Pakistan's mediator claims in West Asian conflict raise credibility concerns: Report
Islamabad, April 2 : As Pakistan claims of being a potential mediator between the United States and Iran during the ongoing conflict in West Asia, a report has highlighted that Islamabad has consistently sought to turn crisis into opportunities for relevance, projecting itself as useful to all parties while avoiding the "costs of full alignment" with any one of them.
Writing for 'EuropaWire,' Dimitra Staikou, a Greek lawyer, writer, and journalist, recently emphasised that Pakistan's continued reliance on strategic ambiguity weakens its credibility as a stable partner.
"This pattern is not new. Pakistan's relationship with the Gulf monarchies has long combined deep dependence with carefully managed ambiguity. In 1998, following its nuclear tests and the sanctions that followed, Saudi Arabia reportedly provided Pakistan with free oil supplies of around 50,000 barrels per day. In return, Islamabad offered security cooperation and support within Gulf defence structures. Yet when Riyadh requested direct military participation in the Yemen campaign in 2015, Pakistan refused and opted for neutrality. The logic was clear: preserve strategic utility without sacrificing flexibility," Staikou detailed.
According to the expert, Pakistan’s relationship with Gulf monarchies in 2025–2026 remains critical but structurally imbalanced.
"Financial assistance, debt rollovers, and remittances from countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates continue to underpin Pakistan’s fragile economy. Investment initiatives in energy, logistics, and infrastructure are expanding, alongside ongoing security cooperation. However, the asymmetry is clear: Islamabad depends far more on its Gulf partners than they do on Pakistan," Staikou wrote.
The report stressed that Pakistan's shrinking room for maneuver is becoming evident as economic dependence converges with a volatile domestic climate where anti-American and Islamist sentiment is becoming harder to contain.
The recent violent protests in Karachi, coupled with wider unrest tied to regional tensions, indicate that Pakistan's long-standing formula — "symbolic outrage combined with strategic flexibility" — is becoming unsustainable.
“Under these conditions, Pakistan's projection as a mediator appears less as an expression of diplomatic maturity and more as an exercise in managing structural contradictions. A visible tilt toward Riyadh and Washington risks renewed friction with Iran, particularly in the aftermath of the January 2024 missile exchange. Yet passivity risks weakening ties with key Gulf financial backers. The narrative of Islamabad as a neutral venue for dialogue does not signal the resolution of these tensions — it reflects an ongoing attempt to navigate them,” it mentioned.
Emphasising that Pakistan's external positioning is inseparable from its internal condition, the report said that “economic distress, institutional erosion, democratic backsliding, and the growing visibility of extremist actors” collectively constrain Islamabad’s ability to project coherence globally.
"For Western policymakers, the challenge is not simply how to engage Pakistan as a mediator, but how to assess its reliability as a state actor in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape. Until Islamabad addresses its internal vulnerabilities, its claims to neutral brokerage will continue to be viewed with caution rather than confidence," it noted.
Writing for 'EuropaWire,' Dimitra Staikou, a Greek lawyer, writer, and journalist, recently emphasised that Pakistan's continued reliance on strategic ambiguity weakens its credibility as a stable partner.
"This pattern is not new. Pakistan's relationship with the Gulf monarchies has long combined deep dependence with carefully managed ambiguity. In 1998, following its nuclear tests and the sanctions that followed, Saudi Arabia reportedly provided Pakistan with free oil supplies of around 50,000 barrels per day. In return, Islamabad offered security cooperation and support within Gulf defence structures. Yet when Riyadh requested direct military participation in the Yemen campaign in 2015, Pakistan refused and opted for neutrality. The logic was clear: preserve strategic utility without sacrificing flexibility," Staikou detailed.
According to the expert, Pakistan’s relationship with Gulf monarchies in 2025–2026 remains critical but structurally imbalanced.
"Financial assistance, debt rollovers, and remittances from countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates continue to underpin Pakistan’s fragile economy. Investment initiatives in energy, logistics, and infrastructure are expanding, alongside ongoing security cooperation. However, the asymmetry is clear: Islamabad depends far more on its Gulf partners than they do on Pakistan," Staikou wrote.
The report stressed that Pakistan's shrinking room for maneuver is becoming evident as economic dependence converges with a volatile domestic climate where anti-American and Islamist sentiment is becoming harder to contain.
The recent violent protests in Karachi, coupled with wider unrest tied to regional tensions, indicate that Pakistan's long-standing formula — "symbolic outrage combined with strategic flexibility" — is becoming unsustainable.
“Under these conditions, Pakistan's projection as a mediator appears less as an expression of diplomatic maturity and more as an exercise in managing structural contradictions. A visible tilt toward Riyadh and Washington risks renewed friction with Iran, particularly in the aftermath of the January 2024 missile exchange. Yet passivity risks weakening ties with key Gulf financial backers. The narrative of Islamabad as a neutral venue for dialogue does not signal the resolution of these tensions — it reflects an ongoing attempt to navigate them,” it mentioned.
Emphasising that Pakistan's external positioning is inseparable from its internal condition, the report said that “economic distress, institutional erosion, democratic backsliding, and the growing visibility of extremist actors” collectively constrain Islamabad’s ability to project coherence globally.
"For Western policymakers, the challenge is not simply how to engage Pakistan as a mediator, but how to assess its reliability as a state actor in a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape. Until Islamabad addresses its internal vulnerabilities, its claims to neutral brokerage will continue to be viewed with caution rather than confidence," it noted.