Pakistan said it had made “significant progress” in talks with Iran on the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran after a visit to Tehran led by Pakistani military chief Field Marshal Asim Munir. The language is polished. The machinery underneath is not. Military chiefs, presidents, parliament speakers and foreign ministers are still the ones deciding how civilians will be managed while the conflict grinds on.
Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi said Tuesday that a “very positive and productive meeting” was held with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and that the Iranian president “candidly shared his government's perspective” in what Naqvi called “a very constructive exchange on the issues involved.” Naqvi said, “We remain hopeful that this momentum will help pave the way for further progress and lasting peace in the region.” Hope, in this setup, arrives packaged by state officials and delivered through military channels.
The State Monopoly on Negotiation
A Pakistani military statement said the meeting between Munir and the Iranian leadership focused on measures to prevent further escalation, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and an expedited termination of the conflict. It said the two sides also exchanged views on regional peace and the way to arrive at a negotiated settlement to the dispute. The statement added that Munir met with Mohsen Rezaee, the newly appointed head of the National Security Council, Parliament Speaker Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. The cast is familiar: armed institutions, security councils, parliamentarians and foreign ministries, all speaking in the name of peace while keeping the monopoly on force firmly in their own hands.
Iran’s response was also positive. Seyed Mehdi Tabatabaei, deputy for communications and information at the Iranian President’s Office, said on X that, “Contrary to some inaccurate media speculation, the visit of Field Marshal Asim Munir, the army chief of friendly Pakistan, to Iran was highly productive and yielded significant diplomatic achievements, the results of which will become apparent soon.” The phrasing is tidy enough. The substance is still state-to-state bargaining over a war that ordinary people don’t get to vote on, stop, or even meaningfully shape.
Messages, Sanctions and the Usual Pressure
Abbas Golrou, chairman of the Iranian parliament’s Foreign Relations Committee, said Munir carried a message from the US urging Tehran to return to the Islamabad memorandum and revive the stalled political process. Golrou told the semi-official ISNA news agency that Washington had asked Pakistan to engage with the Iranian side and encourage Tehran to return to the political track. He said, “Asim Munir conveyed a message to Iran on behalf of the US that Iran should return to the memorandum.”
Golrou added that Washington was sending direct and indirect messages for negotiations while simultaneously issuing threats and imposing new sanctions. He said the main purpose of Munir’s visit appeared to be to “revive the stalled political process,” and said it remained to be seen what the main message of the visit was. The White House and the State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment made outside business hours. The silence fits the script. Threats, sanctions, backchannels, and military diplomacy do the work while the public gets the language of process.
Reuters reported that Munir had spoken with US President Donald Trump before his Tehran visit. Trump warned last week of economic consequences against any country that provided “any type of lifeline to Iran” as he sought to isolate the country, and Iran in turn vowed to shut down all oil exports from the Gulf. That’s the state system in plain view: pressure from one side, retaliation from the other, and everyone else expected to absorb the shock.
Frameworks That Keep Failing
Reuters also said the US and Iran had concluded a framework agreement to resolve the conflict in mid-June, intended to bring about a cease-fire, the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a long-term peace settlement through negotiations within 60 days. Both sides accused each other of violating the agreement and military clashes occurred repeatedly. Pakistan is trying to persuade the parties to revive that framework agreement.
The pattern is almost mechanical. Agreements are announced, violations are alleged, clashes continue, and new envoys are sent out to salvage the wreckage. The people living under the consequences don’t appear in the choreography except as the ones who endure the next round.
Naqvi said, “We remain hopeful that this momentum will help pave the way for further progress and lasting peace in the region.” Munir’s meetings, the Iranian statements, the US warnings and the stalled framework all point to the same arrangement: states negotiating over escalation while keeping ordinary people outside the room.