Forty days after the beginning of the U.S. and Israeli aggression against Iran, the emergence of a two-week ceasefire brokered by Shehbaz Sharif’s government in Pakistan initially appeared to signal an effort to contain the crisis and move it toward a more manageable level. More than a tactical achievement, this agreement should be viewed as an opportunity to prevent the region from entering a more costly cycle of escalation—an opportunity whose preservation depends directly on how commitments are implemented and on the mediator’s role.
However, developments on the ground in the very first hours after the announcement of the agreement demonstrated that a ceasefire remains highly vulnerable without an active monitoring mechanism. The attacks that took place, particularly on the Lebanon front, were not only catastrophic from a humanitarian perspective but also raised serious legal and political questions regarding the scope of the agreement and the guarantees for its enforcement. Rather than undermining the principle of the ceasefire itself, this situation underscores the necessity of guaranteeing it.
In the language of international relations, a ceasefire acquires meaning and durability only when, in addition to the initial agreement, there is a clearly defined mechanism for monitoring compliance and responding to violations. Otherwise, instead of serving as an instrument of de-escalation, a ceasefire becomes an opportunity for regrouping and altering the balance on the ground. Regional experience has repeatedly shown that the absence of an active mediator is the primary reason such agreements collapse quickly.
Within this framework, the mediator’s role—in this case, Pakistan—cannot be confined merely to the formation of the agreement. Mediation is a process, not a one-time event. For that reason, the credibility of any mediator depends as much on preserving and enforcing an agreement as on bringing it into existence. One cannot benefit from the political and diplomatic value of mediation while reducing that role to passive observation during implementation.
Recent developments clearly illustrate that, without active follow-up, a ceasefire is effectively exposed to gradual erosion. The attacks on Lebanon, beyond their humanitarian consequences, also send a clear message: any ambiguity regarding the fronts covered by the ceasefire, or any weakness in oversight, can lead to unilateral interpretations and ultimately to the practical violation of the agreement. In such circumstances, silence or only a minimal reaction from the mediator would unintentionally intensify this process.
From this perspective, expectations directed at Islamabad and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif are part of the natural logic of mediation. Active engagement to clarify the scope of the ceasefire, publicly identify violations, and use political leverage to prevent repetition are measures that could transform this agreement from a fragile arrangement into a reliable framework. Otherwise, the gap between the declared agreement and the reality on the ground will rapidly widen.
Another important factor is the changing regional environment and the strengthening of Iran’s deterrence posture. Iran’s acceptance of the ceasefire was made within the framework of a rational choice aimed at containing the crisis, but that choice is inherently conditional. Continued violations of the agreement, without effective response from the mediator, could alter that calculation and push developments in a direction that may no longer be easily controlled.
In such an environment, time becomes a decisive factor. Ceasefires that are not consolidated in their first days are rarely recoverable later. This is precisely why the mediator’s role is most critical at this initial stage—where timely action is required to prevent limited violations from evolving into a sustained pattern.
Accordingly, it can be said that the current ceasefire remains an opportunity rather than a failed experience. But preserving that opportunity requires mediation to move beyond symbolism and become an active, responsible undertaking. Pakistan is now in a position where, by fulfilling this role, it can both contribute to stabilizing relative calm in the region and strengthen its own diplomatic standing.
Ultimately, mediation carries responsibility. That responsibility does not end at the moment an agreement is announced; it begins with its implementation. A ceasefire acquires meaning only when all parties regard themselves as bound by it and when the mediator ensures effective oversight of that commitment. Otherwise, agreements quickly descend from the level of reality to the level of statements—and that is precisely the point that must be avoided.
If violations of the ceasefire are not halted, Iran will deliver a very firm and decisive response to the aggressors.
MNA
Your Comment