The Iran War Mediation and Pakistan’s ‘Reverse Bismarck’

Despite the positive optics of punching above its weight in diplomacy, Pakistan has become weaker over time.

Pakistan’s stature has been on the rise amid reports of its mediating role during the ongoing Iran conflict. Last weekend it hosted the foreign ministers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye, other key states that are seeking to bring an end to the hostilities. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar has just visited China where he met his counterpart Wang Yi, and both countries issued a five-point plan “for restoring peace and stability in the Gulf and Middle East region.” This builds on earlier visits by Pakistani Army Chief Asim Munir – Trump’s self-professed “favorite field marshal” – to Washington, D.C. last year.

Proactive Rather Than Passive Strategic Autonomy

Islamabad has long practiced a proactive strategic autonomy, in contrast to India’s more passive strategic autonomy. Where New Delhi keeps its distance from key global flashpoints, Islamabad is happy to jump in. History is replete with examples: Pakistan’s joining the U.S.-led anti-communist Baghdad Pact in the 1950s; facilitating the Sino-U.S. rapprochement in the late 1960s and 1970s; allying with the United States in countering the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s and U.S.-led “War on Terror” in the 2000s, all while maintaining its “all weather” relationship with China and pursuing deepening relations with the Islamic world.  Recent developments demonstrate the dexterity of Pakistan’s foreign policy and build on those earlier actions.

Focusing on the Middle East, Pakistan has maintained a longstanding role in the region. It has provided security assistance to Saudi Arabia since the 1950s, culminating in the announcement of a Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement between both countries last year. Former Pakistan Army Chief Raheel Sharif has led the Islamic Military Counterterrorism Coalition (IMCTC), a 43-nation coalition since it was established in 2017. Pakistan joined the Trump administration’s Gaza Board of Peace earlier this year. Its nuclear weapons capability has often been referred to as an “Islamic bomb.”

Were Pakistan to play a role in bringing an end to the Iran conflict that has upended global commodity markets, global air travel and the security of the Middle East, its standing on the world stage would undoubtedly go up. Aside from its enhanced status with the United States and Islamic world, Islamabad would likely also gain material benefits in the form of financial assistance to support its ailing economy and possibly a string of new defense deals with the United States. In the context of its perennial rivalry with India, many would also see a diplomatic victory for Islamabad as a diplomatic defeat for New Delhi (although such a zero-sum narrative is overly simplistic).

To be sure, success remains elusive given the highly fluid situation. Amid reports of a potential U.S. ground invasion of Iranian territory and the Houthis joining the conflict, Islamabad’s efforts could amount to naught. Moreover, there are several underlying contradictions in Pakistan’s role in the Middle East. While Islamabad is offering its services as mediator in the Iran conflict, Tehran has offered to mediate ongoing hostilities between Afghanistan and Pakistan. While Pakistan maintains close relations with Gulf Arab states and the United States, it maintains no diplomatic relations with Israel and patchy relations with Iran – as indicated by border skirmishes in 2024 and the historically close relationship between New Delhi and Tehran. Iranian drone and missile attacks on neighboring countries have notably not targeted Pakistan. But were Saudi Arabia to invoke their mutual defense pact, Pakistan would be compelled to respond, which could incur the wrath of Tehran. This raises questions about the credibility of Pakistan’s role as an impartial mediator.

Read the complete article here.