Pakistan's Diplomatic Gambit: Hosting Peace Talks While Navigating Saudi Defense Pact Risks
Pakistan's initiative to host peace talks between the United States and Iran is driven by a potent mix of urgency and strategic opportunity. As Islamabad prepares to convene a four-nation meeting with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt on March 30, its primary objective is to position itself as a crucial mediator. The goal is to de-escalate a month-long conflict that not only threatens regional stability but also Pakistan's own fragile economic recovery. This diplomatic push comes as Pakistan intensifies its outreach, having already relayed a reported 15-point US peace proposal to Iran and offering to host direct negotiations.
The Growing Liability of the Saudi Defense Pact
Beneath this active diplomatic facade lies a deepening unease within Pakistan's security establishment. The country reportedly signed a mutual defense treaty with Saudi Arabia last year, which is now emerging as a significant strategic liability amid rising hostilities. Recent Iranian strikes on Saudi territory have amplified fears that Pakistan could be compelled to honor its security commitments and take sides in a conflict it desperately wants to avoid.
According to a Financial Times report, Pakistani officials increasingly view the Saudi pact as "becoming a problem." The agreement was initially framed as "cash for deterrence," but it has failed to deliver the anticipated economic benefits or effective deterrence. "We've not gotten any new Saudi investments, and deterrence failed," the FT cited a source familiar with the thinking of Pakistan's senior military leaders.
A Precarious Balancing Act
The risk of entanglement is heightened by Islamabad's close military ties with Riyadh, which it must balance against maintaining workable relations with Tehran. This delicate act is further complicated by intense domestic pressures. Widespread anti-US and anti-Israel sentiment in Pakistan, coupled with significant public sympathy for Iran—especially among the country's large Shia population—severely limits the government's diplomatic flexibility.
"The problem for Islamabad is not simply geo-sectarian, but also rampant anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments in the country that have created popular sympathy for Iran during the conflict," Kamran Bokhari, a senior resident fellow with the Middle East Policy Council in Washington, told the Financial Times. He added that Pakistan engaged in diplomacy specifically to avoid being dragged into the fighting.
Strategic Necessity and Global Positioning
Despite these challenges, Pakistan's leadership sees diplomatic engagement as a strategic imperative. A prolonged conflict in the Gulf threatens vital energy supplies, critical trade routes, and an already strained economy. Successfully acting as a mediator would bolster Islamabad's global relevance and help shore up domestic legitimacy during a period of significant political and economic stress.
Pakistan has engaged both US and Iranian leadership through backchannels while coordinating with regional powers like Turkey and Egypt. This emerging grouping has drawn comparisons to a loose "Islamic NATO," though officials emphasize it as a platform for stability rather than a military bloc.
Narrowing Room for Manoeuvre
The Financial Times report notes that the longer the conflict persists, the more difficult Pakistan's balancing act becomes. A failed diplomatic effort could erode trust with both Washington and Tehran, potentially leaving Islamabad isolated as the risk of regional spillover grows. For now, Pakistan is betting heavily on diplomacy to keep itself out of the line of fire. However, with alliances tightening and tensions escalating, its room to manoeuvre may be narrowing rapidly.
