By Agha Iqrar Haroon
The unfolding confrontation involving Iran, the United States, and their respective allies has entered a perilous phase, marked by conflicting narratives and escalating tensions. Washington and its allies claim that Tehran is prepared for negotiations, yet Iran has categorically rejected such assertions, insisting that what the United States describes as “negotiations” is, in reality, an admission of “defeat.”
According to a statement carried by Iran’s Tasnim News Agency, Iranian leadership has framed the past 25 days as a period of resilience and success. It credits the “heroic presence” of the Iranian people and the efforts of its armed forces for forcing its adversaries, primarily the United States into retreat. Iranian officials argue that Washington, having instigated the conflict, is now seeking an exit after failing to achieve its objectives. They further contend that President Donald Trump, recognizing the realities on the ground and facing a protracted quagmire, has turned to intermediaries in an effort to disengage. For Tehran, this moment is being portrayed not as a stalemate, but as a point of national pride and strategic ascendancy.
Yet, beyond competing claims of victory or retreat, the broader situation remains deeply critical, not only for regional actors but for global stability. For Pakistan, however, the stakes are uniquely high. Sharing a border with Iran, hosting the world’s second-largest Shia population, and maintaining deep religious, economic, and strategic ties with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan finds itself navigating an exceptionally complex geopolitical landscape.
Islamabad views the situation through a stabilizing lens. It believes that Iranian strikes on Saudi territory risk advancing Israel’s broader strategic objective: to pit Muslim states against one another, thereby weakening both Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Tehran, on the other hand, maintains that any country hosting US military bases constitutes a legitimate target. This fundamental divergence in perception underscores the difficulty of talks by any country that host US military bases but Pakistan is the only country that has leverage because it does not host any US military installation therefore Pakistan has consistently sought to cool tensions.
During last year’s Iran-US confrontation and again in the current crisis, Islamabad has attempted to facilitate dialogue between Washington and Tehran. However, Iran argues that after agreeing to the demands of global powers following last year’s ceasefire, it was attacked again by the United States and Israel, an experience that has hardened its views against any renewed ceasefire that might offer its adversaries an opportunity to regroup and strike later. In such circumstances, Pakistan’s diplomatic navigation becomes extraordinarily challenging.
Historically, Pakistan-Iran relations have never reached their full potential, particularly after the Islamic Revolution, which placed Iran under prolonged US sanctions. Pakistan, mindful of its relations with Washington, has largely adhered to these sanctions, limiting economic cooperation in areas such as the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline and large-scale trade. At the same time, Iran has often maintained closer ties with India, and there have been persistent concerns in Pakistan about Indian activities on Iranian soil, including the case of Indian naval officer Kulbhushan Jadhav. Despite these complexities, Islamabad has consistently sought to maintain a functional relationship with Tehran.
Today, however, concerns are growing within Pakistani policymaking circles that Iran’s actions, particularly its strikes on Saudi territory have placed Pakistan in an untenable position. Given the longstanding defence cooperation between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Islamabad is bound by both strategic commitments and deep-rooted ties. Pakistan has unequivocally condemned Israeli aggression, but it has also condemned Iranian attacks on GCC states, especially Saudi Arabia.
Islamabad firmly believes that the current trajectory aligns with an Israeli design aimed at igniting intra-Muslim conflict particularly along sectarian lines while weakening both Iran and the GCC to advance its own regional ambitions. In response, Pakistan has urged restraint on all sides. Saudi Arabia, to its credit, has demonstrated notable restraint despite significant provocation. Iran, however, has continued its targeting, raising fears of further escalation.
The prospect of Iranian strikes extending to critical infrastructure, such as desalination plants, represents a dangerous red line. Crossing it could trigger a broader regional conflagration, effectively realizing the very scenario that Pakistan seeks to prevent.
Several troubling questions remain unanswered. Despite Saudi Arabia’s restraint, why has Iran continued its attacks and even threatened critical infrastructure? Does Tehran fully appreciate the risks of prolonged escalation, not only in terms of its relations with Saudi Arabia and the GCC but also in the broader regional context? Is it mindful of Pakistan’s defence commitments to Saudi Arabia and the implications thereof? And how should one interpret the apparent contradiction between conciliatory signals from Iranian leadership and continued military actions against GCC?
These questions form the core of the current diplomatic impasse and highlight the immense difficulty of achieving a negotiated settlement.
What is increasingly evident, however, is that Pakistan’s mediation efforts may represent the most viable and perhaps the last opportunity to prevent the conflict from spiraling further. Even before formalizing its Strategic Military Defence Agreement (SMDA) with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan has historically viewed itself as a guardian of the holy sites in the Hijaz. The agreement formalizes what Islamabad considers a longstanding moral, religious, and strategic obligation. Pakistan’s appeal to Iran to halt its attacks on Saudi Arabia is therefore not only a diplomatic position but a reflection of these layered commitments.
The coming days will be decisive. They will determine whether the conflict can be contained or whether it will expand across the region. Much will depend on whether Iran recalibrates its approach, whether the United States reassesses its alignment with broader strategic designs, and whether all parties recognize the catastrophic consequences of continued escalation.
Amid these uncertainties, one point remains clear: Pakistan’s intent, role, and sincerity in seeking a peaceful resolution are beyond reproach. Its consistent advocacy for dialogue and diplomacy reflects a broader commitment to preventing the Muslim world from descending into a self-destructive conflict.
In this volatile moment, Pakistan has positioned itself not merely as a stakeholder, but as a key mediator. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s recent engagement with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman underscores this role. In their conversation on March 25, 2026, the Prime Minister reiterated Pakistan’s strong condemnation of attacks on Saudi Arabia and expressed unwavering solidarity with the Kingdom. He praised Saudi restraint, called for an immediate cessation of hostilities, and emphasized the need for unity within the Ummah.
Importantly, Pakistan has signaled its readiness to facilitate dialogue offering its offices, influence, and diplomatic channels to bring the parties to the table. Despite competing narratives and skepticism in some quarters, Islamabad’s efforts have been consistent and credible.
Pakistan has, by all accounts, done what it can. Its diplomatic outreach calls for restraint, and efforts to mediate reflect a consistent commitment to peace. Yet, there are limits to what any external actor can achieve. Ultimately, the responsibility for de-escalation lies with the parties directly involved. Dialogue requires not only willingness but sincerity, something that cannot be imposed from the outside.
As the crisis deepens, the world will be watching closely. Whether the region moves toward de-escalation or further conflict may well hinge on the willingness of key actors to heed calls for restraint and on the success of mediation efforts led by countries like Pakistan.
In one-liner the situation is ‘Razor’s-Edge Walking and Pakistan’s delicate Balancing Act in a widening Gulf Crisis’.
