Pakistan can’t fix itself, yet it’s fixing the US-Iran war?
Let’s be honest, Pakistan can’t stabilise its own crises. But now it’s stabilising a US–Iran war? How is this happening? The country has been making headlines as the so-called mediator between Iran and the US. Let’s look into this closely. [1]
We have Shehbaz Sharif — the Prime Minister of Pakistan — who twice nominated US President Donald Trump for the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, slap bang in the middle of the Gaza genocide. And during the signing of the so-called Gaza Peace Agreement on 13 October of last year, he lavished praise on him in one of the most embarrassing moments in international relations. [2]
Successive Pakistani governments have been unwilling, incapable even, of resolving the suffering of the Kashmiri people for decades. This is a state that can’t manage tensions with its own Muslim neighbour, Afghanistan, without bombing and killing thousands. This is a country that has spent decades fighting America’s “War on Terror” at the cost of tens of thousands of its own people. And this same state has now suddenly become a “peace maker”.
Pakistan claims to have helped broker a ceasefire after 40 days of US–Israeli escalation. Pause for a moment. Do you really believe that, or is there something else going on here? [3]
BACKGROUND
- Since late February, the US–Israeli escalation against Iran and the wider region has volatilised oil prices and shaken global markets
- By early April, Pakistan had stepped forward as a so-called mediator in ceasefire discussions, positioning itself as a bridge despite limited independent leverage
- Between March and early April, Zionist attacks on Lebanon have killed 2,294 and displaced more than one million, while the war on Iran has left thousands of civilians dead
- On 8 April 2026, a temporary ceasefire was announced, following weeks of backchannel diplomacy involving regional intermediaries; it is due to expire on Wednesday
- In the latest update, Iran again closed the Strait of Hormuz after a brief reopening, on account of the US saying it would continue its blockade of Iranian ports
Mediator or American puppet?
Even in the midst of an apparent ceasefire, we’re told Pakistan is mediating, but what does mediation actually mean?
Independent influence? Neutral power? The ability to pressure both sides and shape an outcome? Because when we look at real mediators in global politics, they have leverage over both sides — be that militarily, economically, politically, and/or diplomatically.
Pakistan has none of that. It operates from a position of dependency, not influence.
In contrast, China and Russia didn’t just pass messages when it came to the 2023 Iran-Saudi deal, or the direct influence of outcomes in the Syrian Revolution, respectively. These are states with leverage, power, and influence over both sides.
Now compare that to what Pakistan is actually doing:
- Hosting meetings and calls
- Engaging other Muslim countries
- Acting as a communication bridge
- Passing messages between the two sides
- Operating within a wider co-ordinated diplomatic effort
- Shuttling between the capitals of China, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Qatar, Egypt, in order to seek alignment, direction, and support.
I ask the question, where is the statesmanship in this? This certainly isn’t Pakistan leading.
No wonder some commentators have described Pakistan’s role as a messenger, a facilitator, and a communication channel for the Americans, on behalf of the Americans. This is a job no one else wants.
And here’s the key point: these roles don’t emerge in isolation. In modern geopolitics, major powers give their tacit approval and work through such intermediaries and messengers. So the real question is who is setting the agenda for Pakistan? It’s obviously not Pakistan.
Why Pakistan? (The real reasons)
Pakistan isn’t the first country to play this role. We’ve seen it before.
Qatar, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and (most recently) Oman often step in as facilitators, communication channels, or messengers during conflicts — at the behest of the Americans — within a wider US-led diplomatic framework.
Look at the pattern:
- Türkiye positioning itself in Russia-Ukraine negotiations
- Oman facilitating quiet backchannels between the US and Iran
- Qatar hosting separate negotiations involving Hamas and the Taliban
- Saudi Arabia engaging in Sudan and regional diplomacy.
These roles align with broader US geopolitical interests, and Pakistan today fits that exact pattern. It’s acting as a bridge, passing messages, co-ordinating with multiple regional players. And it’s not for the first time either. [4]
Domestic pressures
At the same time, Islamabad is dealing with serious internal and regional strain.
Rising fuel costs and directly associated economic pressure is building; there is a heavy dependence on imported oil, much of it flowing through the Strait of Hormuz; and a population where public sentiment leans pro-Iran.
There is also a significant Shia population — around 15–20 per cent — adding internal balance considerations to the mix.
Gulf ties and strategic constraints
Pakistan is also deeply tied to the Gulf.
It has long-standing financial support from the UAE and both financial and military support and co-operation from Saudi Arabia.
There have even been defence understandings reinforcing mutual security interests, so when Gulf states are under pressure, Pakistan has to act to maintain those vital dependencies.
What does Pakistan get in return?
Pakistan’s role is transactional.
In return, it secures the following:
- Economic breathing space
- Continued financial support from Gulf allies
- Stronger ties with major global powers
- Increased diplomatic relevance.
So when you step back and look at the full picture, this is about survival. A system built on dependency and operating within a US-led geopolitical framework.
Subservience to the US is the core factor
Pakistan’s foreign policy cannot be understood without understanding its relationship with the United States, because this relationship shapes everything:
- Security priorities
- Economic stability
- Global positioning.
This isn’t new and it isn’t temporary.
Pakistan has:
- Deep-rooted military co-operation with the United States
- Economic dependency tied to IMF and World Bank structures
- A political leadership that consistently seeks favour in Washington
- A history of security alignment, particularly during the “War on Terror”.
This is a structural and existential dependency on America. And when your economy and survival is dependent, your politics follows.
Political signalling
We’ve seen this alignment openly, from (as mentioned at the start) Sharif nominating Trump for a peace award in the middle of the Gaza genocide, to senior Pakistani leaders openly flattering him.
All this signals loyalty, alignment, and obedience. Moreover, its leadership maintain commercial connections with figures close to the Trump administration, which only increases its value as a facilitator in the eyes of Washington.
“Munir Factor” is a critical point
The most revealing part of this entire story is not the politicians, it’s the military.
Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan’s army chief, and his strong, direct ties with Washington are notable. He has a direct channel with the White House, has visited Washington, DC, numerous times, Trump frequently refers to him as his “favourite field marshal”, and has even hosted him for lunch. [5]
Think about this for a moment. Since when does an army chief lead diplomatic engagement between major powers? That’s not normal. It tells you where the real power and alignment sits.
So when you combine all of this (economic reliance, political alignment, and military co-operation), a clear pattern emerges: Pakistan operates for America, on behalf of America!
Why America needs a way out
Right now, there’s a lot at stake.
With world markets reeling, global economies suffering, critical waterways and ports blocked, and a world cursing America for starting yet another war, the US is desperately looking for a way out.
This is where the middleman Pakistan is extremely useful, because it becomes strategically valuable due to its local positioning in the region. Its facilitation gives the US three key advantages: distance, deniability, flexibility.
The US can:
- Test positions without commitment
- Communicate without direct political cost
- Apply pressure without appearing aggressive.
Pakistan has gladly stepped into this role on behalf of the US.
Is Pakistan really a true brother to Iran?
I ask this because we hear this language all the time, about being “brotherly” nations. So let’s test that claim against reality.
Ask yourself honestly: which self-described Muslim nation-state has truly acted as a brother to Palestine? To al-Aqsa, Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Kashmir? Which “brotherly” nation stands by while another is bombed, its civilians killed, infrastructure destroyed? And does nothing meaningful to stop it?
So let’s not pretend; this idea of “brotherly” states is rhetoric, because the reality is this: modern Muslim nation-states were not built to be brothers! They were designed, engineered, and built to be perpetually divided. We were fragmented into borders, driven by nationalism, split by ethnicity, all so that unity becomes nearly impossible.
And what do we see today? At best — alignment based on shared interests. At worst — open conflict.
That’s why:
- Gaza burns and others watch
- Sudan collapses and others stay silent
- Yemen is destroyed by fellow Muslim states
- Afghanistan is bombed by its neighbour.
If Muslim nations truly acted as one, would we be here today? These nation-states don’t operate on unity of the Ummah. They operate on interests.
The Ummah may feel like one body, but the political system ensures only division.
Pakistan must be a leading state
The truth is Pakistan has the potential to be a leading global state. It is uniquely positioned within the Muslim world.
It has a nuclear capability, a powerful and experienced military, strategic geography at the heart of key regions, and a large, capable population. These are core foundations for a leading nation. So why doesn’t it lead? Why doesn’t it act independently?
Because, despite these strengths, it lacks the ideological leadership. Its leadership isn’t visionary, prefers subservience, alignment, and containment under the existing American hegemony for short-term gains. It’s a perpetual cycle of economic constraints, political pressures, global dependencies, and domestic debt.
Imagine if it was truly aligned and united with “brotherly” Iran and other Muslim nations, all united under the fold of Islam, by the rope of Allah, and under a caliphate. At that point will it be the world’s leading statesman — just as the Ottomans once were.
The people of Pakistan, the constituent part of the Ummah in Iran, and beyond must recognise: it is only through the political unity of the Ummah under the caliphate that the Muslim world will witness security, prosperity, and progress once again.
That is what we need to be calling for and working towards. Unity of the Ummah and the re-establishment of the caliphate and departure from being a puppet of today’s world powers to being a leading nation.
Until then, Pakistan will continue to be nothing more than a messenger, a pawn, and a puppet to the political games of global powers like the US.
Source: Islam21c
Notes
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy91vrzxn34o
[2] https://youtu.be/otY36lL8X28
[3] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/9/us-iran-talks-in-pakistan-whos-attending-whats-on-the-agenda
