In diplomacy, perception often carries as much weight as reality. And right now, Pakistan’s position in one of the world’s most volatile geopolitical theatres is raising uncomfortable questions given its long history of association with terrorism and its precarious economic situation.
The recent two-week pause in tensions involving Iran and the United States has been framed, in part, as a product of backchannel diplomacy. Pakistan, with its geographic proximity and long-standing ties to Tehran, has reportedly played a role in relaying messages between the two sides. On the surface, this appears to be a constructive intervention but beneath that narrative lies a more complicated—and sharply contested—picture.
Emirati Strategic and Political Affairs expert, Amjad Taha, delivered a blistering assessment, arguing that “Pakistan kept the Islamic terrorist regime in Iran alive” and warning that “you don’t trust terrorists or negotiate with them.” His remarks, while highly charged, reflect a broader unease among some Gulf observers who question whether Pakistan’s diplomacy is guided by principle or expediency.
British activist Tommy Robinson also weighed in, saying he does not trust a country that once provided refuge to Osama bin Laden, reflecting wider scepticism about Pakistan’s credibility.
That scepticism, however, is not universally shared. Australia, for instance, has struck a more measured tone. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed the ceasefire as a step towards de-escalation, emphasising that prolonged conflict risks deepening global economic shocks—particularly through disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz—and increasing the human toll. He acknowledged ongoing diplomatic efforts and expressed support for negotiators, including Pakistan, while urging all parties to uphold international humanitarian law and protect civilian lives.
The balancing act is not new. Pakistan maintains a “brotherly” relationship with Iran, while also holding deep strategic and defence ties with Gulf nations—particularly Saudi Arabia. Yet when Iran launched attacks affecting regional interests, Islamabad’s defence commitments appeared notably restrained, raising questions about consistency.
At the same time, Pakistan’s engagement with Washington adds another layer of ambiguity, especially after the very public and cringeworthy flattery of Donald Trump by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and reports of Trump-family crypto ventures intersecting with Pakistani interests.
Adding to this intrigue is the controversy surrounding a reportedly drafted social media post attributed to Sharif. It suggests Islamabad may have been taking orders and echoing external directives rather than independently steering diplomatic efforts.
To be fair, mediation in conflicts of this scale is rarely straightforward. Countries often operate within constraints—balancing alliances, managing domestic pressures, and avoiding escalation. Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, acknowledged as much, noting that Islamabad was still attempting to “manage things” even as the situation deteriorated.
But intent alone does not guarantee credibility.
In the end, credibility in international diplomacy is not declared; it is demonstrated. And as the ceasefire holds—however tenuously—the question remains:
Is Pakistan a trusted intermediary—or simply a messenger in a game it has no control over?
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
