Pakistan Emerges as Key Mediator in US–Iran Tensions, Ravish Kumar Questions India’s Diplomatic Absence

Indian journalists have begun to question the foreign policy of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in light of Pakistan’s growing role in the region. Prominent journalist Ravish Kumar has heavily criticized Modi. In his vlog, he strongly criticized the Indian Prime Minister, saying that despite Modi’s “magical embraces” with Trump, Pakistan is mediating between the US and Iran, and the US has confirmed this. President Donald Trump also spoke to Pakistan’s Army Chief and Field Marshal General Asim Munir. The Financial Times published a report stating that General Munir called Trump and offered to mediate. At this juncture, Pakistan’s role in this conflict suddenly appears significant.

He questioned what India’s role has been so far. Pakistan is playing a part in ending the war, while India is not. How would India’s diplomatic experts feel about all this? There is a global debate on how Pakistan’s role has suddenly become so important in the biggest crisis in West Asia. Has Pakistan also become a promoter of peace? Where has India been in diplomatic efforts and why not? These questions should be asked. He noted that on March 23, Trump said that talks with Iran are ongoing, without naming any country. Iran also admitted that no direct talks are taking place, but they are happening through some other channel. Now the White House has confirmed that a conversation took place between Trump and Asim Munir.

According to Ravish Kumar, could there be another meeting in Islamabad? Regarding this, India’s news agency ANI asked Trump’s press secretary, Karine Leavitt, who refused to answer and said not to speculate. Before ANI’s question, Reuters had reported, citing sources, that talks on ending the war could take place in Islamabad later this week. US Vice President JD Vance, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner could be part of this discussion. The report also stated that Iranian officials might meet US officials in this meeting. Presumably, this is why ANI asked whether any meeting was proposed in Islamabad. The press secretary did not give a direct answer, but also did not completely deny such a meeting. She only stated that all sensitive matters cannot be made public at the moment. Situations are changing, and any speculation about a meeting should not be considered final until announced by the White House.

She added that after Trump’s statement on March 23, US-based news outlet Axios reported that Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan could play a role in these talks. That report was based on sources, but now the situation has become fairly clear. The Financial Times also published an analysis regarding Pakistan, stating that Pakistan is emerging as a mediator in the Iran crisis. The article, reportedly co-written by five journalists, has been widely read.

Ravish Kumar asked why Pakistan was given this role, noting that Turkey and Egypt were also mentioned. One reasoning given is that Saudi Arabia does not want Turkey to get that platform, so it may be pushing Pakistan forward. Turkey, like Saudi Arabia, is a major Sunni power and is considered a challenge by Saudi Arabia. Naturally, Saudi Arabia would want to assert itself over Turkey, and it is believed that it played a role in advancing Pakistan. After the attack on Iran, Turkish President Erdoğan received applause when he stated in parliament that Shias and Sunnis are united. Turkey, which played a mediation role during the Ukraine war, is now being replaced by Pakistan as the key player, because Israel does not favor Turkey. The US may also be less enthusiastic about Turkey, as when Trump tried to include Turkey in the Gaza peace plan, Israel objected. This time, the US has given the opportunity to Pakistan. In one move, it showed that both major Sunni powers in the Gulf are on its side, sidelining Turkey while including Pakistan in the talks. Hence, the question arises whether Saudi Arabia played any role in the decision to engage with Pakistan. How did Pakistan suddenly become such a major player? Pakistan is a nuclear power with defense agreements with Saudi Arabia. By engaging Pakistan, the US may be signaling to Iran that Pakistan is a friend, and its position aligns with the US as well.

Ravish Kumar said, in cricketing terms, that India’s media was ready for the catch, but the ball went beyond the boundary. There is much discussion over whether only Prime Minister Narendra Modi can stop the war. Three days ago, India TV raised the question: “In the midst of destruction, the world looks to Modi. Can PM Modi stop the great war?” Republic Bharat asked whether only India can end the Iran-Israel war. Ravish Kumar questioned on what basis this discussion is happening in India that India holds the “mantra of peace.” The first condition for a peace mantra is to condemn the country that attacked. Has India done that? On March 18, Finland’s president said he was considering who could mediate the ceasefire, Europe or India, but Pakistan’s name emerged. Since this war began, several articles have appeared in Indian newspapers discussing India’s potential role in stopping it. On March 20, at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event in Nagpur, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s statement was covered in the media. He said wars are happening worldwide, and only India can end them because it understands India’s nature and values.

However, the question remains: in the past five years, what role has India played in stopping major wars like Russia-Ukraine and Iran-Israel? If the impression is being given that India can stop wars, examples should also be provided. Ravish Kumar said that if India could stop the war, why did it not take the initiative? Who prevented it? If someone is preventing it, how can India stop the war? He clarified that they are not claiming the war is over and India has no role, but at this critical stage, Pakistan’s growing role raises questions for India. India and Iran have historical, cultural, and traditional ties. Did Modi make a mistake by visiting Israel? Was it diplomatic strategy or a personal decision to visit a country that attacked Iran, a long-time friend? What was the outcome of this new friendship? The US has elevated Pakistan on the global stage. Had India been given this opportunity, it would have been presented as a global power.

The question arises whether by moving closer to Israel, Prime Minister Modi weakened his foreign policy. The US sidelined India and advanced Pakistan, which merits discussion. He reminded that after the 2008 Mumbai attacks, India’s diplomacy focused on isolating Pakistan. But today, the US and Israel are calling Iran a terrorist state; can India condemn it? India condemned nothing and lost its moral voice. Now, the question is how Pakistan, which India calls a supporter of terrorism, is being included in the peace process. The US has given Pakistan a status perhaps beyond India’s imagination, and Modi’s silence could further strengthen that position. Had India condemned Iran’s attack, it might also have received a mediation role, but it did not. Pakistan at least condemned the attack on Iran, presented a condolence resolution in its parliament, and Iran thanked it. Despite not recognizing Israel, Pakistan’s role is emerging.

He added that Israel is a major party. Netanyahu said the IDF will decide when the war ends, meaning not the US. Despite India’s close ties with Israel, it is not visible in mediation. Modi visited several Gulf countries—Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Oman, and Kuwait—and received high honors, but India’s role in this war is not clear. In parliament, Modi said he is in talks with various countries and ensuring the safety of Indian citizens, but did not claim India is initiating steps to stop the war. So, is merely talking considered playing a role? The war is not over yet, but Pakistan’s emerging role has become a question for India. He asked whether, if these negotiations succeed, Prime Minister Modi will acknowledge Pakistan’s role.