https://sundayguardianlive.com/editors- ... st-210522/
The Islamabad Memorandum: Why Trump’s Iran deal is unlikely to last
Savio Rodrigues, June 21, 2026
The real test of the Islamabad Memorandum will not be the photographs, signatures, or press conferences. It will be what happens in the months that follow.
History has a peculiar habit of repeating itself, not as tragedy or farce, but as carefully choreographed diplomacy wrapped in grand declarations. The recently announced “Islamabad Memorandum” between the United States and Iran, brokered by Pakistan, is being hailed by some as a breakthrough in one of the most volatile geopolitical confrontations of the 21st century.
Yet beneath the celebratory headlines is a more fundamental question: can any agreement between Washington and Tehran survive if Israel believes it threatens its national security?
The answer, in all probability, is no.
The memorandum , signed by U.S. President Donald Trump and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, with Pakistan acting as mediator and witness, commits both nations to a temporary cessation of hostilities and a framework for future negotiations. It is being presented as a diplomatic triumph for all involved. Trump claims credit for avoiding war. Iran portrays it as proof that American pressure failed to break its resolve. Pakistan celebrates its emergence as a major diplomatic player capable of bringing adversaries to the same table.
When every participant declares victory simultaneously, it is often a sign that the real battle has merely shifted from the battlefield to the negotiating table.
What makes the Islamabad Memorandum particularly intriguing is not the agreement itself, but the decision to place Pakistan at the centre of a diplomatic process involving some of the world’s most consequential security concerns.
For decades, Middle Eastern diplomacy has largely been shaped by regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and, increasingly, the United Arab Emirates—nations that possess both economic weight and strategic influence across the region.
Pakistan’s emergence as mediator raises more questions than it answers.
A country grappling with economic instability, political uncertainty, internal security challenges and a limited ability to shape outcomes beyond its immediate neighbourhood is an unlikely guarantor of a lasting agreement between the United States and Iran.
Mediation is not merely about bringing parties to a table; it is about possessing the credibility, leverage and strategic influence necessary to ensure commitments are honoured long after the cameras have departed.
While Islamabad maintains relations with Washington, Tehran and Beijing, relationships alone do not translate into influence.
The real question is whether Pakistan possesses the diplomatic capital to manage the inevitable crises that will emerge once disagreements resurface.
There is little evidence that it does.
This is why the Islamabad Memorandum appears jinxed from the very beginning. A deal is only as strong as the confidence its guarantor inspires. Pakistan may have facilitated a conversation, but facilitating a conversation and securing a durable peace are two entirely different achievements. If the agreement encounters turbulence—as most agreements involving Iran eventually do—Islamabad is unlikely to possess either the influence or authority required to keep the parties aligned.
In that sense, the choice of mediator may ultimately become one of the agreement’s greatest weaknesses. The memorandum was presented as a diplomatic breakthrough, but from its very inception it carried the burden of being anchored to a mediator whose capacity to sustain such a complex geopolitical arrangement remains deeply questionable.
In this crisis, Pakistan assumes that it successfully transformed those relationships into diplomatic leverage. But diplomacy and durability are two very different things.
The biggest weakness of the Islamabad Memorandum is that it postpones rather than resolves the issues that have driven tensions for decades. Iran’s nuclear programme remains a source of deep concern. Tehran’s ballistic missile capabilities remain intact. Its relationships with regional proxies continue to influence conflicts across the Middle East. Sanctions relief remains conditional. Regional security arrangements remain uncertain. In essence, the agreement addresses symptoms while leaving the underlying disease untouched.
And that disease has a name: trust. Or more accurately, the complete absence of it.
But there is an even larger obstacle standing between the memorandum and long-term success.
......
Gautam
