The Iranian-American confrontation doesn't appear resolvable through a single mediator, but rather requires a formula combining political influence, the ability to exert leverage, and post-settlement guarantees. The real question may not be who is the strongest mediator, but how to bring together each mediator's strengths into a single track that makes settlement less costly than continuing the war.
اضافة اعلان
In this context, political and strategic experts told "Al-Ghad" that Pakistan appears best positioned to play a practical mediating role, given its communication channels with both Washington and Tehran and its balanced relations with China and Gulf states, while China holds the greatest strategic and economic weight, positioning it to later offer broader guarantees for any agreement.
Qatar and Oman stand out for managing sensitive communications and containing escalation, while Turkey can play a supporting political and security role, and the Gulf remains a party whose security interests cannot be bypassed in any settlement.
Experts noted that the essence of mediation isn't only about who has communication channels, but how ready both sides are to move from a logic of force to a logic of negotiation. They suggested the most realistic formula might be collective mediation led politically by Pakistan, supported by Qatar and Oman in de-escalation, China in economic and strategic guarantees, with Turkey and Gulf states participating in security arrangements.
The Strongest Political Mediator
Regarding who holds the key to settlement, expert Dr. Munther Al-Hawarat said no single mediator currently appears capable of resolving or ending the Iranian-American conflict, given the tangled issues at stake, extending beyond the crisis and ceasefire into more complex matters including the nuclear program, sanctions, the naval blockade, and the Strait of Hormuz, which has become central to the confrontation and its repercussions.
In his reading of the mediation landscape between Tehran and Washington, Al-Hawarat considered Pakistan currently the best qualified to serve as the politically strongest mediator, given its acceptable communication channels with both sides, alongside its close ties with China and Gulf Arab states, granting it wide room to maneuver among parties involved in the conflict.
He pointed to Pakistan's prior experience relaying proposals between the U.S. and Iran, which contributed to reaching the temporary memorandum of understanding between the two sides, giving Islamabad a relative advantage in any new negotiation track, especially given the need for a channel that can communicate with both parties without being a direct party to the conflict.
By contrast, Al-Hawarat noted that Oman and Qatar have greater capacity to manage secret communications and field-level de-escalation tracks, making them important elements in any arrangements to reduce tensions, Oman drawing on extensive experience negotiating with Iran and its geographic position relevant to the "Hormuz crisis," while Qatar has direct channels with both the U.S. and Iran and the ability to move quickly.
Regarding China's role, Al-Hawarat said Beijing holds significant economic weight and influence over Tehran, but the U.S. currently doesn't view it as a direct mediator in this conflict, limiting its ability to act as sole mediator — suggesting its more effective role would likely come later, through offering political and economic guarantees for any future agreement rather than mediating alone between the two sides.
He didn't rule out roles for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt in relaying messages between the parties, though their influence remains limited compared to those with direct leverage tools.
Based on this, Al-Hawarat leans toward envisioning a collective mediation formula rather than seeking a single mediator, with roles distributed among several countries according to each one's strengths, Pakistan leading negotiations, Oman and Qatar working to halt strikes and reopen the shipping lane, while China and Gulf states provide economic and security guarantees, forming together a comprehensive mediation formula addressing political, security, economic, and maritime dimensions.
He stressed that the core problem isn't the absence of capable mediators, but that Washington and Tehran haven't yet reached shared conviction that continuing the war has become costlier than reaching a settlement. He argued that the real mediator, in the end, may not be a specific state, but the decision of the two parties themselves once they recognize that continuing the confrontation no longer yields gains worth its cost.
Results of the Balance of Power
Regarding the prospects for successful mediation, Dr. Khaled Shneikat, head of the Jordanian Political Science Association, said resolving the Iranian-American conflict isn't tied to a single mediator capable of ending the confrontation, but rather to the outcomes of the conflict itself and the resulting balance of power, with any mediating role remaining governed by what that balance imposes on both sides.
Shneikat explained that the solution depends on the nature of the power balance between Iran and the U.S.: if a degree of balance emerges, the equation becomes more amenable to settlement, at which point a mediator can step in to stabilize that balance and turn it into a negotiation track.
He noted the mediator in such a case could be Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey, or any other country entering the crisis, but its influence would remain tied to the balances produced by the confrontation. He said both sides hold strengths and weaknesses that could affect the war's trajectory and settlement prospects.
For Iran, he considered its most important card to be the Strait of Hormuz, with the effectiveness of that card depending on Tehran's ability to block ships and oil tankers from passing through it — a tight blockade on shipping could push the U.S. toward concessions, while U.S. success in bypassing the Iranian obstacle and operating one of the strait's passages would weaken this leverage.
Conversely, Shneikat said Iran faces major vulnerabilities, chiefly the crippling naval blockade and difficult economic conditions, alongside the scale of destruction it suffered in the war, noting that continued confrontation drains its capabilities, including missile stockpiles, and that any country ultimately depends on trade, import, and export activity.
As for the United States, he said it too faces attrition factors, particularly regarding ammunition and replenishing its target bank in Iran, noting that rising oil prices and declining global strategic reserves pressure Washington, which could push toward concessions given the economic and political cost of the war.
On mediation, Shneikat affirmed that candidate countries for this role, whether Pakistan, Qatar, Turkey, Gulf states, or China, remain governed by the power equation between Iran and the U.S., meaning a mediator cannot impose a settlement separate from existing power balances. He noted the process needs time, especially with President Trump facing domestic political constraints tied to midterm elections, potentially leading him to carry out limited strikes without engaging in full-scale conflict, which could leave room for negotiation tracks, though their success remains tied to battlefield-driven balances.
Shneikat noted that the strongest mediator can't be identified separately from the confrontation's outcomes, since mediation alone doesn't produce settlement but becomes more effective once both sides reach a balance making the cost of continued war higher than negotiation.
Actionable Understandings
Regarding the identity of the strongest mediator, expert Dr. Bashir Al-Da'ja didn't believe any single party could currently end the Iranian-American conflict alone, arguing that genuine settlement requires a party capable of influencing both sides, possessing direct channels between them, and converting exchanged messages into actionable understandings.
Al-Da'ja said the strongest mediator is whoever can combine these three functions, explaining that China leads in strategic weight, while Pakistan, Qatar, and Oman stand out in field-level mobility and direct message relay.
He considered China the mediator with the greatest strategic weight, as a key economic partner for Iran and a global power able to address Washington on equal footing, with interests tied to energy and shipping security in the Gulf. He noted Beijing's experience restoring Saudi-Iranian relations in 2023 gave it political standing in the region, though it cannot end the war alone, since any settlement requires addressing the nuclear and missile programs, shipping security, and military capabilities, in exchange for lifting sanctions and restoring Iran's oil export capacity.
By contrast, he considered Pakistan the mediator currently most capable of moving between both sides, benefiting from its strategic ties with America, its historical, security, and economic links with Iran, its strong relations with Gulf states, alongside its channels with China and military weight, though its international economic and political capacity is less than China's, making its strongest role lie in narrowing positions, relaying messages, and opening a negotiation track.
As for Turkey, he said it combines relations with Iran and NATO membership, giving it political and security weight, though its calculations with Washington, Tehran, Russia, and the Gulf limit its ability to serve as a fully neutral mediator.
Regarding Gulf states, Al-Da'ja said they can't be treated as a single mediator but as a bloc of interests: Qatar has political channels with both Tehran and Washington, Oman has long experience in quiet mediation, while Saudi Arabia carries Arab, economic, and security weight making its involvement in any final arrangements essential.
He considered China the strongest in comprehensive strategic capacity, Pakistan the most capable of moving as a practical mediator, Qatar and Oman the key to sensitive communications, Turkey a political and security counterweight, and the Gulf the key to regional stability. Therefore, the best solution doesn't lie in a single mediator, but in a multi-party mediation formula combining these roles: China handling the economic and strategic weight of settlement, Pakistan serving as the connecting link, Qatar and Oman managing sensitive communications, Turkey contributing to regional security arrangements, and Saudi Arabia and Gulf states forming part of drafting security and economic guarantees.
Al-Da'ja affirmed that any settlement must go beyond a ceasefire, including guaranteeing freedom of navigation in Hormuz, a gradual easing of sanctions in exchange for verifiable Iranian steps, guarantees regarding the nuclear program, and regional security arrangements, concluding that a successful mediator isn't one who convinces one side the other is right, but one who makes the cost of continuing higher than the cost of settling.
