy exports, maritime security, cyber operations, and the future balance of power across the Middle East.

Without progress on these broader questions, diplomatic breakthroughs remain unlikely.

Iran's Strategic Calculations

For Tehran, the current environment presents a complex strategic dilemma.

Iran seeks sanctions relief to stabilize its struggling economy while preserving what it considers essential deterrence capabilities. At the same time, Iranian leaders remain deeply skeptical of U.S. commitments following Washington's withdrawal from previous nuclear agreements.

The leadership therefore attempts to balance resistance with strategic patience.

Military escalation carries enormous risks, particularly after recent demonstrations of American and Israeli military capabilities. Yet excessive compromise could also generate domestic political costs for the Iranian government.

This balancing act explains why Tehran continues to signal openness to dialogue while simultaneously strengthening aspects of its regional deterrence posture.

Regional Stakes

The consequences of renewed confrontation extend well beyond Iran and the United States.

Any significant escalation would immediately affect energy markets, maritime shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, regional investment flows, and the security calculations of Gulf Arab states, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Israel.

For Iraq, the risks are especially acute. As a country balancing close economic ties with Iran alongside strategic cooperation with the United States, Baghdad could once again find itself caught between competing powers.

Similarly, the Kurdistan Region would face indirect security and economic pressures if regional instability intensified.

Possible Scenarios

Three broad scenarios appear increasingly plausible.

The first is managed confrontation, where sanctions, military deterrence, and periodic diplomatic contacts continue without either side crossing thresholds that trigger major conflict. This remains the most likely outcome in the near term.

The second scenario involves limited negotiations, potentially facilitated by intermediaries such as Pakistan or Gulf states. These talks would likely focus on confidence-building measures rather than a comprehensive agreement.

The third—and most dangerous—scenario is rapid escalation triggered by military incidents, proxy attacks, or miscalculation. Even if neither Washington nor Tehran seeks a full-scale war, unintended escalation could quickly spiral beyond diplomatic control.

The Geopolitical Outlook

Pakistan's mediation efforts underscore an important reality: regional powers increasingly recognize that another U.S.-Iran confrontation would threaten not only security but also economic development and regional connectivity.

Whether Islamabad can meaningfully influence the trajectory of Washington-Tehran relations remains uncertain. Successful mediation requires political will from both sides—something that has often been absent despite repeated diplomatic initiatives.

For now, Trump's renewed warnings and Pakistan's quiet diplomacy represent two competing forces shaping the future of U.S.-Iran relations. One relies on coercive leverage, the other on diplomatic engagement. The direction ultimately chosen will determine whether the region experiences another cycle of confrontation or a cautious return to dialogue.

As the Middle East enters yet another period of strategic uncertainty, the fate of the Washington-Tehran conflict will depend not only on the decisions made in the White House and Tehran, but also on the effectiveness of regional actors seeking to prevent another crisis before it begins.

#Iran #Trump #Pakistan #UnitedStates #MiddleEast #Geopolitics #Diplomacy #Security #Washington #Tehran