Pakistan’s strategic silence on Iran-Israel tensions may cost it dearly

On April 14, 2025, Iran launched an unprecedented barrage of over 300 drones and missiles at Israel in retaliation for the bombing of its consulate in Damascus. Though most of the assault was intercepted by Israeli and allied defense systems, the act marked a historic shift: Iran openly engaged Israel in a direct, declared military operation—something that had long remained in the realm of proxy warfare and covert action. As the world took stock of the unfolding crisis, much of the Muslim world responded with cautious silence. Among the most notable was Pakistan, which issued only a generic call for “restraint”—a diplomatic euphemism that signals little beyond an unwillingness to take sides. For a country with deep ideological ties to the Palestinian cause, longstanding religious and historical bonds with Iran, and strategic dependence on the Gulf States, this passivity risks more than just irrelevance—it risks strategic marginalization. Pakistan’s foreign policy has long rested on a delicate triangle: unwavering support for Palestinian self-determination, a strategic alliance with Saudi Arabia, and a neighborly—though often tense—relationship with Iran. In the current geopolitical landscape, these pillars are pulling in opposite directions. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies are increasingly engaging in normalization with Israel, driven by economic ambitions and shared concerns over Iranian influence. Iran, on the other hand, is reasserting itself as the only Muslim power confronting Israeli aggression head-on, positioning its actions in ideological terms. Pakistan, caught between these forces, faces a critical diplomatic test.

Unlike earlier Middle Eastern crises—the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Arab Spring, or the Syrian conflict—Pakistan cannot afford to be a passive bystander. Iran is not just another regional actor; it shares Pakistan’s second-longest border and has deep socio-religious ties to communities in Balochistan. The province, already marked by separatist sentiment and cross-border ethnic affinities, would be the first to feel the tremors of any further escalation involving Iran. Moreover, with Tehran’s stability directly linked to Pakistan’s border security and internal harmony, the cost of diplomatic detachment could be high. Compounding this external challenge is Pakistan’s own internal fragility. The country faces high inflation, a ballooning external debt exceeding $130 billion, and political uncertainty in the aftermath of recent elections. In such a climate, regional instability—especially one that disrupts oil markets, border security, or sectarian balance—could have devastating domestic repercussions. Balochistan has already witnessed a rise in insurgent activity, and any perception of Pakistan leaning too far toward either the Sunni Gulf bloc or the Shia axis could destabilize its carefully maintained sectarian equilibrium. While neutrality may be necessary, it must be active and deliberate—not a cover for indecision. Ironically, this very complexity presents Pakistan with a rare diplomatic opportunity. Unlike most countries in the Muslim world, Pakistan retains credibility with both Iran and the Gulf. Its diplomatic relations with Iran remain intact, while its military, economic, and religious ties to Saudi Arabia and the UAE are well established. Pakistan’s intelligence and security institutions maintain working channels with both sides, which could serve as a foundation for proactive engagement.

If guided by strategic foresight, Pakistan could transform its balancing act into diplomatic leadership. It could propose an Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)-led forum to mediate Iran-Gulf tensions and prevent further fallout from the Iran-Israel conflict. It could also initiate trilateral discussions with Turkey and Qatar—countries that similarly straddle the divide—to create a regional confidence-building framework. Hosting a Track II dialogue involving scholars, former diplomats, and regional security experts from Iran, the Gulf States, Israel, and Palestine could further position Pakistan as a platform for long-term peacebuilding. The alternative—continued silence—sends the wrong message to allies and adversaries alike. It suggests confusion, weakness, or irrelevance. This is a stark contrast to the role Pakistan once played in Muslim world politics—from shaping narratives around Afghanistan and Kashmir to leading diplomatic initiatives within the OIC. That leadership is now being assumed by others: Turkey, Qatar, and even Indonesia are stepping forward to fill the void. If Pakistan does not reclaim its voice, it may find itself increasingly sidelined in decisions that shape its own neighborhood. The Iran-Israel conflict is not merely a regional skirmish—it is emblematic of a new era in global politics. Alliances are shifting, power is redistributing, and South Asia is no longer insulated from the Middle East’s upheavals. In this environment, Pakistan’s strategic silence is not just a missed opportunity—it is a potential liability. What Pakistan needs is a clear, coherent policy on West Asia—one that reflects its historical commitments, addresses its regional interests, and projects a responsible international image. This is not just a foreign policy requirement; it is a test of Pakistan’s national purpose and diplomatic maturity. In the contest between relevance and marginality, Pakistan must choose to lead.

Ghazala Anjum is a PMLN leader and  Member of National Assembly from Chitral