As U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran continue and Tehran carries out attacks across the region, questions are mounting over who can mediate between the sides and help chart a path to ending the war.
Amid this backdrop, foreign ministers from several Arab and Islamic countries met in Riyadh on March 18 and agreed to form a four-party framework comprising Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan.
This move represents a starting point for political coordination among the four countries, aimed at advancing a resolution to the crisis and opening indirect channels of communication between the conflicting parties.
This track was followed by a new meeting in Pakistan on March 29, which focused on discussing ways to end the war, while emphasizing that the continuation of the conflict would only lead to further destruction.
In parallel with this meeting, separate bilateral talks were held between the foreign ministers, in addition to a meeting with Pakistan’s army chief, Asim Munir. U.S. President Donald Trump later announced that he had received messages from Tehran through intermediaries, while Iran’s Foreign Ministry confirmed receiving similar messages.
Ambassador Youssef Zadeh, a member of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs, said that “this coordination carries a temporary character imposed by current circumstances, with the possibility of evolving in the future into a broader framework of cooperation.” He added that indications of this temporary nature include the fact that the meeting came as a direct response to regional escalation and the global economic crisis resulting from disruptions to oil tanker traffic.
As some newspapers and observers have gone as far as describing the framework as a “quadrilateral alliance” and raising the prospect of Israeli concern, Zadeh told Alhurra that “some analyses have begun referring to this bloc as the ‘new Islamic quartet’ and suggest it could pose a potential concern to Israel.” However, he added that “this proposition remains in an exploratory phase and has not yet reached the level of cohesive alliances,” explaining that any “future development” would likely be based on shared interests — particularly in stability and the economy — rather than a unified ideological foundation.
For his part, Dr. Sayed Qandil Abbas, an expert on Middle East affairs at Quaid-i-Azam University in Pakistan, said that the growing coordination among Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Pakistan has drawn wide attention, and that diplomatic engagements, including the Islamabad meeting, reflect these countries’ intention to play a more active role in resolving regional conflicts.
Qandil told Alhurra that previous alliances among Islamic countries, such as the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the Economic Cooperation Organization and the Gulf Cooperation Council, have not been “sufficiently” successful in dealing with major crises in the region. He said that “recent developments underscore the need for a more cohesive and effective framework based on practical action,” adding that “the escalating conflict involving Iran is likely to expand into a broader regional confrontation, reinforcing calls to form a new alignment among influential Islamic states.”
Foreign ministers of the four-party committee acknowledged that there has been limited progress in de-escalation efforts, reflecting the complexity of the situation and the difficulty of achieving a rapid breakthrough, according to observers.
Two days after the “Pakistan meeting,” Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar visited China on March 31, where a five-point initiative was launched to restore peace and stability in the Middle East. The initiative included an immediate cessation of hostilities, the start of peace talks as soon as possible, the protection of non-military targets, ensuring the security of maritime routes, and adherence to the United Nations Charter.
Zadeh noted that one of the proposals related to the Strait of Hormuz involves “functional internationalization” or the creation of a regional “consortium” including the four countries to manage ship traffic and ensure the safe passage of oil. He explained that “this proposal is based on transforming the strait into a model similar to the Suez Canal, whereby it would remain under nominal Iranian sovereignty but be managed under joint international and regional guarantees, ensuring freedom of navigation and preventing its use as a pressure tool.”
Commenting on these developments, Firas Radwan Oğlu, a Turkish writer and political analyst, told Alhurra that there are many commonalities among the four countries, alongside some “points of divergence.”
Radwan Oğlu said these countries maintain close relations with the United States and possess clear political weight, “which makes coordination among them necessary at this stage,” though he does not expect the war to stop immediately.
However, the Quaid-i-Azam University professor stressed that “this emerging bloc possesses notable geopolitical weight, qualifying it to serve as an effective platform for addressing regional conflicts and broader challenges facing the Islamic world.”
Regarding the future, Abbas said that “some analysts expect that continued cooperation among these four countries will contribute to strengthening integration within the Islamic world, in addition to developing more efficient mechanisms for conflict resolution and consolidating regional stability. Achieving this requires these countries to define their shared interests and unify their vision toward existing threats.”
The “quadrilateral coordination” appears to remain in its early stages, but this “situational move,” as observers describe it, could form the nucleus of a more cohesive alliance in the future.
The article is a translation of the original Arabic.
