Nice try, critics!

Peace is not just a yoga class word that people throw around in speeches. Real peace is something that actually has to be worked for, quietly, behind closed doors, sometimes without anyone even saying thank you. Pakistan knows this better than most. The critics do not. And the opposition between those contrasting clauses is the entire point of this article.

Someone had to step in to try and stop the war

With that in mind, let us talk about the United States and Iran because, honestly, this is the part where the critics should just put their phones down and pay attention. The United States and Iran are not exactly sending each other birthday cards. These are two bitter geopolitical foes that have been at each other’s windpipes since before most of us were born. The distrust runs so deep that direct conversation between them is practically a miracle, even to attempt. So who steps in? Pakistan does.

Not the critics. Pakistan.

Through calls, meetups, and the kind of patient, people-to-people diplomacy that takes weeks to show results but a lifetime to fully appreciate. Is that not worth something? Does that not deserve at least some respect?

There are always critics, and they will always criticise

But no. There are always critics. People who have never had to balance relationships with powerful neighbours, never had to manage their own security while also trying to keep a region from falling apart, suddenly have all the answers. These are people whose most high-stakes diplomatic experience is probably arguing about a restaurant reservation. They call Pakistan’s approach weak. They call it playing both sides as if having relationships with multiple parties is somehow a scandal and not the entire point of diplomacy. But what they are really revealing is a very comfortable ignorance of how diplomacy actually functions. The critics have somehow constructed a worldview in which diplomacy means picking their favourite side and performing loyalty for an audience, which is a fascinating theory and also completely, embarrassingly wrong.

You need diplomacy and trust for a ceasefire

You cannot bully your way to a ceasefire. You cannot sanction your way into someone’s trust. You cannot airstrike your way to a negotiating table. You need someone whom both sides will actually listen to. Someone with the diplomatic credibility, the geographic reality, and, yes, the emotional intelligence (a phrase that apparently causes certain foreign policy commentators physical pain) to hold space for a conversation that nobody else was willing to have.

And honestly, where were these critics when Pakistan was doing the relationship-by-relationship, call-by-call, room-by-room construction of peace? Sitting on the sidelines, passing judgment, contributing nothing. After all, it is very easy to criticize a peacemaker when you are not the one who has skin in the game.

What have the critics themselves contributed to the peacetalks?

Let these critics answer one question before they open their mouths again. What exactly have they contributed? Because tearing down the people doing the work is not introspection. It is just ego fluffing with some good vocabulary. A mature nation does not need to make enemies to prove its loyalty.

Furthermore, emotional intelligence in foreign policy means you do not let your ego make decisions that your people will suffer for. Pakistan understood that. The critics clearly still do not. And until they do, their opinions on something this serious honestly do not deserve much space in the conversation.

And if this round of negotiations does not achieve the wanted effect, if the chairs remain empty or the talks collapse, if the room goes cold again – let us at least be honest about one thing. Pakistan tried. Pakistan showed up. Pakistan made the calls, kept communication alive in a climate designed to kill it, and put its credibility on the line for a region that rarely says thank you. So is the critics’ entire contribution to peace in this region just a running commentary on everyone else’s attempt at it?