Mad and sane, in the worldly sense, are the names of two opposing mental states, but from a scientific and psychological perspective, the difference between a rational person and a mad or obsessive one is very complex. Sigmund Freud, who gave psychology the form of a proper science, believes that normal and abnormal people are not fundamentally different; both have unconscious desires and inner conflicts. Abnormality or madness arises when a person fails to manage these conflicts.

Friedrich Nietzsche, who presented the concept of the Superman, says that the one whom you consider and call mad may be standing on a level of consciousness that you have not yet even understood. Nietzsche does not hold any positive expectations from the normal person who follows the herd; rather, he expects the obsessive or mad individual to break social and intellectual chains and create something new. Thus, who is sane and who is mad—every era and every individual has their own interpretation of this.

In the Iran-America war, which of the two sides is mad and which is sane? Iran believes that President Trump is mad and obsessive, while President Trump repeatedly states that the Iranians are mad, who are inviting further destruction even after suffering devastation. We Pakistanis believe that we are rational, and by using wisdom, we have succeeded in bringing about a ceasefire between Iran and America; with further effort, a long-term diplomatic peace agreement may also be achieved. These assessments and desires represent one point of view.

Another perspective says that the decision-makers of both America and Iran are abnormal—indeed mad. Both are stubbornly stuck to their positions; neither is familiar with the etiquette of normal dialogue, a peaceful environment, or progress toward reconciliation. On both sides are loud, impulsive individuals—not thoughtful speakers but those who inflame the fire. According to this view, Pakistan appears to be playing the role of a rational mediator between two mad parties, but in the fight of two madmen, even the sane come out as mad. To extract wisdom from madness is extremely difficult, almost impossible. As the proverb goes, “dealing in coal blackens the face,” similarly, mediating between madmen increases the likelihood of becoming mad oneself. Therefore, it is suggested that Pakistan should withdraw soon from this impossible diplomatic mission. Pakistan has repeatedly proven during this ceasefire that its intentions are sincere and that its sole desire is peace between the two countries.

Pakistan gained great respect worldwide due to this mediation. Countries that had for years accused Pakistan of terrorism were also compelled to say that Pakistan has emerged as a symbol of peace. The task that was once performed by the UN Secretary-General or members of the Security Council was undertaken by the Field Marshal and Shehbaz Sharif, and they carried it out successfully. Pakistan’s sincerity and efforts were praised from all sides. Iran, which rarely listens even to Muslim countries, continued to listen to Pakistan, and President Trump, who does not give importance to anyone and even mocks Arab princes, also repeatedly praised the Field Marshal and Shehbaz Sharif and encouraged their efforts.

Now, wisdom demands that we be content with the respect we have gained. This is such a war between two mad parties in which both will understand not through reason but through consequences. There is a risk that if we remain entangled between these two in the same way, questions may begin to arise about our own wisdom.

The world declared us rational because of our mediation, and the basis of this mediation was sincerity and the desire for peace. However, our tendency to exceed moderation in everything also appeared in this mediation. During the war between America and Iran, both capitals of the warring parties remained open, and normal life continued. But here, despite no war, Islamabad remained completely shut for several days in celebration of mediation, citing VIP movement as the reason. This justification was not of the wise but of the foolish. A specific area or a building could have been closed; shutting down the entire Islamabad was absurd.

Schools are said to be closed to control the energy crisis, but reports suggest that only aircraft carrying Pakistani flags were allowed to pass with fuel. If this is indeed true, then what was the logic behind closing schools, reducing speed on highways, and restricting evening activities?

It must also be said that our excessive optimism and expectations sometimes become obstacles in accepting reality. Maintaining optimism as a mediator is a diplomatic technique, but after meeting the Iranian leadership in person and understanding the American leadership, it should become clear that America will not end this war until there is regime change in Iran. Anything less will not crown Trump with victory. On the other hand, the Revolutionary Guards cannot sign a peace agreement with America and internally bear the accusation of defeat. Both sides want to bring the other down clearly and stand on the victory podium.

If indeed Iran and America are reaching this level of madness, then Pakistan should also take a rational review of its role and decide that it has achieved what it could; beyond this, there is very little room to move forward, and going further carries a greater risk of losing what has been gained.

The greatest danger and concern is that so far Pakistan has treated both America and Iran equally, and both acknowledge this. But as soon as one party feels that it is losing, or that the agreement has gone against it, or that the results of the ceasefire are unfavorable, it is difficult to rule out the possibility that one party may declare Pakistan biased, question its mediation, and attempt to undermine what Pakistan has achieved through excellent diplomacy.

Understanding the fine line between sanity and madness, we must move out of the circle of madness into the orbit of wisdom.