Iran’s former foreign minister has laid out a bold diplomatic blueprint — as Trump escalates threats and Pakistan races to broker peace before the April 6 deadline.
Iran’s former Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif has broken his silence with a striking public call: Tehran should declare victory and pursue a negotiated settlement with the United States — on terms Iran can live with. The statement lands at one of the most volatile moments of the five-week-old war, as US President Donald Trump has stepped up threats after American strikes demolished Iran’s largest bridge and warned that the US military “hasn’t even started” destroying what remains of Iran’s infrastructure.
The two positions — Zarif’s call for pragmatic dealmaking and Trump’s maximalist ultimatums — capture the impossible tension now at the heart of a war that has rattled global energy markets, displaced millions, and drawn in great powers from Moscow to Beijing.
What Zarif said — and why it matters
Zarif, the architect of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and among the most internationally respected voices in Iranian diplomacy, outlined a framework under which Tehran could frame a ceasefire as a form of victory rather than capitulation. His argument is essentially this: Iran has survived massive US-Israeli strikes, kept the Strait of Hormuz partially closed, inflicted casualties on American forces across the region, and demonstrated it cannot be easily conquered. That, he argues, is grounds enough to declare a win — and get out.
It is a significant departure from the hardline position of Iran’s current military commanders, who have publicly insisted the country will fight until “full victory.” The IRGC’s own spokesman rejected any notion of negotiations, and Iran’s parliament speaker has dismissed peace talks as cover for a planned US ground invasion.
But Zarif’s voice carries weight precisely because he has been here before — sitting across a table from Washington, finding deals where none seemed possible. His intervention suggests that at least one influential current within the Iranian establishment believes the war can and should be ended through diplomacy, not prolonged attrition.
The deal on the table — and why it’s stuck
The United States has reportedly delivered a 15-point peace proposal to Iran through Pakistani intermediaries. According to reporting from the Wall Street Journal and Time, the US plan demands that Tehran dismantle its three nuclear sites, halt uranium enrichment, abandon its ballistic missile programme, cease support for Hezbollah and other regional proxy forces, and reopen the Strait of Hormuz — in exchange for lifting nuclear-related sanctions and US investment in a civilian Iranian nuclear programme.
Iran has rejected this as “excessive and unreasonable.” Tehran’s own five-point counter-proposal calls for an end to all US and Israeli attacks on Iran and its allies in Lebanon and Iraq, the creation of mechanisms to prevent the resumption of war, international compensation for damages, and recognition of Iranian sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz.
The gulf between the two positions is vast. Yet the mere fact that proposals are being exchanged — even through intermediaries and even as bombs continue to fall — signals that both sides have at least one eye on an exit.
Trump himself declared on March 24: “We’ve won this. This war has been won.” Iran denied the very talks were happening, even as its foreign ministry quietly acknowledged it was reviewing a US proposal received through backchannel contacts. By March 30, Tehran confirmed it had been holding indirect talks with Washington through Pakistan — while calling US terms “unrealistic.” On March 26, Trump said Iran was “begging” for a deal. Iranian commanders said the opposite.
Pakistan: the unexpected peacemaker
Perhaps the most surprising development of the Iran war is the emergence of Pakistan as the central diplomatic broker between two countries that have not had direct relations since 1980.
Pakistan has warm ties with both Washington and Tehran, a mutual defence pact with Saudi Arabia that could drag it into the conflict, and a critical economic stake in keeping the Strait of Hormuz open — through which most of Pakistan’s oil imports flow. That combination of interests and relationships has put Islamabad in a unique position no other country currently occupies.
On March 29, 2026, Pakistan hosted the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt in Islamabad for two days of intensive consultations — a four-nation diplomatic push that has hardened into the primary mechanism for channelling messages between Tehran and Washington. Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar has since visited Beijing to enlist China as a potential guarantor of any eventual deal.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has held multiple phone calls with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, and Pakistani officials say both the US and Iran have expressed confidence in Islamabad to facilitate direct talks. Pakistan has formally offered to host negotiations in the “coming days.”
There are, however, significant obstacles. Iran’s parliament speaker called the announcement of talks “a cover for a US ground invasion.” Iran insists it is only passing messages, not negotiating. And Trump set a deadline — April 6 — for Iran to accept his terms, warning he would bomb Iran’s energy infrastructure if Tehran refused. As of April 3, that deadline looms with no deal finalised.
Pakistan’s foreign ministry acknowledged the “obstacles” bluntly. “Iran, as a sovereign country, determines its own policies,” spokesperson Tahir Andrabi said.
Who is winning the Iran war?
There is no clean answer — and that is precisely the point.
On military terms, the US and Israel have inflicted devastating damage. The US White House claimed by mid-March that Iran’s missile capability had been degraded by 90 percent and its drone capability by 95 percent. Supreme Leader Khamenei, the defence minister, IRGC commander, and multiple senior security officials were killed on or around February 28. Iran’s largest bridge has been destroyed. Much of its military infrastructure has been struck repeatedly.
Yet Iran is still fighting. It has kept the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed to American and Israeli vessels — a chokepoint through which roughly 20 percent of global oil flows — driving energy prices sharply higher and rattling the global economy. Iran has struck US military bases across the region, killing 13 American service members and wounding over 300. Its Hezbollah ally continues to fight Israeli ground forces in southern Lebanon. Its allied groups in Iraq have launched dozens of drone strikes on US assets.
Analysts describe this as the classic logic of asymmetric warfare. As one analyst told Al Jazeera: “The key question is who can suffer more pain in the long run. The US and Israel can inflict pain, but they certainly cannot incur it. The weaker side wins by not losing.”
Russia and China, meanwhile, are watching carefully. Some analysts argue both powers are quietly benefiting — Russia from soaring oil revenues and reduced Western focus on Ukraine, China from positioning itself as a future guarantor of any peace deal. Iran’s foreign minister confirmed that both countries are providing political, economic, and, in Russia’s case, military-related assistance — though neither has directly intervened militarily.
FAQ
Who started the Iran war in 2026?
On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a joint surprise attack on Iran, targeting military installations, nuclear facilities, and key leadership figures. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was assassinated in the strikes, along with the defence minister, IRGC commander, and multiple other senior officials. The US cited Iran’s nuclear programme and alleged preparations for a retaliation strike against American assets as justification. The International Atomic Energy Agency, however, said there was no evidence of a structured nuclear weapons programme when the war began. UN Secretary-General António Guterres and numerous countries condemned the US-Israeli strikes as a violation of international law.
Are Pakistan supporting Iran?
Pakistan is not a military ally of Iran and has not taken Iran’s side in the war. What Pakistan has done is step forward as the lead diplomatic mediator between the US and Iran — passing messages, hosting four-nation peace talks, and formally offering to host direct negotiations. Pakistan has condemned Israeli attacks and expressed solidarity with Gulf countries affected by Iranian missile strikes, placing it in a careful balancing position. Islamabad’s calculation is driven by self-interest: it shares a border with Iran, relies on the Strait of Hormuz for oil imports, has a mutual defence pact with Saudi Arabia, and maintains close ties with both Washington and Beijing. Pakistan is not supporting Iran militarily — it is trying to end the war before it escalates further.
Who is Iran’s best friend?
Russia and China are Iran’s most powerful strategic partners, though neither has come to Tehran’s direct military defence during the 2026 war. Iran’s foreign minister confirmed both countries are providing assistance “politically, economically, even militarily” — and Russia has
reportedly been sharing intelligence and drone-related technology with Tehran. However, Moscow’s military is overstretched in Ukraine, and Beijing has prioritised its economic relationships across the Gulf over risking confrontation with the US. Both condemned the US-Israeli strikes but did not veto UN resolutions condemning Iran’s counter-attacks. In practice, Iran has no formal military ally with a binding mutual defence obligation in this conflict. Its closest regional partners — Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and allied groups in Iraq — are fighting on its behalf, but each is under severe pressure from Israeli and US military operations.