Pakistan is facing growing scrutiny over its claimed role as a mediator in the conflict between Iran and the United States, with analysts arguing that Islamabad functioned largely as a logistical facilitator rather than a decisive diplomatic broker.
The debate over Pakistan’s influence intensified after reports emerged that Iran had temporarily moved several military and civilian aircraft to Pakistani territory during the height of tensions with Washington. The development raised questions about Islamabad’s neutrality and its actual ability to shape negotiations between Tehran and the United States.
According to reports citing anonymous US officials, Iran relocated several aircraft, including reconnaissance planes, to Nur Khan Air Base in Pakistan during the conflict period. The aircraft were allegedly transferred to avoid potential US strikes as tensions escalated across the region.
Pakistani authorities acknowledged the presence of Iranian aircraft on their territory but described the move as part of diplomatic and logistical arrangements connected to ceasefire discussions. Islamabad insisted the transfers did not indicate military cooperation or involvement in the confrontation.
Despite Pakistan’s efforts to present itself as a neutral intermediary, several observers believe the country never possessed enough leverage to truly mediate between Tehran and Washington.
Senior Balochistan journalist Rachmatullah Achakzai argued that Pakistan’s role was significantly overstated from the beginning of the talks.
“Pakistan was not acting as a mediator but merely facilitating discussions,” Achakzai said while discussing Islamabad’s involvement in the negotiations.
He explained that the direct communication channels established between Iranian and US delegations in Islamabad demonstrated that Pakistan had limited influence over the core disputes separating the two countries.
According to Achakzai, Pakistan was unable to bridge the deep mistrust that continues to define relations between Iran and the United States, particularly after years of sanctions, military threats, and regional proxy conflicts.
He also noted that Pakistan lacked the authority or capability to manage post-negotiation tensions, including renewed threats involving the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy shipping routes.
“If examined carefully, Pakistan initially appeared to be a significant player in the negotiations, but later developments showed Islamabad merely acted as a messenger within the mediation process,” Achakzai stated.
The selection of Pakistan as the venue for discussions initially surprised many observers because the country’s global image has long been associated with economic instability, terrorism concerns, political turbulence, and regional insecurity.
However, analysts believe several strategic factors made Islamabad an acceptable meeting point for both Tehran and Washington.
Pakistan maintains longstanding military and diplomatic relations with the United States despite periodic tensions. At the same time, Islamabad also shares a border and complex security relationship with Iran.
Achakzai pointed to the personal relationship between Pakistan Army Chief Asim Munir and senior US officials as another reason Washington accepted Pakistan as a negotiation venue.
Meanwhile, Iran reportedly agreed to hold discussions in Pakistan because the country does not host permanent US military bases, unlike several Gulf Arab states.
“Iran accepted Pakistan as a neutral location because there are no US military bases there,” Achakzai explained.
Even so, Iranian officials reportedly remained cautious about Pakistan’s intentions throughout the negotiation process.
Tehran is said to have suspected that Islamabad may have shared sensitive information with Washington due to Pakistan’s close security ties with the United States and Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia remains one of Iran’s principal regional rivals despite recent efforts at diplomatic rapprochement between Tehran and Riyadh.
Achakzai said Pakistan’s long military cooperation with Saudi Arabia has complicated perceptions of its neutrality in Iranian eyes.
The analyst also highlighted Pakistan’s official statements following attacks against Iran and the reported killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Islamabad condemned the violence but avoided directly naming the United States in its criticism, a move that reportedly fueled further distrust inside Iran.
Pakistan’s past deployment of troops to Saudi Arabia for military cooperation purposes also contributed to Tehran’s suspicions, according to regional observers.
Israel, meanwhile, has reportedly remained skeptical of Pakistan’s credibility as a neutral intermediary in the conflict.
Israeli officials are believed to have accepted Pakistan’s limited involvement primarily to remain aligned with broader US diplomatic strategy rather than because of confidence in Islamabad’s impartiality.
Pakistan’s position became even more complicated after Defense Minister Khawaja Asif publicly launched sharp criticism against Israel during the conflict period.
The minister described Israel as “evil,” “a curse on humanity,” and “a cancer,” remarks that further damaged perceptions of Pakistan’s neutrality among Israeli officials and Western observers.
Pakistan does not formally recognize Israel and has historically supported the Palestinian cause in international forums. Islamabad has repeatedly called for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders.
Analysts believe this longstanding ideological and diplomatic position makes it difficult for Pakistan to be viewed as a fully neutral actor in any broader Middle East negotiation framework.
Achakzai argued that Pakistan’s historical baggage continues to undermine its credibility on the international stage.
He said the country’s image has been shaped for decades by allegations involving militant networks, regional extremism, and failed mediation efforts in neighboring Afghanistan and elsewhere.
“The negative image surrounding Pakistan because of its involvement in global terrorism-related issues, ideological associations, and previous mediation failures limits its role,” Achakzai said.
As a result, Pakistan’s role in the Iran-US talks appears to have remained largely administrative and logistical rather than strategic.
Observers noted that Islamabad mainly provided diplomatic facilities, secure meeting locations, and transportation support for the delegations while the real decisions continued to be shaped directly by Tehran and Washington.
“Pakistan did not shape the direction of negotiations. It merely provided the diplomatic platform,” Achakzai concluded.
The broader geopolitical implications of Pakistan’s involvement remain uncertain as negotiations between Iran and the United States continue amid fragile regional conditions.
Tensions between Tehran and Washington escalated sharply following military confrontations in the Gulf region, threats involving the Strait of Hormuz, and concerns over Iran’s nuclear activities.
Although both sides have recently shown signs of willingness to reduce hostilities, deep disagreements remain unresolved, particularly regarding sanctions relief, regional security arrangements, and nuclear oversight mechanisms.
For Pakistan, the episode reflects both an opportunity and a challenge.
On one hand, Islamabad sought to position itself as a constructive regional actor capable of supporting diplomatic dialogue during one of the Middle East’s most dangerous crises.
On the other hand, the skepticism expressed by Iran, Israel, and international analysts exposed the limitations of Pakistan’s diplomatic influence at a time when regional powers continue competing for strategic relevance.
The situation also highlights the increasingly complex balance Pakistan must maintain between its relationships with the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other regional stakeholders.
As the Iran-US negotiations evolve, Pakistan’s ability to maintain credibility with all parties may determine whether it can play a more meaningful diplomatic role in future regional crises or remain confined to the sidelines as a facilitator rather than a true mediator.
