News Analysis: Pakistan’s wobbly tightrope between DC and Tehran

KARACHI: The US’s airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites late Saturday night have rattled the region, stirred domestic criticism and revived concerns about Islamabad’s long-standing tightrope walk between rival powers. Beyond official statements, reactions from the country’s top diplomats, academics and political analysts reflect the complicated implications for Pakistan’s foreign policy, security posture and strategic alliances.

Asif Durrani, Pakistan’s former ambassador to Iran and the UAE, and a former special representative for Afghanistan, gives an overall view on the situation. Speaking to The News, he says that the attacks by the US “may further destabilise the situation in the region, and have also dented US President Trump’s claim to be a ‘man of peace’”.

For Masood Khalid, former ambassador to Beijing and Seoul, Pakistan’s diplomatic principles are being tested: “We have lately seen increased positive engagement between Pakistan and the US, and the Americans played a constructive role in arranging the Pakistan-India ceasefire. Our position on Iran is a principled one, supporting the sovereignty of Iran, and in line with the general stance of the OIC. Iran is our neighbour and any conflict there is a threat to global and regional security with serious implications for Pakistan. We have, therefore, called for de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy. This is a balanced position”.

But the attack has arguably pushed Pakistan off the fence. “At a time when Pakistan is working to improve its relations with the US, to move beyond the transactional and work towards a substantive relationship, it has been forced to take a clear-cut position against the US’s illegal and aggressive attack on Iran’s nuclear sites”, explains journalist and political commentator Nasim Zehra. “As long as the US was a mere, even though clear, backer of Israel, Pakistan was not forced to condemn it publicly. Now, the situation is very different”.

Zehra adds: “On the geostrategic and security front, there is consternation within Pakistan’s security practitioners and security experts as to the possible implications for Pakistan’s security and especially its nuclear programme after the US attack, especially given recent statements by former Israeli parliamentarians singling out Pakistan’s nuclear programme”.

Veteran diplomat Javid Husain, Pakistan’s ambassador to Iran from 1997 to 2003, echoes the urgency of standing with Tehran, telling The News that “if the American attack is not properly censured, the danger is that it would set a dangerous precedent for other powerful countries to follow by riding roughshod over weaker countries in their neighbourhood or elsewhere”, which is why “Pakistan’s security interests demand that we stand resolutely on the side of Iran on this issue”.

This is an emerging strategic dilemma for Pakistan, feels historian and Haqooq Khalq Party member Dr Ammar Ali Jan. According to Dr Jan, “On a macro level, this forces a choice on us. At some point, Pakistan will have to choose whether it remains on friendly terms with extremely belligerent imperialism and keeps a distance from the axis of resistance in the region. Or does it start gravitating towards the Axis of Resistance and regional powers such as Iran, China, Russia, thereby antagonising the US? So this balancing act will become very difficult as American belligerence increases in the region.”

For former human rights minister Shireen Mazari, the moment calls not for balance but for clarity. “It’s not about balancing a relationship because you can’t balance between an aggressor and a state that has been aggressed against. Here, the US is a clear aggressor. For Pakistan, this is a no-brainer. There is no way the public won’t be outraged even if there’s a hint that Pakistan would in any way support the US in this”, she says.

“The condemnations from Ishaq Dar and the FO have been very clear that we stand with Iran. We also really don’t want an Israeli-backed regime in Iran; we would become even more vulnerable”.

Mazari also highlights the long-standing fears of foreign redrawing of borders: “Also, remember the map issued some while back in the US Armed Forces Journal on ‘blood borders’ reshaping the Middle East. That map pretty much explains the whole plan of the US and rogue entity Israel. So Pakistan has to be wary of that. My hunch is they [US] will get stuck in this quagmire and it won’t be this easy to deal with Iran, something Israel is already finding out. So there are troubling times ahead and we can’t afford to ‘balance’. We have to take a very clear-cut position in support of Iran for our own security and safety”.

Any leverage Pakistan may have regarding mediation may be further strained if Iran retaliates by closing the Strait of Hormuz, a scenario that Dr Rabia Akhtar, dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Lahore, believes could have dramatic consequences. The “ripple effects” of that on countries like Pakistan, she says, “are profound”.

She also asks: “But what are Islamabad’s real options in a moment like this? And how much space does it truly have to manoeuvre? As we know, Pakistan has long walked a delicate tightrope between Iran and the Gulf/Arab states, balancing strategic ties with Saudi Arabia and the UAE on one side, and a complicated neighbourly relationship with Tehran on the other. But if the Strait of Hormuz is genuinely threatened, that balance may become untenable”.

“So does Islamabad speak up, and risk alienating Iran? Or stay quiet, and appear indifferent to the security concerns of its Gulf patrons?” she queries.

“There is also the China variable....Would China expect Pakistan to quietly urge restraint in Tehran? And can Pakistan afford to play that role without becoming part of the fallout?”And yet, she notes, “could this moment paradoxically expand Pakistan’s diplomatic profile?”

Essentially, Dr Akhtar says, the fact is that “Pakistan’s choices in the coming days may reveal not just its strategic preferences but the structural limits within which those preferences are formed. And that will be an important lesson.”