When a soldier becomes a diplomat

There was a fireworks display in the National Assembly the other day. The fireworks were set off by Maulana Fazlur Rehman. He mocked Defence Minister Khawaja Asif for not being in Tehran. He also took a dig at Ishaq Dar for not leading the diplomatic mission to Iran.

What he missed was the most important point: the Tehran mission was being initiated, led and executed by Field Marshal Asim Munir.

Well, Asim Munir is not a diplomat. Agreed. But what Maulana, and people like you and me, should remember is that diplomacy is often about war. It is about military operations, security arrangements, threats and, above all, finding ways to prevent a war. In such circumstances, a well-informed military man may be allowed to take the diplomatic lead.

I am not saying that soldiers should replace diplomats. Nor am I suggesting that foreign policy should become the business of the military alone. But when a region is on the brink of another conflict, military understanding can be as important as diplomatic language.

Let us look at what happened in Tehran.

The October 26 meeting did not happen overnight. It was the result of weeks of groundwork by Field Marshal Asim Munir. He had already visited Iran and discussed the possibility of bringing Tehran and members of the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement to the negotiating table.

Interestingly, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman publicly confirmed that the initiative had originated with Munir and that Tehran had accepted it.

The meeting brought together important figures from four countries. Saudi Arabia sent its Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman. Turkey was represented by Ibrahim Kalin, its intelligence chief. Pakistan was represented by Asim Munir, accompanied by Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi. Iran’s side was hosted by Mohsen Rezaei, a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Now, look at this gathering.

These were not people meeting for a photograph or exchanging diplomatic courtesies. They represented countries with serious security interests, historical differences and, in some cases, competing regional ambitions.

The situation was particularly dangerous. The region was still dealing with the consequences of the US-Israeli war against Iran. Houthi attacks had increased tensions with Saudi Arabia. There were also fears of another American military strike against Iran.

In this atmosphere, bringing these countries together was no ordinary diplomatic exercise.

The formal statement was modest. The four countries agreed to continue dialogue and strengthen cooperation for regional peace and security. But Mohsen Rezaei went further. He spoke about regional countries taking responsibility for their own security and preventing foreign interference.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also expressed support for regional cooperation and the peaceful resolution of differences.

Did the meeting end the conflict? No. Did it produce a peace treaty? No. But it created something important: a channel of communication between countries that have reasons to distrust one another.

And sometimes, that is how peace begins.

I understand Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s question about the absence of the foreign minister. I also understand why Khawaja Asif and Ishaq Dar were mentioned. In a parliamentary democracy, the government must explain its decisions and the role of its ministers. Parliament has every right to ask questions.

But political criticism should not become an exercise in missing the bigger picture.

If Asim Munir has helped bring Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Pakistan to one table, the achievement should be judged on its results, not on the uniform of the person who initiated it.

Pakistan needs strong diplomats, active parliamentarians and a professional foreign service. It also needs military leadership that understands the security realities of the region. These institutions should complement one another, not compete for credit.

I would rather see our leaders arguing over how to turn the Tehran initiative into lasting peace than arguing over who should have occupied which chair at the meeting.