(Abdul Basit Alvi)
The October 26 meeting in Tehran was the result of weeks of diplomatic efforts by Pakistan’s Chief of Defence Forces and Chief of Army Staff, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir, who proposed bringing Iran together with the members of the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement for direct regional dialogue without external interference. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei confirmed that the initiative came from Munir and was accepted by Tehran. Signed on August 7, 2026, by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the agreement established a collective defence arrangement under which an armed attack on one member would be treated as an attack on all three. It also created a secretariat, appointed a retired Pakistani lieutenant general as its first secretary-general and became operational in early October, when its political and defence committee met in Riyadh and decided to deploy forces to Saudi Arabia in response to escalating Houthi attacks. The delegation included Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman, the brother of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman; Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization chief Ibrahim Kalin, a close adviser to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan; and Munir, accompanied by Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi. Iran was represented by Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, a former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps during the Iran-Iraq war, a former presidential candidate and a doctorate holder in economics known for his blunt approach. Following the meeting, Rezaei called the discussions “very good” and said a “new atmosphere” was emerging in the region, lending significance to his remarks given his security background and reputation for direct speech.
The official joint statement committed the four countries to continuing dialogue and strengthening cooperation for regional peace and security, while Rezaei told Iranian state television that West Asian security should be guaranteed by regional countries themselves and that foreign intervention should be prevented. Although this position was not included in the joint statement, the absence of any public contradiction from the participating delegations suggested a willingness to explore greater regional responsibility for security. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian also met the delegations and expressed his country’s determination to deepen regional cooperation, resolve differences and strengthen unity, security and development through the collective capabilities of Islamic countries. His remarks signaled openness to cooperation without making specific commitments. The meeting took place amid heightened tensions, with Western officials indicating that the United States might launch another large-scale strike on Iran after the American midterm elections, Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia intensifying, the Yemen conflict threatening to draw in outside powers and the region still reeling from the US-Israeli war against Iran earlier that year, which had killed Iran’s supreme leader and altered the regional balance of power. Although the talks produced neither a ceasefire nor a treaty or major breakthrough, they established a commitment to continued dialogue and demonstrated that the four countries were willing to explore alternatives to confrontation. The meeting also raised the possibility of regional states taking greater responsibility for their own security rather than depending on Washington, Moscow or Beijing. While this opening remains fragile and vulnerable to renewed violence or miscalculation, it created an important channel for communication at a time when further escalation could have far-reaching consequences.
For Field Marshal Asim Munir, this was the culmination of months of patient work. He is not a politician. He does not give speeches about his vision for the region. He works through quiet conversations, through visits that are announced only after they have happened, through proposals that are designed to be acceptable to all sides. The Iranian Foreign Ministry’s confirmation that the meeting was his idea is a rare piece of public credit for a military leader who generally avoids the spotlight . But it is credit that is earned. Asim Munir has spent months shuttling between capitals, talking to the Americans, the Iranians, the Saudis, and the Turks. He has used Pakistan’s unique position as a country that has relationships with all of these actors to create space for dialogue. Pakistan is not a neutral party in the strict sense. It has a defense pact with Saudi Arabia. It has deep ties to Turkey. It shares a long border with Iran. But it is precisely this web of relationships that makes it useful as a convener. Asim Munir has turned Pakistan’s connections into a diplomatic asset.
The Pakistani nation has noticed. The public reaction to the Tehran meeting has been overwhelmingly positive. Pakistanis have grown weary of being told that their country is isolated, that it is a source of instability rather than a solver of problems. The sight of their army chief sitting down with the Saudi defense minister, the Turkish intelligence chief, and the Iranian security leadership in a single room, discussing peace rather than war, is a source of genuine pride. It suggests that Pakistan can play a constructive role in the world, that its military is not just a fighting force but a diplomatic instrument. That perception matters. It shapes how Pakistan is seen abroad and how Pakistanis see themselves.
The road ahead is not easy. The agreement to continue talks is a beginning, not an end. Saudi Arabia still has deep concerns about Iranian support for groups that threaten its security. Iran still has deep concerns about Saudi Arabia’s ties to the United States and its willingness to host American military assets. Turkey has its own complex agenda. Pakistan must balance its defense commitments to Saudi Arabia with its desire to maintain good relations with Iran. The Makkah alliance’s activation in October, which involved deploying forces to Saudi Arabia, was a signal of resolve. The Tehran meeting was a signal of openness. Holding both of those signals together is the challenge. It requires a kind of diplomacy that is patient, quiet, and persistent. It requires leaders who are willing to take risks for peace and absorb criticism from those who prefer confrontation.
The Muslim world has no shortage of challenges. It has no shortage of divisions. It has no shortage of external actors eager to exploit those divisions for their own purposes. But it also has no shortage of people who want peace, who want development, who want a future where their children can grow up without the shadow of war. The Tehran meeting was a reflection of that desire. It was a statement that the countries of the region are not condemned to perpetual conflict. They have agency. They have choices. And with the right leadership, they can choose a different path. Field Marshal Asim Munir has shown what that leadership looks like. He has shown that a soldier can be a peacemaker. He has shown that Pakistan can be a bridge rather than a barrier. The question now is whether others will follow his example. The question now is whether the opening created in Tehran will be widened or allowed to close. The answer to that question depends on the courage and persistence of the people who made the meeting happen. And it depends on whether the words spoken in Tehran are followed by actions that match them.
