The story begins with a strange contradiction. The president of the world’s most powerful nation stands on the White House lawn calling Pakistan’s army chief a “fantastic person.” Islamabad is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. Newspapers across the globe crown Pakistan the “unlikely peace broker.” And at that very moment, on a street in that very city, a motorcyclist stands at a petrol pump doing the math — at three hundred and ten rupees a litre, how much fuel can he afford today and still make it home with something left in his pocket. Both scenes are unfolding in the same country, at the same time, under the same government. This contradiction is the real story of today’s Pakistan.
Let’s begin with the diplomatic triumph, because it is genuinely a remarkable tale. In February 2026, the United States and Israel launched a war on Iran. Lasting more than a hundred days, it shook the entire Middle East and threw global energy markets into turmoil. And in the middle of it, Pakistan did what no major power, no major global institution, had managed to do in five decades. On April 11 and 12, Islamabad hosted the first direct, high-level talks between the United States and Iran since 1979. A three-hundred-member American delegation led by Vice President JD Vance, alongside special envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, sat across from a seventy-member Iranian delegation led by parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, for twenty-one hours of talks. The first round ended without a breakthrough — but it was a beginning, one that would later be called the “Islamabad Process.”
Field Marshal Asim Munir made a flurry of calls to American officials in the hours before Trump’s deadline for a strike on Iran expired, and out of that came a two-week ceasefire on April 8. That ceasefire nearly collapsed more than once, but Pakistani diplomats — Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar chief among them — kept shuttling between Washington and Tehran. Working quietly alongside Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt, with little public fanfare, they kept the process alive until, in June, Shehbaz Sharif announced on social media that the US and Iran had agreed on a final text. On June 17, Washington released the full fourteen-point agreement, and negotiations over its implementation continued at the Lake Lucerne Summit in Switzerland, mediated jointly by Pakistan and Qatar.
Why was Pakistan the country that could pull this off? The answer lies in its geography. On one side, a strategic defence pact with Saudi Arabia. On another, a five-hundred-and-sixty-mile border with Iran and deep religious and cultural ties. On a third, a long-standing military relationship with the United States. And on a fourth, a deepening strategic partnership with China. No other country stood at all four corners simultaneously. But behind this success lay something less often discussed in the glowing profiles: Pakistan’s own desperation. Its economy was already struggling to stabilise, inflation was running high, and a prolonged war meant costlier oil, shrinking remittances from the Gulf, and millions of Pakistani workers’ livelihoods at risk. The World Bank had cut its Middle East growth forecast for 2026 to just 1.8 percent. For Pakistan, mediation was never simply a matter of diplomatic prestige — it was a fight for economic survival. That is why Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar flew to Beijing on March 31 to present a five-point peace plan jointly with China, and why, that same month, Pakistan carried Iran’s fifteen-point proposal to Washington.
There is another layer to this story worth noting: Pakistan read Trump’s psychology well. It nominated him for the Nobel Prize, joined his “Board of Peace,” signed a deal with Washington to explore Pakistan’s oil reserves, and struck a partnership with his crypto platform, World Liberty Financial. Former senator Mushahid Hussain Syed put it bluntly to the Washington Post: “We read him right.” A decade earlier, this same Trump had accused Pakistan of “lies and deceit.” Today, he hosts Field Marshal Asim Munir alone for lunch at the White House. It is a diplomatic reversal so sharp that even Pakistani diplomats admit to being somewhat surprised by it.
But it would be unfair to present this success without its criticisms. US Senator Lindsey Graham said plainly he didn’t trust Pakistan with the negotiations, calling its role “problematic” given its stance on Israel and the Abraham Accords. Chatham House’s Chietigj Bajpaee notes that since Pakistan has no diplomatic relations with Israel, its leverage as a mediator was always going to be limited. The Stimson Center’s analysis points out that Pakistan’s own political vulnerabilities — including American overtures to Pakistan’s opposition and calls for Imran Khan’s release — complicated the mediation’s early stages. In other words, the story is not as tidy as the official narrative suggests. And yet, the fact remains: Pakistan achieved something that had eluded major powers and international institutions since the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan and Nixon’s opening to China.
Now to the other side of this contradiction — and here the tone of this column must change, because in the glow of diplomatic victory, the face of the ordinary citizen tends to disappear. On July 11, 2026 — the very week the world was praising Pakistan’s diplomatic skill — the Petroleum Division issued a notification raising petrol prices by thirteen rupees eighteen paisas per litre. Petrol jumped from Rs 299.78 to Rs 310.71 per litre; diesel rose from Rs 311.78 to Rs 323.30 per litre. Just a week earlier, on July 4, the government had trimmed petrol prices slightly, creating the impression that relief was on its way. A small cut one week, a thirteen-rupee blow the next — this is the game successive governments have played for years. Hand the public a one-rupee lollipop, then swing a ten-rupee axe the following week.
This price hike is not an isolated event — it ripples through the entire economy like a chain reaction. Transport fares rise. The cost of moving vegetables, fruit, milk, and meat rises. And that burden eventually lands on the shoulders of someone who owns neither a car nor a factory — the ordinary Pakistani living on a daily wage. The Bureau of Statistics’ latest figures show inflation at 11.1 percent in June 2026, down slightly from 11.7 percent in May — but that dip offers little comfort, since the State Bank’s target range is 5 to 7 percent, and the actual figure runs more than double that. Transport inflation hit 29.9 percent in April. Housing and utilities inflation climbed to 16.8 percent. And in June, food inflation accelerated to 9.4 percent — its highest level since April 2024. In other words, in the very month Pakistan was being introduced to the world as an envoy of peace, Pakistani households were watching their bread grow more expensive.
Now consider electricity and gas — a story perhaps even more bitter than petrol. Under May 2026’s fuel cost adjustment, Nepra notified a 33-paisa-per-unit increase in electricity prices, to be recovered in July bills, applying to K-Electric consumers as well. That increase sounds small — but the real story lies in fixed charges. An analysis in the Urdu press noted that fixed charges on electricity bills, once just three or four percent of the total bill, have now been pushed up to ten percent — more than double. This is a charge a consumer pays whether they use one unit of electricity or a hundred. Similar fixed charges already exist on gas bills, and because the public offered no resistance there, the government grew emboldened to apply the same model to electricity. It is a telling lesson in how policymaking works here: public silence isn’t read as tolerance, it’s read as permission.
In April, petrol prices rose by as much as 150 rupees per litre; when global prices later eased, only 80 rupees of that was rolled back — a permanent 70-rupee burden dressed up as “relief.” This is the arithmetic that has come to define Pakistan’s economy: pass on the full loss, return only a fraction of the gain, and wrap both in the comforting language of “sacrifice” and “relief.”
Let’s widen the lens for a moment. Pakistan’s core vulnerability is that its economy depends so heavily on imported energy that any regional turbulence lands directly on the ordinary citizen’s wallet. During the Iran-Israel war, when the threat of a Strait of Hormuz closure loomed, global crude prices spiked, and import-dependent countries like Pakistan bore the brunt. The Finance Ministry’s own monthly report acknowledged that April’s sharp rise in inflation was driven chiefly by energy and transport, linked to ongoing geopolitical tensions and rising oil prices. Now that a ceasefire holds and tensions have eased, the Ministry hopes imported inflation will ease too — yet in the very week that hope was voiced, petrol prices jumped by thirteen rupees. Words and actions, it seems, rarely move in the same direction.
This raises a fundamental question — one that nags at every Pakistani: if Pakistan can pull off a diplomatic feat large enough to seat two warring superpowers at the same table, why can’t that same skill, that same strategy, be turned toward solving its own people’s economic hardships? The intelligence that could read Trump’s psychology and broker a fourteen-point US-Iran agreement — why can’t it secure people-friendly terms in negotiations with the IMF? This is a question government spokespeople never quite answer, because answering it honestly would mean admitting to their own shortcomings.
The truth is that Pakistan enjoys a natural geographic advantage in diplomacy — one that mostly requires timely decisions and the right connections to exploit. Economic reform is a different kind of challenge altogether. It demands sustained, structural change: a fairer tax system, an end to the circular debt plaguing the power sector, a shift toward cheaper sources of energy production, and above all, a rollback of elite privilege. This is precisely where governments always retreat, because staging a diplomatic photo-op is easy; cutting into the privileges of one’s own class is politically expensive.
WAPDA and the power sector illustrate this injustice most starkly. Government officers of grade 17 and above receive a fixed cash “monetisation” allowance instead of free electricity units, while those in lower grades still receive limited free units each month — but the ordinary consumer gets neither monetisation nor relief, only rising fixed charges and the relentless bite of fuel adjustments. Pakistan’s power generation capacity climbed to 49,651 megawatts this fiscal year — so why doesn’t that added capacity translate into relief for the ordinary consumer? Because the system’s real flaw isn’t generation, it’s distribution: transmission losses, electricity theft, and the hefty capacity payments owed to independent power producers under expensive contracts — costs that ultimately show up, line by line, on every household’s bill.
It should also be acknowledged that the government has, at times, acted to blunt bigger increases. According to the Power Division, a possible five-to-six-rupee-per-unit hike was averted in April’s monthly adjustment, and through the quarterly adjustment, consumers received a net relief of Rs 46 billion. The picture, then, isn’t entirely bleak — but relief arrives at a fraction of the speed at which new burdens are imposed, and it is precisely this imbalance that fuels public disillusionment.
So where does the ordinary Pakistani stand in all of this? He wakes up, reads in the newspaper that his country helped broker peace in the world, and feels a flicker of pride. Then he turns the page and reads that petrol is up thirteen rupees, that the electricity bill has climbed again, that flour, lentils, and vegetables all cost more than they did last month. This double sensation — pride and anguish, side by side — captures the psychological state of today’s Pakistani rather precisely. He is glad to see his country rise on the world map, and unsettled to see his own pocket empty out at the same time.
This contradiction, in truth, reflects something structural about how Pakistan is governed. In matters of foreign policy and security, decision-making is concentrated in a few powerful institutions, where direction is set quickly and execution follows fast. Economic policymaking, by contrast, is tangled among competing interests: IMF conditions, power company contracts, the influence of tax-dodging elites, and local political expediency. That is how speed in diplomacy and sluggishness in economics come to be two faces of the very same government.
There is reason for hope too, and it deserves mention. Remittances hit a record $4.25 billion in May 2026. IT exports keep climbing. Foreign exchange reserves have strengthened. And with the ceasefire holding, softer global crude prices should ease the import bill. This is precisely the moment Pakistan has a rare opening: if regional peace holds, oil prices stay stable, demand for Pakistani labour in Gulf construction and healthcare sectors picks up, and the economy gets room to breathe. But that opening won’t bear fruit on its own — it has to be paired with government seriousness, power-sector reform, and a genuinely fair tax system.
This column shouldn’t end on despair, because Pakistan’s history teaches that this nation knows how to claw its way out of crises. The real question is whether the government will use that skill only in moments of crisis, or make it a permanent feature of governance. Will the same diplomatic dexterity that turned Islamabad into a hub of global peacemaking also be turned toward lowering fixed charges on gas and electricity bills, renegotiating IPP contracts, and bringing tax evaders within the law? If the answer is yes, Pakistan can genuinely become a country that gives the world peace and gives its own people some peace of mind too. If the answer is no, these Nobel nominations and global headlines will remain just that — headlines — while the ordinary Pakistani keeps standing at the petrol pump, doing the math on how many litres his wallet can afford this month.
That is where this column should really have begun, and that is where it must end: a medal of peace is a beautiful thing — but hang its full weight around the public’s neck, and it stops being a medal. It becomes a yoke. What Pakistan needs is to convert its diplomatic success into economic strategy, not merely fold it into photo-ops and tweets. The people don’t need a medal for peace — they need affordable petrol, bearable electricity bills, and inflation they can actually live with. That is the real test on which this government’s performance should be judged — not the headlines it makes abroad.
Comments are closed, but trackbacks and pingbacks are open.