Pakistan: A Low-Cost Mediator in Great Power Politics
To Understand Pakistan’s role in regional developments, one must begin with a fundamental question: is this country truly seeking to reduce tensions and promote peace, or is it trying to protect and strengthen its strategic interests in every situation? The answer to this question is key to understanding behaviors that may appear contradictory on the surface.
In recent years, Pakistan has tried to present itself as a mediator in sensitive crises, particularly in tensions between the United States and Iran. From a diplomatic prospective, this role seems positive and necessary. However, when viewed alongside some of its actions on the ground, a more complex picture of its foreign policy emerges.
For example, in times when tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated, Pakistan has actively engaged in diplomatic efforts. Yet during these periods, the country has carried out military actions in other areas, including inside Afghanistan. These operations have led to civilian casualties and damages to civilian infrastructure.
Meanwhile, evidence suggests that Pakistan has, at certain points, increased its military and security focus in Afghanistan to avoid pressure or potential threats from Iran. This approach indicates that managing multiple fronts at once is part of its broader security calculations.
This situation raises an important question; how can one actor play the role of a “peace mediator” while also acting as an active military force?
From Islamabad’s perspective, however, this may not necessarily be a contradiction. These actions could be seen as part of a broader security strategy, one aimed at controlling threats along the Durand Line, managing armed groups, and preventing instability from spilling into Pakistan.
Within this framework, Pakistan may argue that playing a mediating role at the regional level does not conflict with pursuing its national security interests.
Still, this explanation does not fully resolve the issue. A mediator is expected to show at least degree of neutrality. When a country is simultaneously involved in military tensions, its image as a neutral actor is called into question.
Even if such actions are justified from a security standpoint, other countries may still wonder whether Pakistan is truly a mediator or actually a party to the conflict. For this reason, Pakistan’s mediating role often appears temporary and tactical rather than consistent and fully reliable.
In addition, Pakistan’s internal situation adds to this complexity. In some areas, particularly regions linked to Baloch populations, there are reports of instability, tensions and strict security measures. Along the Durand Line as well, tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan continue.
These factors reinforce a key question among critics: can a country facing ongoing internal and border challenges truly act as a neutral and reliable mediator?
At the same time, the role of larger powers in this politics should not be overlooked. In situations where negotiations are highly sensitive or likely to fail, major powers prefer indirect engagement instead of direct involvement.
Using intermediaries can help reduce political costs and protect their credibility if talks fail. In this context, Pakistan, due to its geographic position and connections with multiple actors has been seen as a suitable intermediary.
In practice, Pakistan has tried to balance several key priorities: maintaining relations with the Unites States to benefit from international support, managing tensions with Iran to avoid direct confrontation, and strengthening strategic ties with key regional players, especially Saudi Arabia.
In this context, security agreements between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are particularly notable. These partnerships show that Islamabad, alongside its mediating role, is also working to deepen military and strategic cooperation with Riyadh.
On the other hand, following periods of reduced tensions and the start of peace talks, Pakistan has deployed some of its forces to Saudi Arabia. This move shows its commitment to regional alliance and its strategic interests beyond its borders.
Reports also indicates that Qatar and Saudi Arabia have allocated around five billion dollars to help Pakistan manage its debts, highlighting the country’s economic dependence and financial ties with regional actors. For these reasons, Pakistan has been chosen as a mediator, but this role also depends heavily on the preferences and caution of major powers.
However, these efforts have not always been successful. In cases where Pakistan has attempted to mediate between the U.S. and Iran, the failure to reach final agreement has meant that these efforts produced little tangible outcome.
In such situations, not only the main goal, sustainable de-escalation not achieved, but the mediator’s credibility is also affected.
In other words, some of Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts have remained ineffective due to their dependence on the decisions of the main actors.
At the same time, these activities, from operations in Afghanistan to strengthening security ties with Saudi Arabia and receiving financial supports, are seen by some observers as signs of a policy marked by contradiction or even strategic ambiguity. This perception has further complicated Pakistan’s position in regional dynamics.
Conclusion:
Pakistan can be seen as a “multi-layer actor” that simultaneously uses diplomatic, security and political tools to advance its interests.
This country seeks to play the role of a mediator, but this role is not entirely independent and is partly shaped by the considerations of major powers.
In the end, while Pakistan has tried to strengthen its position in regional politics through this approach, the failure to achieve key agreements, especially in sensitive conflicts shows that this strategy,despite its advantages, also carries the risk of losing credibility.