I am deeply grateful to Ambassador Major-General Dr. Noel Khokhar, for his invitation to be part of the panel at this Opening Session.

I am equally indebted to Dr Jonathan Addleton, Rector, FC College University. His welcome reminds me of the days when I taught Accounting here twenty years ago.

The topic before us this morning is Stability in the Middle East – Pakistan’s Strategic Role and Interests. That is a tall order.

Some years ago, I was asked by the BBC to speak on the future of the Commonwealth. I asked how much time would I have: ‘Oh, about 5 minutes’.

I replied: ‘’Well, that just about sums up the future of the Commonwealth’’.

So, forgive me if I am not able in the next 10 minutes to bring about stability in the Middle East. The US and Iran have not been able to achieve an enforceable accord even after 75 days of belligerence. And western countries have not been able to digest Iran, even 75 years after biting off more than they could chew.

This morning, I propose to present my view of the present crisis under four headings: History, Hypocrisy; Hubris, and Hiatus. 

HISTORY:  We all know that, following the industrialisation of Europe, western countries hunted for fuel to sustain their development. In the early 1900s, oil was discovered in Iran. In 1909, the British established the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), later the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). A 60-year agreement was signed in 1933. It established a flat payment to Iran of four British pounds for every ton of oil exported and denied Iran any right to control oil exports.

In 1951, the elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq formed the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) and nationalised Iran’s oil. He was removed in a coup d'état led by British and U.S. intelligence agencies. In 1954, under a new agreement approved by the restored Shah, profits were divided equally between the NIOC and British Petroleum Company.

Following the 1979 Revolution, the NIOC took control of Iran's petroleum industry and canceled Iran's international oil agreements.

The present US/Israeli vs. Iran war has two objectives: Trump, having succeeded in acquiring control of Venezuela’s oil, now wants Iran’s hydrocarbons. His accomplice Benjamin Netanyahu wants to prevent Iran from going nuclear and to emasculate it.

In 1996, that is thirty years ago, Benjamin Netanyahu warned a Joint Session of the US Congress: ‘The most dangerous of these (Muslim) regimes is Iran [.] If this regime, or its despotic neighbor Iraq, were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind.’

Netanyahu has not changed his stance one iota since then.

Let me now speak of HYPOCRISY.

In July 2015,  five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)—China, France, Russia, the U.K., U.S., plus Germany together with the European Union signed an agreement with Iran. Other signatories included China’s present Foreign Minister Wang Yi,  and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.

The agreement, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), limited Iran’s nuclear programme. In exchange, Iran was promised the lifting of US sanctions and other relief. That agreement was the result of 20 months of arduous negotiations. 

Despite the International Atomic Energy Agency’s certification that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA, Trump in May 2018 unilaterally withdrew from the deal. Incidentally, the JCPOA contained a specific clause No.36 to cover resolution of disputes through a Joint Commission. Trump chose to ignore it.Obviously, Trump was unfamiliar with the Latin maxim Pacta sunt servanda (Agreements must be kept). Netanyahu though knew it. He had used that particular phrase in his 1996 speech to Congress.

What has surprised me is that none of the signatories to the JCPOA – the five UN Security Council members plus the EU and Germany - thought fit to raise the matter in the UN.

Even though one member has withdrawn from the  JCPOA, aren’t the other signatories bound by it? Doesn’t the JCPOA still exist?

Now, having torn up Obama’s agreement, Trump wants a fresh nuclear deal of his own with Iran. His non-seriousness is evident from the composition of his negotiating team: Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. Both are Jewish real estate developers from New York.

Should, in the unlikely event of a nuclear deal being thrashed out with Iran, will Iran accept such a deal? Will Trump be able to force Israel to become a co-signatory?

Let me now deal with HUBRIS :

Hubris is a Greek word meaning ‘excessive pride or self-confidence’. In Greek tragedies, such excessive pride leads to nemesis. Trump and Netanyahu are still to experience theirs. Leaders who put foreign policy accolades above domestic imperatives should learn from the examples of Mrs. Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.   

Let me come to my last H : HIATUS

The present hiatus is not a truce. It is a breather. Over seventy-five days have passed since that first inhuman, unconscionable attack on 28 February by the US and Israel on an Elementary Girls’ School in Minab. Out of the 168 civilian victims, over 120 were schoolchildren. There will be more such casualties before this senseless, aimless war is over.

For the Gulf countries, war is not an insurable threat. It has become a devastating reality. For Saudi Arabia, its Crown Prince’s vision 2030 launched with much fanfare ten years ago has stalled. It will never recover its momentum. His oil riches have disappeared into the desert sand.

And where do we fit in all this mayhem? We are justifiably proud of being trusted by both the US and Iran to be the conduit of messages between the two. The last time we enjoyed such a unique role was in the 1970s, when Mao’s China and Nixon’s America used Yahya Khan as the bridge for messages to go, as Zhou Enlai put it, From a Head, Through a Head, To a Head.

In conclusion, I wish I could be more optimistic about our continuing relevance. We are acting as an honest broker between the US  and Iran. As one wit put it, none could be more honest and none could be broker. We may be useful diplomatically.  We cannot disguise the reality that we are insolvent. When the UAE demanded within 30 days the return of a $3.5 billion loan to us, we had to be bailed out by the Saudis through another loan.

Our popularity is premised on personalities, not on policies. We are a nuclear power with 170 nuclear warheads and have not signed the NPT. Yet we are trying to persuade Iran, which is a signatory to the NPT, to limit its nuclear programme.

We do not recognise the state of Israel. Yet we are confident that Israel will be a party to any future deal between the US and Iran.  How will we manage that?

Flattering though it is to be taken seriously by President Trump, we should be careful.  He is a volatile friend, and a dangerous enemy.

Our problems are not the Middle East. They are our unbridled population, failing standards in education, climate change, health, transport, and, and….

A contingent impact of the Gulf crisis is the foreseeable plight of Pakistanis working in the Gulf. Should they be forcibly repatriated by say Dubai or Abu Dhabi or even Saudi Arabia (our Defence Pact notwithstanding), imagine the effect it will have on the flow of remittances upon which our economy depends so heavily. In 2024-25, our workers remitted a record $38.3 billion. That was a 27% increase over the previous year. What if, like oil passing through the Strait of Hormuz, it should shrink to a trickle?

And has anyone in the government prepared any plans for the reintegration of such returnees?

We should not take our role as brokers too seriously. Brokers are useful until the principals have no need of them or lose interest in them.

After that will happen – sooner I fear rather than later - we will be thrown back into the simmering cauldron of our domestic realities.

F. S. AIJAZUDDIN