"The end to the US-Iran conflict is overwhelmingly in India's interest, so we shouldn't be cynical about the current process underway just because Pakistan is playing a mediatory role," says TCA Raghavan, former High Commissioner of India to Pakistan.In an exclusive interaction with The Quint, the retired former diplomat speaks about why Islamabad was chosen as a platform to host talks between Washington and Tehran.He also says that technical disagreements, such as control over the Strait of Hormuz and uranium enrichment, aren't deal-breakers in the negotiations. Instead, the real guarantee Iran desires from the US is that such an attack won't recur.The Subtext of Pak 'Mediating' US-Iran Talks, and Trump-Modi Call That FollowedEdited excerpts from the interview:We're in the midst of a technical ceasefire between the US and Iran, even though verbal threats are being exchanged and the US has been blockading the Strait of Hormuz. While US President Donald Trump initially said that the success or failure of negotiations is immaterial, he is now saying the next round of talks will be held soon. Does this indicate his desperation to find an exit strategy from the war?I think both Iran and the US are now keen to find some kind of a stable arrangement out of this. Which is why they agreed to the negotiations in the first place. Both have realised that this kind of conflict can go on for a very long time, and it is in neither's interest.I think the US, in particular, has been surprised by Iran's resilience. Clearly, things didn't work out as Washington had planned because what appears evident is that the US never had such a long, drawn-out conflict in mind when it embarked on this joint attack with Israel against Iran.There are several points of contention due to which the recent talks in Islamabad failed, such as control over the Strait of Hormuz, Iran's pursuits to continue enriching uranium, and the US' refusal to unfreeze Iranian assets. If it comes down to the wire, on which of these points do you feel Iran will stand firm, and on which would they be willing to compromise? I don't think any of these issues are a deal-breaker. The fact that the US and Iran met is a huge change. The fact that they met so soon after such an intense conflict makes the meeting even more astonishing, and the achievement of such a meeting taking place even more substantial.In my view, none of these issues in themselves are a deal breaker because there is a long history to reach for these issues. In my view, what the real issue is is an absence of any kind of trust. The principal takeaway that Iran wants from this negotiation is a guarantee that this kind of attack will not recur, and that whatever agreement is reached is going to be a stable one, which will not be breached.Now what kind of guarantee will satisfy Iran? That is not very clear because, after all, this conflict began as an undeclared war. A decapitation strike was carried out without any real warning or indication that a major conflict was going to take place.The second issue that isn't very clear is how the US will somehow package this agreement as some kind of victory. President Trump's narrative is that they have achieved all their objectives. So I think the issues are broadly political and along these lines, not so much technical.Iran-US Ceasefire: Pakistan’s Big Diplomatic Moment Faces Reality CheckAs we've seen in past conflicts in West Asia, countries like Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, among others, have been preferred as a neutral destination to hold negotiations between belligerent parties. According to you, what was the rationale behind choosing Pakistan as a venue to host talks?I think Pakistan has a number of equities. First of all, it has good relations with Gulf states and its relations with the US are on an upswing. And notwithstanding frictions occasionally, it has pretty deep relations with Iran; they have a shared border.So these factors made Pakistan an attractive proposition for all the parties concerned. Qatar, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia couldn't have been the platform for talks this time because they were, in a sense, part of the conflict. Although they are not actual combatants, their countries have seen attacks. Also, Egypt and Iran don't have a relationship of great trust, so I don't think Cairo was a likely candidate.Pakistan was able to use its equities and put itself forward as a platform for these negotiations because, very evidently, bringing this conflict to an end is in its interest.'US, Israel Have Total Control of War Information': Ex-Indian Ambassador To UAEWhat does Pakistan have to gain from its mediatory role? Some would say that the fact that Pakistan was chosen for this purpose has improved its global standing and reputation. But do you feel that by pushing for its role as a mediator, Islamabad wanted to leverage its its relationship with Tehran to curry favor with Washington? Or do you feel this is part of a broader effort by China, which has been playing a more 'behind-the-scenes' role to stabilise the West Asian region?I think the reason they played such a role is because it was vital that the conflict come to an end. If the war and the supply chain disruptions have such a bad impact on India, the impact on Pakistan is even worse because their economy is much more fragile. I think the main push factor was that it was vital for the conflict to be brought to an end, and they felt they could play a role in this because of the relationships they have with Gulf states and Iran, and also because ties with Washington have been improving.I don't see the Pakistani role in conspiratorial terms, that it acted as a proxy, or that it was working because its relations with China are a plus factor. The Chinese trust the Pakistanis, and other countries also have confidence that Pakistan has a direct line to Beijing. So I don't see it conspiratorially. I think they saw an opportunity for themselves, and they very effectively were able to utilise that opportunity. And certainly, while doing so, they were conscious of the fact that this would get them an enormous boost in terms of their diplomatic standing and international legitimacy.Behind the Ceasefire, the Real Iran-US Conflict Remains UnresolvedHow is Pakistan managing such a delicate balancing act, being able to maintain friendly ties with the US, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia at the same time?I think Pakistan has been quite adept at managing the US-China relationship for a very long time. Even at the height of US-China contestations a few years ago, the Pakistanis were able to keep relations with both pretty intact. When it comes to Iran, it's not that the relationship has a great deal of meat in it; it's quite suboptimal in many ways because they have their own frictions and issues, but there is a basic substance in the relationship which is maintaining itself, notwithstanding the great proximity Pakistan has with GCC countries, particularly Saudi Arabia. As you were mentioning earlier, some would argue that Pakistan's mediatory role has provided diplomatic legitimacy to its current leadership, especially to its military leadership led by Asim Munir. How do you think this development will be viewed by India, and how will it impact New Delhi's consistent efforts to label Pakistan as a nation-state that harbours and funds terrorism?I think if this conflict comes to an end, by whatever means, it is in India's interest. So we should not be cynical about the current process underway just because Pakistan is undertaking a mediatory role; that would be short-sighted. I think the Indian government has also welcomed the fact that a ceasefire is in place. Coming to the point of what happens to Pakistan's international standing, I think we have made too much of the fact that Pakistan is internationally isolated. It was never as isolated as we thought it was. We have to realise that while our perspective on Pakistan is dominated by the terrorism factor, other countries don't share that perspective. They look at Pakistan from their own perspective. It is a country of 250 million people, it's relatively stable, in a very important geopolitical location, and it has nuclear weapons. So for most countries, this makes Pakistan a relevant geopolitical factor in the region. And so these countries don't necessarily agree with our view that Pakistan should be internationally isolated.In any case, it's been evident for some time that our approach of trying to isolate Pakistan has not been working. To some extent, this is because we need to take into account that the global war on terror, as it was constructed, no longer exists. The war on terror is over. So now every country views the situation through the prism of its own assessments and interests and not through the umbrella prism of the global war on terror.