Amid the uncertainty over how the war may ultimately conclude, Pakistan has taken the unexpected step of brokering a ceasefire. While this initiative is welcomed by many, particularly for its potential to ease economic pressures, questions remain about its durability and its long-term impact on the global economy. How do you interpret this move within the broader context of the conflict, especially in light of Israel’s absence from the direct negotiations?
The United States is the one leading the negotiations andit is doing so according to a 15 point plan that includes the removal of three existential threats from Israel. The military nuclear threat, the ballistic missile threat, and the support of Iran to proxies, terrorist proxies that have been throwing havoc not only against Israel and attacking it multiple times, but also against countries in the region. We trust the United States that they will be able to deliver long term stability and they have all the conditions to do so. Thanks to the joint military operation that we have launched and thanks to the naval blockade that is now posing on Iran and only on the regime on Iran, that will give us the pressures that are needed in order to get an outcome. The fact that the negotiation is taking place in Pakistan means that Pakistan is a facilitator. We are not comfortable with that because we don’t trust Pakistan, but we trust the United States to deal with the issues and to concentrate in the substantive goals that we have mutually agreed on. We think that if indeed the 15 point plan is implemented, then we will achieve stability in the region for the long term and that will not only bring back stability to the markets, but also will create opportunities for projects of connectivity that are going to be very fruitful, both for the South Asian residents of the Gulf, and also for projects of connectivity between Asia and the West.
Historically, Pakistan’s public discourse has often reflected strong criticism of Israel and the United States. Even now, while seeking to mediate a ceasefire, it continues to voice pointed criticism of Israel. In light of this, how would you evaluate Pakistan’s intervention and its credibility as a mediator in such a sensitive conflict environment?
As I said, Pakistan is only a facilitator. We are not satisfied with the Pakistani role because we saw the unacceptable remarks of their Defense Minister. Fortunately, following pressure, he removed his hateful tweet. But that’s not enough. I think that many countries in the region and in the world want to see the government of Pakistan stop sponsoring terrorism and radicalism. And until it does so, we will not consider them a reliable broker.
During these efforts, Pakistan’s defense minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, has issued statements describing both Israel and India as “true enemies” of the Islamic world. Considering that India and Israel have elevated their relationship to a special strategic partnership in recent years, how do you view Pakistan’s reaction within this broader geopolitical context?
The enemies of the Islamic world are the radical Islamists that are killing Muslims more than anybody else all around the Muslim world. Both Israel and India have peaceful relations with most of the Muslim countries. Israel has signed peace agreements not only with Egypt and Jordan, also with the Abraham Accord countries. And we are seeing, following the recent conflict, many more countries approaching us. It means that in many countries in the Arab Muslim world, people are sick and tired of seeing this radicalism. And we are sure that by forging and further strengthening this special strategic partnership between Israel and India, we will be able to have the means to confront terrorism in a much more efficient way. But in parallel to that, we’ll continue our effort to create dialogue and cooperation with the Arab & Muslim countries of the world.
The conflict was initiated with clearly stated objectives, including regime change. Yet current discussions now point toward a possible permanent end to hostilities with the same regime still in place. Some observers suggest that direct talks with the current Iranian leadership may amount to a form of recognition. From the perspective of the original objectives, this development could be perceived as a setback. Given that many believe certain threats will persist as long as the current Iranian regime remains in power, how do you assess this shift in the trajectory of the conflict?
Well, the stated goals of this operation were there, and they haven’t changed. That’s the removal of the military nuclear threat, the removal of the ballistic missile threat, and the debilitation of the Iranian regime in a way that it will give an opportunity to the Iranian people to embrace their future if they choose to do so. We didn’t say that we’re going to invade Iran. On the contrary, and although we wish that there will be a change in the regime or of the regime, we stated at the outset that is completely up to the Iranian people. We think that we have achieved the goal of debilitating the regime substantially, and we see that manifestating in different aspects. First of all, the fact that the regime had to invite foreign militias in order to enforce their oppression throughout Iran. They invited Iraqi militias and Afghani militias, Pakistani militias. The fact that they are not speaking in one voice. Their President was saying that they are not going to attack neighboring countries, however the IRGC did attack civilian targets in neighboring countries. What we are seeing here, there are cracks in the regime. And now it’s up to the people to decide. Maybe after Internet is restored in Iran, we’re going to see again authentic voices coming out. But it’s not going to be easy because this regime is ruthless, murderous, and we saw it. Only few months back they did not hesitate to massacre people in the streets, tens of thousands of them, and they even entered hospitals and killed people, protestors inside the hospitals while they were being treated, together with their doctors. So it’s a challenge, but it’s a challenge the Iranian people will have to assume.
There is a perspective that the dynamics of the conflict have shifted considerably since its outset. Iran appears to have leveraged the Strait of Hormuz as a strategic deterrent, using its capacity to disrupt maritime traffic and exert global economic pressure. Looking ahead, Tehran may continue to enhance its naval capabilities, suggesting a long-term strategic posture. How do you assess this challenge and its implications for regional stability?
The Iranian illegal activity to block the Straits of Hormuz has boomeranged terribly for them. First of all, because the entire world has condemned that move. Second, because it’s an act of terrorism and extortion on whom they called their friends. They are punishing their friends. And that will have repercussions on the future of the relations of the regime with the rest of the world. In addition to that, it has boomeranged because their naval capability has been completely destroyed by the United States. And in addition to that, there is now an effective naval blockade by the United States that actually has frozen all the Iranian regime naval activity, including on the civilian sphere. Now they are subject to pressure that can only result in a diplomatic outcome that will fit the 15 point plan put forward by President Trump.
H.E. Mr. Reuven Azar is the Ambassador of Israel to India and the Non-Resident Ambassador to Sri Lanka and Bhutan. He assumed his position as Ambassador of Israel to India in August 2024. Previously, he served as Ambassador to Romania, the Deputy National Security Advisor for Foreign Policy at the National Security Council, and the Foreign Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister of Israel.
