US-Iran talks herald rise of multipolarity
Pakistani academics say Islamabad dialogue reflects erosion of US dominance, even as regional tensions and Israel’s role threaten fragile diplomacy
By Akhtar Pathan
KARACHI, Pakistan (MNTV) — The outcome of talks between the United States and Iran has drawn varied interpretations, but analysts broadly agree that the 40-day war has exposed a deeper shift in the global balance of power, with signs increasingly pointing to the end of a unipolar world order.
A possible second round of negotiations in Islamabad, they say, is likely to reinforce that reality — one shaped as much by battlefield dynamics as by diplomacy.
Many analysts believe as an unintended consequence Washington’s “war of choice” has accelerated a transition toward multipolarity. The confrontation, involving U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is seen as testing the limits of a waning U.S.-led order.
According to Pravin Sawhney, recent developments suggest Washington may increasingly be compelled to engage Tehran as a sovereign equal, reflecting a broader argument advanced by strategists for more than a decade — that the United States is no longer the world’s sole superpower.
Ibrahim Farooqi, an academic and political analyst, argues that the first in-person talks in decades — widely viewed as preparatory — should not be seen as a failure.
“Bringing the two sides to the negotiating table itself is an achievement on part of Pakistan,” he says, adding that there are no clear victors at this stage given the complexity of the issues involved.
Farooqi notes that the Strait of Hormuz has assumed new strategic significance since the outbreak of hostilities, with Iran leveraging its position in the waterway as a central bargaining tool. For now, he says, both sides appear focused on testing positions rather than securing immediate breakthroughs.
Statements from both sides point to partial convergence. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi indicated that discussions had progressed toward a potential memorandum of understanding in Islamabad. However, disagreements — including U.S. demands for an end to uranium enrichment and disputes over the scope of talks — stalled progress.
Trump, in public remarks ahead of the negotiations, had identified uranium enrichment as a red line, underscoring the gap between the two sides.
Despite those differences, analysts say the initial round represents a starting point.
“There is still time, and the two sides will more likely build upon what progress they have made,” Farooqi says, adding that further rounds of talks could gradually ease tensions.
Debating the war’s outcome
Some analysts, including Sawhney and Ayesha Siddiqa, argue that Iran has effectively “won” the conflict by avoiding defeat and maintaining control despite sustained attacks.
Farooqi agrees and says Iran’s leadership structure remains intact and operational, even after significant losses. By contrast, critics say the Trump administration has struggled to achieve its stated objectives, while triggering broader economic and geopolitical consequences.
The war has also intensified scrutiny within the United States, where some analysts and commentators have questioned its justification, framing it as driven more by Israeli security concerns than American interests, he says.
The political implications could extend to upcoming elections, with Trump potentially facing domestic costs for the conflict, although constitutional constraints make any delay to electoral timelines highly unlikely.
Hormuz and shifting leverage
The Strait of Hormuz has emerged as a focal point of the crisis. Analysts say Iran’s ability to disrupt traffic through the vital energy corridor has given it significant leverage.
Farooqi says tensions escalated when the United States sought to enforce maritime restrictions, only to see continued ship movements through the strait, including vessels linked to China.
Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun publicly emphasized Beijing’s intention to maintain shipping flows, citing economic interests and energy ties with Iran — a stance aligning with Tehran’s long-standing position on jurisdiction over the waterway.
Farooqi interprets Washington’s decision to engage in talks in Pakistan, based on an Iranian framework, as a sign of shifting leverage in the conflict.
Israel’s role under scrutiny
Israel has increasingly been viewed by critics as a spoiler in efforts to de-escalate the crisis. Analysts including Joe Kent, Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer have raised concerns about Israel’s potential to undermine negotiations.
Recent developments, including strikes beyond Iran’s borders, have reinforced those concerns, even as international pressure — particularly from European governments — has grown.
Farooqi notes that while the United States and Israel have coordinated militarily, divergences have emerged over the pace and direction of diplomacy. Israel has openly expressed frustration with negotiations, insisting it has yet to achieve its objectives.
That divergence places the onus on Washington to manage the alliance if it seeks a negotiated outcome, he says.
Pakistan’s balancing act
Pakistan’s role as a mediator has drawn attention, but it also faces mounting pressure as the situation evolves.
Balancing ties with Iran and Saudi Arabia, Islamabad is navigating a delicate path. The deployment of Pakistani troops to Saudi Arabia under a defense agreement reflects both strategic commitments and the risk of entanglement.
Farooqi says Pakistan is unlikely to take sides in a direct confrontation between Riyadh and Tehran, emphasizing that its military presence is intended as a deterrent rather than a signal of alignment against Iran.
At the same time, Pakistan’s mediation efforts have been supported by China, which has a strong interest in regional stability given its economic and energy stakes in the Middle East.
Toward a multipolar world
The conflict has accelerated what many analysts see as an ongoing shift toward a multipolar global order, with China and Russia playing increasingly visible roles.
China, in particular, has adopted a more assertive diplomatic posture while avoiding direct military involvement. Its efforts to facilitate dialogue among regional actors and maintain stability reflect a strategy centered on economic influence and deterrence.
Beijing’s recent engagement with Pakistan and Afghanistan ahead of the Islamabad talks is viewed as part of a broader attempt to position itself as a responsible major power.
Russia, meanwhile, is expected to act more cautiously given its commitments elsewhere, including the war in Ukraine, though analysts say it could become more involved if its core interests are threatened.
Risks of a fragmented order
While multipolarity may dilute the dominance of any single power, it also carries risks.
Farooqi warns that a fragmented global system — lacking a clear stabilizing force — could become more volatile, drawing comparisons to the geopolitical environment preceding the two world wars.
By contrast, the bipolar order that followed World War II maintained relative stability through mutual deterrence between rival superpowers.
Today’s landscape, he says, is more polarized and unpredictable.
The evolving crisis, marked by shifting alliances and competing power centers, underscores both the opportunities and dangers of a world in transition — one where diplomacy, deterrence and conflict remain tightly intertwined.
We must take charge of our narrative. Research indicates that 92% of their Muslim coverage is negative. Help us change that.
Have Your Say!
Have you been affected by the issues raised in this story? Please share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@soundvision.com.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a Muslim Network TV’s representative. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
Tweet: @MuslimNetworkTV
