How Trump admin steered Pakistan to mediate a ceasefire with Iran

Report says Washington pushed Pakistan to broker Iran ceasefire to stabilise oil markets and ease Strait of Hormuz tensions

In the early hours of April 8 (IST), Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced a temporary ceasefire between the US and Iran, positioning Islamabad as the chief negotiator "with the greatest humility". However, a Financial Times report suggests that the ceasefire was largely driven by Washington rather than Islamabad's independent diplomacy.

 

According to the report, the Trump administration encouraged Islamabad to act as an intermediary amid rising oil prices and mounting concerns over the stability of global energy supplies. The effort focused on persuading Iran to pause hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global oil route. Surprised by the Iranian regime's resilience, US President Donald Trump was keen on an immediate ceasefire, the report said.

 

 

US and Iran announced a two-week ceasefire barely an hour before President Donald Trump’s Tuesday 8 pm (Eastern Time) deadline for Iran to accept US terms, failing which Trump had warned of “obliterating” the country and destroying Iran’s “whole civilisation".

 

What was Pakistan’s role in the Iran ceasefire talks?

 

According to the Financial Times report, Washington and Islamabad assessed that Iran would be more receptive to a US-backed proposal if it came via a Muslim-majority neighbour that had maintained neutrality during the conflict. Pakistan thus acted largely as a US messenger, presenting proposals to Tehran in a more acceptable format for the Iranian leadership.

 

Pakistan’s army chief Asim Munir reportedly played a central role in the backchannel diplomacy, holding multiple conversations with senior US officials, including Trump, Vice President JD Vance and special envoy Steve Witkoff.

 

Pakistan’s neutral stance during the more than month-long war also proved significant, sparing it from Iranian missile and drone strikes. Islamabad condemned the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in US-Israel coordinated strikes and also criticised attacks on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations, without blaming any actor involved in the warfare.

 

How did the US-Pakistan backchannel diplomacy work?

 

According to the Financial Times report, soon after Trump issued his ultimatum to “obliterate” Iran, Asim Munir and other Pakistani officials began relaying messages between Iranian political and military figures and the White House. Islamabad reportedly conveyed a US-drafted 15-point proposal, followed by Iran’s five- and 10-point responses, while also floating ceasefire options ranging from 45 days to two weeks.

 

These exchanges formed the core of negotiations that primarily focused on Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programmes, including US demands to halt uranium enrichment on Iranian soil and ensure the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

 

Following the ceasefire announcement, Shehbaz Sharif said Pakistan had invited delegations from both countries to Islamabad on April 10, Friday, for face-to-face talks aimed at reaching a final agreement to settle all disputes. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian later confirmed that Tehran would send representatives for the negotiations.

 

The meeting will now take place on Saturday.

 

Did the White House approve Pakistan PM’s ceasefire post?

 

A report by the New York Times claimed that the White House was aware of Shehbaz Sharif's ceasefire announcement post on social media before it was sent. According to the report, the Trump administration had already seen and signed off on the statement before Sharif posted it.

 

Notably, Sharif's social media post initially had a header which read: 'Draft - Pakistan’s PM Message on X'.

 

Why did Trump push for a ceasefire with Iran?

 

The reports suggest that unlike his public statements, Trump was pushing for a ceasefire with Iran amid mounting concerns over surging oil prices and the risk of disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.

 

The Financial Times report suggests that Trump was also surprised by the resilience of the Iranian regime and had been seeking a pause in hostilities since at least March 21, when he first threatened to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants.

 

The Iranian response during the war further reinforced the urgency for de-escalation, even as Washington aimed to stabilise global markets without appearing weak.

 

Over the course of the war, which began on February 28, Trump repeatedly revised both the expected duration of the conflict and the deadlines issued to Iran.

 

These deadlines were repeatedly set and then extended:

 

March 21: Trump issued an initial 48-hour ultimatum tied to Iran’s actions in the Gulf

March 23: The deadline was extended by five days

March 26: A further 10-day extension was granted amid ongoing hostilities

April 4: 48-hour ultimatum was announced as tensions escalated again

April 7: A final deadline was set, which followed a ceasefire announcement a day later

 

What issues remain despite the Iran ceasefire?

 

Despite the ceasefire, tensions remain high. Israel’s continued strikes in Lebanon have raised concerns in Tehran that the truce could fail. Iran’s Supreme National Security Council accepted the temporary ceasefire but cautioned that it “does not signify the end of the war”, warning of retaliation in case of further provocation.

 

Concerns also flared over reports that Iran had closed the Strait of Hormuz following Israeli attacks in Lebanon, though the White House later said the waterway remains open without disruption.

 

In another development, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the truce with Iran does not apply to Hezbollah. Meanwhile, Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammed Bagher Ghalibaf warned that continued Israeli strikes could reignite tensions around the Strait of Hormuz.

 

Tensions are also being fuelled by Iran’s proposal to impose a $2 per barrel fee on container traffic passing through the strategic waterway.