Gulf Crisis: One Step from World War III and the Quiet Triumph of Islamabad Diplomacy
Mohammad Ehsan Leghari
Recent events in the Gulf have brought the world perilously close to a third world war. Economist and geopolitical analyst Jeffrey Sachs has issued a blunt warning that the short but intense US-Iran confrontation nearly spiralled out of control. Iran had seized effective control of the Strait of Hormuz, the vital chokepoint carrying nearly one fifth of global oil supplies. Sachs points out that Israeli pressure for escalation had pushed the situation to the edge, describing the war itself as useless and ridiculous. A fragile two-week ceasefire, brokered by Pakistan rather than larger powers or alliances, now holds. In Sachs’ view, the planet has just dodged a catastrophe of immense proportions.
This episode serves as a powerful reminder of how proxy tensions, energy vulnerabilities, and miscalculations can rapidly entangle major powers in global conflict. The recent US-Iran clash, sparked by strikes and counter-strikes followed by Iran’s temporary blockade of the Strait, was never a simple bilateral affair. It contained the ingredients for wider involvement by Russia and China, direct US-Israeli military action that could mobilize broader Arab and Muslim forces, and an energy crisis capable of crippling economies across Europe and Asia. One wrong move, one lost tanker, or one additional strike could have ignited a conflagration beyond anyone’s ability to contain.
Sachs goes beyond mere criticism to offer a clear prescription for lasting stability. He argues that Israel must return to the borders established on 4 June 1967, as affirmed by the International Court of Justice and repeated United Nations resolutions in both the Security Council and General Assembly. Sachs condemns what he sees as Israel’s uncompromising and irrational stance, driven by zealots seeking a Greater Israel that encompasses all of former British Palestine. He portrays this behavior as that of a destabilizing actor unwilling to respect internationally recognized limits. Such expansionism, in his analysis, is not only unjust but dangerously reckless, repeatedly dragging the region and the wider world toward the brink, as the latest Gulf flare-up vividly demonstrated.
Even amid this recklessness, the same sequence of events offers genuine cause for optimism. The ceasefire and subsequent diplomacy highlight a fundamental truth often overlooked in headlines that frame outcomes as simple victory or defeat.
The direct talks that followed the ceasefire in Islamabad, Pakistan, may have ended without a comprehensive agreement, yet they mark a breakthrough of profound significance. US Vice President JD Vance led the American delegation through grueling sessions totaling 21 hours. Upon departure, Vance acknowledged substantive discussions had occurred, calling that the good news, while noting the absence of a final deal and suggesting the setback weighed more heavily on Iran. Disagreements persisted over the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program, and long-term security assurances. Media outlets quickly labeled the outcome a failure.
Such a verdict, however, fundamentally misreads the nature of diplomacy. For the first time since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, high-level representatives from two states long locked in existential enmity sat face to face across the table with no intermediaries. No quiet channels through Oman or Switzerland were required. This direct, high-stakes engagement lasted more than 21 hours and had not occurred in 47 years. As Sachs’ broader critique of perpetual conflict implies, and as fresh Pakistani analysis in the Vlog “JD Vance returns: Islamabad’s most important news” underscores, these talks constitute the difficult yet essential beginning of a process that holds real potential to stabilize the Gulf region.
Diplomacy is never a single event judged by pass-or-fail criteria on one day. It is not a cinematic summit ending in handshakes and signed documents under bright lights. Instead, it unfolds as an iterative, often frustrating, and incremental journey conducted against a backdrop of deep-seated mistrust. The 1972 Nixon-Mao meetings did not immediately conclude the Cold War but cracked open a vital door. The Camp David Accords followed years of shuttle diplomacy and repeated setbacks. Even the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement emerged only after prolonged secret contacts in Oman and multiple public rounds that frequently appeared doomed.
The Islamabad sessions, despite yielding no final pact, delivered something irreplaceable. They allowed each side to hear the other’s positions unfiltered, to probe red lines in real time, and to build institutional memory and communication channels that previously did not exist. Iran received America’s best and final offer directly. The United States heard Iran’s demands for sovereignty and security guarantees without distortion. That raw exchange, tense as it was, supplies the foundation for future compromises. Those compromises will ultimately need to incorporate the regional de-escalation Sachs advocates, beginning with Israel’s adherence to the 1967 lines.
The path Sachs charts, one of realism, multipolarity, and deliberate de-escalation, depends on viewing diplomacy as a sustained endeavor rather than a discrete test. The current ceasefire remains tentative. Tensions surrounding the Strait and nuclear issues continue. Nevertheless, the just occurrence of direct talks mere weeks after active combat demonstrates that even the most bitter adversaries can opt for negotiation over battlefield ruin when the stakes reach mutual destruction.
History repeatedly shows that moments of greatest danger often precede the most meaningful diplomatic advances. The Cuban Missile Crisis did not end the Cold War yet produced the hotline and arms-control frameworks. The 1991 Gulf War ceasefire paved the way for years of inspections and containment, imperfect yet preferable to unending hostilities.
The recent Gulf crisis represented a narrow escape from third world war. The Islamabad talks were not a failure. They formed the first halting steps of a process that may yet forestall the next crisis. As Sachs reminds us, the world can no longer tolerate endless escalation or the logic of a destabilizing actor that rejects mandated borders and courts broader conflict. What is urgently required is steadfast persistence at the negotiating table, even when immediate results disappoint. In diplomacy, the act of showing up counts as the initial success. Remaining at the table while upholding justice and the 1967 baseline is how conflicts that nearly escalated into world wars are ultimately resolved.
As the dust settles on this close shave from catastrophe, Pakistan emerges as the undoubtable hero of the hour, a beacon of calm, courage, and visionary statesmanship in a region teetering on the edge of Armageddon. With bold initiative and impeccable neutrality, Islamabad not only engineered the fragile two-week ceasefire that yanked the world back from the precipice in record time, but also flung open its doors to host the historic, face-to-face US-Iran marathon in its very capital. In a theatre long scarred by proxy wars, great-power intrigue, and endless finger-pointing, Pakistan stood tall as the indispensable bridge-builder; putting global peace above any narrow strategic calculus, silencing cynics, and proving that quiet diplomacy, when backed by genuine resolve, can still rewrite history. By stepping into the breach when no one else would; and by making Islamabad the venue for this landmark direct engagement; Pakistan has not only earned the profound gratitude of a relieved world but has also cemented its rightful place as a mature, indispensable guardian of stability in one of the planet’s most explosive arenas.
Read: No Kings: Power for the People
_____________________
Mohammad Ehsan Leghari is a water expert, former Member (Sindh), Indus River System Authority (IRSA), and former Managing Director, SIDA.
