The Pulse | Diplomacy | South Asia

How the US-Iran War Has Upended Pakistan’s Diplomacy

Saudi Arabia, wary of further escalation, is unlikely to press Pakistan to deploy troops or join the conflict at this stage.

Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar addresses a press briefing at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Islamabad, Pakistan, Mar. 3, 2026.

The U.S. and Israel launched a major military campaign against Iran on Friday in an apparent effort to disarm the country. Washington’s attacks on Iran, which have been widely criticized as illegal and unlawful, are still not only underway but have become more extensive with each passing day.

The war has already inflicted widespread damage in Iran and disrupted oil flows in the Gulf. Iran, for its own part, has retaliated with unexpected ferocity, launching barrages of missiles and drones at U.S. interests and military bases scattered across Gulf nations. This has clearly expanded the conflict with no clear end in sight.

This development has come as a profound shock to Pakistan, particularly because it unfolded amid ongoing nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran and appears to have derailed what seemed like a path toward de-escalation between the two countries and the wider region.

What has further stunned the Pakistani leadership and its people is the targeted killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with members of his family, in the initial airstrikes that ignited the war. This is a development that Islamabad, like many other nations, views as a reckless escalation which is only certain to bring instability.

Pakistan’s perspective on this unfolding crisis is one of deep unease. For instance, the development threatens to unravel the country’s carefully nurtured relationship with the United States. For months, Pakistani diplomats had been quietly working to avert just such a confrontation as they tried to position Islamabad as a potential mediator in the volatile standoff.

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, in a candid briefing to parliament on Tuesday, revealed the extent of these efforts and underscored a sense of disappointment.

“Iran had agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons,” Dar told lawmakers, as he recounted a crucial meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio where he disclosed Tehran’s concessions. “But the U.S. wanted Iran’s entire nuclear program to be completely dismantled.”

He also emphasized that Pakistan stood ready to host mediation talks in Islamabad and that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Gen. Asim Munir played “a very active and positive role in diplomatic and defense-level engagements.”

Arguably, this disclosure wasn’t just a recounting of facts, but a sharp indication of Islamabad’s disappointment with Washington’s actions. Moreover, this was a signal to domestic stakeholders and regional allies that Pakistan had exhausted every avenue to prevent the war.

In Islamabad, there’s a palpable frustration that these good-faith initiatives of Pakistan and other countries were brushed aside by Washington, leaving the country and the region to grapple with the fallout of a conflict they desperately sought to avoid.

Moreover, the broader ramifications seem to be that Pakistan’s growing ties with the U.S. have suddenly become a potential liability. During President Donald Trump’s second term, Pakistan has gone to great lengths to build rapport with Washington by at times lavishing praise on the president for his supposed aversion to endless wars, even floating his name for the Nobel Peace Prize.

But in the wake of Washington’s hasty and rash decision to launch strikes on Iran, those overtures now appear misguided and unwise. It is important to note that public sentiment in Pakistan, which has historically been skeptical of American foreign policy adventurism, has soured further. This development is likely to force the country’s leaders to navigate a diplomatic minefield where overt alignment with the U.S. risks alienating a populace that is now increasingly sympathetic to Iran’s plight and sees Washington as deceitful and unreliable.

Moreover, compounding these challenges is Pakistan’s involvement in the so-called Board of Peace, which was established and led by President Trump to address the Palestinian issue. Arguably, Islamabad’s decision to join this forum was seen as a bold step toward asserting a more proactive role in Middle Eastern affairs. However, the outbreak of the Iran war has only made the platform more controversial. With hostilities between the U.S. and Iran raging, domestic calls in Pakistan are mounting to withdraw from the Board as people now increasingly view participation as untenable amid the unjustifiable attacks on Iran, which has resulted in the death of at least 1,000 people already.

Other pressures are mounting on Islamabad as well. While Pakistan is clearly disappointed over the U.S. decision to back Israel’s offensive against Iran, there’s little appetite in Islamabad to condemn Washington’s actions outright.

This caution seemingly stems from deep diplomatic and fiscal dependencies on Washington as U.S. support remains crucial for Pakistan’s economic stabilization efforts, counterterrorism cooperation, and access to international financial institutions. However, the events have clearly thrust the Pakistani leadership into a precarious balancing act where it has to safeguard ties with the U.S. without appearing to wholeheartedly embrace them in order to avoid igniting domestic backlash.

In this context, a telling example lies in Pakistan’s response to the killing of Iran’s supreme leader. Islamabad is among the few nations that have openly condemned the act and the war itself. However, Prime Minister Sharif’s official statement was meticulously cautious and calculated as it denounced the killing as a blatant violation of international law and diplomatic ethos. But Pakistan has avoided naming the U.S. and focused instead on the broader principles at stake. This measured tone seemingly reflects the tightrope Pakistan is trying to walk and the kind of diplomatic maneuvering it has to do in the wake of these unprecedented events.

Moreover, it’s worth noting that a wave of respect and reverence for the late Iranian supreme leader has swept through Pakistan. Sunnis and Shias alike have united in viewing the targeting of a revered political and spiritual figure, who was admired by millions worldwide, as not just wrong and unlawful but deeply unjust. This sentiment essentially shows that Pakistan’s foreign policy in the coming days and weeks must mirror public outrage and will have to incorporate elements of solidarity with Iran in an effort to maintain internal cohesion.

What complicates Pakistan’s foreign policy calculus even further is the country’s geographical and strategic vulnerability, which places Islamabad virtually at the doorstep of being drawn into the conflict militarily. As anticipated, Islamabad has redoubled efforts to remain neutral in the conflict while trying to preserve relationships with Gulf monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia, with which Pakistan recently inked a defense pact. That agreement stipulates that an attack on one signatory constitutes an attack on both and potentially requires a joint response. In the aftermath of Iran’s recent retaliatory strikes on Saudi targets, this pact also finds itself in a precarious predicament and will test the limits of Pakistan’s commitments.

Foreign Minister Dar’s Tuesday address in parliament highlighted this tension clearly. Dar revealed that Islamabad had reminded Tehran of the strategic mutual defense agreement with Riyadh during backchannel engagements after the war broke out.

“We have signed a Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement with Saudi Arabia,” Dar informed parliamentarians. “The whole world knows about it. It is a sovereign agreement. We are bound by that.”

He added that he had “immediately sensitized our brothers in the leadership in Iran and requested them to please keep that in mind.”

In response, he said, Iranian officials sought assurances that Saudi soil wouldn’t be used as a launchpad against them. This is a guarantee, he said, that Pakistan helped facilitate.

“So, by the grace of God, you saw that what appears to be a minimum reaction at this point has not been directed against Saudi Arabia and Oman,” Dar noted.

“I am grateful that they [Iran] understood my point and the assurance they sought was obtained and delivered by us accordingly.”

These candid communications underscore Pakistan’s attempt to serve as a diplomatic bridge at a moment when formal channels between the warring countries have all but collapsed. It’s reasonable to conclude that Saudi Arabia, wary of further escalation, wouldn’t press Pakistan to deploy troops or join the fight outright at this stage.

Still, Islamabad’s actions reveal a strategic use of its leverage with Iran to avert or minimize future attacks on Riyadh. Seemingly, Pakistan is trying to avoid pressures that could force a shift in the country’s neutral stance. Clearly, the situation remains highly fluid with no clarity on how the war will evolve in the coming days or what sort of fresh diplomatic strains it might impose on Pakistan’s leadership.

As the conflict widens, Pakistan’s ability to manage these multifaceted pressures, ranging from balancing public sentiment, economic imperatives, and alliance obligations, will be sorely tested. These dynamics will potentially define the country’s role in the Middle East in the coming months and years. Ultimately, Islamabad’s cautious diplomacy may preserve it from conflict, but the path ahead is fraught with risks that could either isolate or empower the country in unforeseen ways.

Get to the bottom of the story

Subscribe today and join thousands of diplomats, analysts, policy professionals and business readers who rely on The Diplomat for expert Asia-Pacific coverage.

Get unlimited access to in-depth analysis you won't find anywhere else, from South China Sea tensions to ASEAN diplomacy to India-Pakistan relations. More than 5,000 articles a year.

Unlimited articles and expert analysis

Weekly newsletter with exclusive insights

16-year archive of diplomatic coverage

Ad-free reading on all devices

Support independent journalism

Already have an account? Log in.

The U.S. and Israel launched a major military campaign against Iran on Friday in an apparent effort to disarm the country. Washington’s attacks on Iran, which have been widely criticized as illegal and unlawful, are still not only underway but have become more extensive with each passing day.

The war has already inflicted widespread damage in Iran and disrupted oil flows in the Gulf. Iran, for its own part, has retaliated with unexpected ferocity, launching barrages of missiles and drones at U.S. interests and military bases scattered across Gulf nations. This has clearly expanded the conflict with no clear end in sight.

This development has come as a profound shock to Pakistan, particularly because it unfolded amid ongoing nuclear negotiations between Washington and Tehran and appears to have derailed what seemed like a path toward de-escalation between the two countries and the wider region.

What has further stunned the Pakistani leadership and its people is the targeted killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, along with members of his family, in the initial airstrikes that ignited the war. This is a development that Islamabad, like many other nations, views as a reckless escalation which is only certain to bring instability.

Pakistan’s perspective on this unfolding crisis is one of deep unease. For instance, the development threatens to unravel the country’s carefully nurtured relationship with the United States. For months, Pakistani diplomats had been quietly working to avert just such a confrontation as they tried to position Islamabad as a potential mediator in the volatile standoff.

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, in a candid briefing to parliament on Tuesday, revealed the extent of these efforts and underscored a sense of disappointment.

“Iran had agreed not to acquire nuclear weapons,” Dar told lawmakers, as he recounted a crucial meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio where he disclosed Tehran’s concessions. “But the U.S. wanted Iran’s entire nuclear program to be completely dismantled.”

He also emphasized that Pakistan stood ready to host mediation talks in Islamabad and that Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff Gen. Asim Munir played “a very active and positive role in diplomatic and defense-level engagements.”

Arguably, this disclosure wasn’t just a recounting of facts, but a sharp indication of Islamabad’s disappointment with Washington’s actions. Moreover, this was a signal to domestic stakeholders and regional allies that Pakistan had exhausted every avenue to prevent the war.

In Islamabad, there’s a palpable frustration that these good-faith initiatives of Pakistan and other countries were brushed aside by Washington, leaving the country and the region to grapple with the fallout of a conflict they desperately sought to avoid.

Moreover, the broader ramifications seem to be that Pakistan’s growing ties with the U.S. have suddenly become a potential liability. During President Donald Trump’s second term, Pakistan has gone to great lengths to build rapport with Washington by at times lavishing praise on the president for his supposed aversion to endless wars, even floating his name for the Nobel Peace Prize.

But in the wake of Washington’s hasty and rash decision to launch strikes on Iran, those overtures now appear misguided and unwise. It is important to note that public sentiment in Pakistan, which has historically been skeptical of American foreign policy adventurism, has soured further. This development is likely to force the country’s leaders to navigate a diplomatic minefield where overt alignment with the U.S. risks alienating a populace that is now increasingly sympathetic to Iran’s plight and sees Washington as deceitful and unreliable.

Moreover, compounding these challenges is Pakistan’s involvement in the so-called Board of Peace, which was established and led by President Trump to address the Palestinian issue. Arguably, Islamabad’s decision to join this forum was seen as a bold step toward asserting a more proactive role in Middle Eastern affairs. However, the outbreak of the Iran war has only made the platform more controversial. With hostilities between the U.S. and Iran raging, domestic calls in Pakistan are mounting to withdraw from the Board as people now increasingly view participation as untenable amid the unjustifiable attacks on Iran, which has resulted in the death of at least 1,000 people already.

Other pressures are mounting on Islamabad as well. While Pakistan is clearly disappointed over the U.S. decision to back Israel’s offensive against Iran, there’s little appetite in Islamabad to condemn Washington’s actions outright.

This caution seemingly stems from deep diplomatic and fiscal dependencies on Washington as U.S. support remains crucial for Pakistan’s economic stabilization efforts, counterterrorism cooperation, and access to international financial institutions. However, the events have clearly thrust the Pakistani leadership into a precarious balancing act where it has to safeguard ties with the U.S. without appearing to wholeheartedly embrace them in order to avoid igniting domestic backlash.

In this context, a telling example lies in Pakistan’s response to the killing of Iran’s supreme leader. Islamabad is among the few nations that have openly condemned the act and the war itself. However, Prime Minister Sharif’s official statement was meticulously cautious and calculated as it denounced the killing as a blatant violation of international law and diplomatic ethos. But Pakistan has avoided naming the U.S. and focused instead on the broader principles at stake. This measured tone seemingly reflects the tightrope Pakistan is trying to walk and the kind of diplomatic maneuvering it has to do in the wake of these unprecedented events.

Moreover, it’s worth noting that a wave of respect and reverence for the late Iranian supreme leader has swept through Pakistan. Sunnis and Shias alike have united in viewing the targeting of a revered political and spiritual figure, who was admired by millions worldwide, as not just wrong and unlawful but deeply unjust. This sentiment essentially shows that Pakistan’s foreign policy in the coming days and weeks must mirror public outrage and will have to incorporate elements of solidarity with Iran in an effort to maintain internal cohesion.

What complicates Pakistan’s foreign policy calculus even further is the country’s geographical and strategic vulnerability, which places Islamabad virtually at the doorstep of being drawn into the conflict militarily. As anticipated, Islamabad has redoubled efforts to remain neutral in the conflict while trying to preserve relationships with Gulf monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia, with which Pakistan recently inked a defense pact. That agreement stipulates that an attack on one signatory constitutes an attack on both and potentially requires a joint response. In the aftermath of Iran’s recent retaliatory strikes on Saudi targets, this pact also finds itself in a precarious predicament and will test the limits of Pakistan’s commitments.

Foreign Minister Dar’s Tuesday address in parliament highlighted this tension clearly. Dar revealed that Islamabad had reminded Tehran of the strategic mutual defense agreement with Riyadh during backchannel engagements after the war broke out.

“We have signed a Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement with Saudi Arabia,” Dar informed parliamentarians. “The whole world knows about it. It is a sovereign agreement. We are bound by that.”

He added that he had “immediately sensitized our brothers in the leadership in Iran and requested them to please keep that in mind.”

In response, he said, Iranian officials sought assurances that Saudi soil wouldn’t be used as a launchpad against them. This is a guarantee, he said, that Pakistan helped facilitate.

“So, by the grace of God, you saw that what appears to be a minimum reaction at this point has not been directed against Saudi Arabia and Oman,” Dar noted.

“I am grateful that they [Iran] understood my point and the assurance they sought was obtained and delivered by us accordingly.”

These candid communications underscore Pakistan’s attempt to serve as a diplomatic bridge at a moment when formal channels between the warring countries have all but collapsed. It’s reasonable to conclude that Saudi Arabia, wary of further escalation, wouldn’t press Pakistan to deploy troops or join the fight outright at this stage.

Still, Islamabad’s actions reveal a strategic use of its leverage with Iran to avert or minimize future attacks on Riyadh. Seemingly, Pakistan is trying to avoid pressures that could force a shift in the country’s neutral stance. Clearly, the situation remains highly fluid with no clarity on how the war will evolve in the coming days or what sort of fresh diplomatic strains it might impose on Pakistan’s leadership.

As the conflict widens, Pakistan’s ability to manage these multifaceted pressures, ranging from balancing public sentiment, economic imperatives, and alliance obligations, will be sorely tested. These dynamics will potentially define the country’s role in the Middle East in the coming months and years. Ultimately, Islamabad’s cautious diplomacy may preserve it from conflict, but the path ahead is fraught with risks that could either isolate or empower the country in unforeseen ways.

Umair Jamal is a freelance journalist, independent researcher, and teaching fellow at Forman Christian College, analyzing South Asian security and politics.

Iran war and Pakistan

Pakistan foreign policy

Saudi-Pakistan defense pact

US-Israel War on Iran

© The Diplomat