Iranian parliamentary spokesman Ebrahim Rezaei, Monday, delivered a stinging public indictment of Pakistan’s mediating role between Tehran and Washington, declaring bluntly that “Pakistan does not have the necessary credibility for mediation.”
The lawmaker alleged that Islamabad “always takes Trump’s interests into account and does not say a word against the Americans’ wishes”, the accusations that have the weight to break the already existing fragile diplomatic process.
Rezaei was careful to frame his criticism within the bounds of neighbourly respect. “Pakistan is a good friend and neighbour of ours,” he acknowledged, before delivering the damaging qualifier, “but it is not a suitable intermediary for negotiations.” The distinction is politically significant. Iran is not walking away from Pakistan as an ally; it is stripping it of the neutrality required to play the role Islamabad has so publicly coveted.
At the heart of Rezaei’s grievance is a fundamental demand for impartiality. A mediator, he argued, must be willing to speak uncomfortable truths to both sides. Pakistan, in his assessment, has failed that test, refusing to publicly acknowledge that Washington initially accepted the proposal and then retreated from it, and declining to hold the United States accountable for commitments it allegedly made regarding Lebanon and Iran’s frozen financial assets.
“Pakistan lacks the necessary credibility for mediation. They always take Trump’s interests into account and do not say a word against the Americans’ wishes. For example, they are unwilling to tell the world that America first accepted Pakistan’s proposal but then went back on its word. They do not say that the Americans had commitments regarding the issue of Lebanon or the blocked assets, but failed to fulfil them. A mediator must be impartial, not always leaning to one side,” Rezaei stated pointedly. “A mediator must be impartial, not always leaning to one side.”
The most explosive allegation against Pakistan centres on a formal 10-point negotiation framework that Iran said was handed directly to Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Asim Munir, during a visit to Tehran.
According to Iranian state media and analysts, General Munir received the proposal with the explicit understanding that it would be delivered to the American side. Iran says it has received no response, not an acknowledgement, not a rejection, and not a counteroffer.
An analyst on Iran’s Student News Network, SNN, stated openly: “As far as I know, and as we have discussed at high levels, we have not yet received a response as to whether this message was accepted or not.” The analyst added a bleak prediction that even if a response eventually arrives, the other party would dismiss it outright.
The breakdown in trust unfolds against the backdrop of a devastating conflict. The war, triggered by US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, has killed thousands, largely closed the Strait of Hormuz, which carries one-fifth of global oil shipments, and contributed to one of the worst energy crises since the 1970s. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has ruled out direct talks with Washington, while written messages outlining Tehran’s red lines on uranium enrichment and the Strait were conveyed through Pakistan, not as negotiation but as a firm statement of limits.
Washington’s own frustration with the process was made plain when President Trump abruptly cancelled a planned visit to Pakistan by envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. “If they want to talk, all they have to do is call!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social, signalling that Washington would not be dispatching senior negotiators to Islamabad anytime soon.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif attempted to salvage Pakistan’s standing, thanking Trump publicly for extending the ceasefire deadline. Iranian media dismissed the announcement as a manufactured public relations exercise projecting false momentum.
Pakistan’s ambition to serve as the Muslim world’s indispensable peace broker has collided with the harsh reality of great-power conflict. Iran’s message is unambiguous: neutrality must be demonstrated, not simply claimed. Until Islamabad proves it can speak truth to both sides equally, Tehran’s verdict stands — and the path to any lasting ceasefire grows narrower by the day.
