In recent developments, the political dynamic involving Pakistan, the US, and Iran has unveiled a complex interplay of interests. This article explores how Pakistan’s supposedly neutral mediating role may not be as impartial as it appears, particularly in light of its alignment with US objectives.
Yves here. A revealing report from Reuters, further elaborated by Andrew Korybko, clarifies why Pakistan’s mediators exhibit a pro-American stance. We previously informed our readers that sources from Pakistan regarding the negotiations were often unreliable. Notably, high-ranking Pakistani officials have, on at least two occasions, publicly endorsed claims from the US, suggesting that a deal was imminent. While I could reference specific instances, one such occasion involved the US presenting revised terms, with Trump asserting that Iran would respond within 24 hours, which happened to fall on a Saturday. Pakistan quickly echoed this, stating that Iran would indeed reply in 24 hours—contradicted promptly when Iran declared that it would not respond until the following Monday.
There was also a rumor circulating from anonymous Pakistani sources about Iran’s consideration of acquiring a nuclear weapon from a third party to detonate for demonstration purposes. This assertion appeared to favor Israeli narratives, suggesting that Iran’s “nuclear ambitions” were still a concern. Experts who are generally sympathetic to Iran, such as Alastair Crooke, John Mearsheimer, and Mohammed Marandi, expressed skepticism about the report.
In a further twist, Trump has now proposed a peaceful nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia. This development arises in a context where the perception of Iran edging closer to developing nuclear capabilities—whether due to speculative rumors or the assessments of various experts, including a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia—may have reinvigorated the urgency of this agreement.
Yet, Trump has complicated matters by linking this deal to his Abrams Accord initiative. As reported by Al Jazeera:
United States President Donald Trump has stated that a civilian nuclear cooperation deal with Saudi Arabia is “totally subject” to the kingdom normalising relations with Israel as part of the Abrams Accords.
Trump’s comments on Thursday, just a day after the agreement was announced, have generated confusion regarding an already unclear deal, the full details of which remain undisclosed.
In a post on his Truth Social account, the US president noted that the agreement “will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords.”
Saudi Arabia has not immediately responded to this assertion. Any potential acceptance of normalizing relations with Israel under the accords would signify a significant pivot for Riyadh, which has historically opposed such a move.
This announcement followed the US Department of Energy’s statement that Washington and Riyadh had signed “a peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement for a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar partnership,” along with a “bilateral safeguard agreement” concerning the initiation of a civilian nuclear program.
The deal will require approval from the US Congress.
In the comments on Korybko’s piece, some readers argued that Pakistan’s close ties with China would prevent it from moving closer to the US. A representative counterpoint from Nakayama included:
China’s influence in Pakistan has been declining, with projects like the CPEC and the Gwadar port development suffering significant delays. This situation is exacerbated by local resistance and a weakening Chinese economy over the past couple of years. Consequently, China is unable to provide additional support to Pakistan’s political elite. Furthermore, the performance of Chinese military equipment has not garnered much praise during the brief conflict with Pakistan. Rumors suggest that Pakistan has even begun inquiring about purchasing weapons from Russia instead of China. The leadership appears to be attempting to navigate a complex situation, but they are not as adept as they might hope.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who focuses on the global transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He holds a PhD from MGIMO, part of the Russian Foreign Ministry. This article was originally published on his website.
According to Reuters, “Pakistan seeks $10 billion fund from US after mediating Iran talks.” This situation exposes Pakistan’s mediation claims as less noble and more indicative of a nation seeking financial aid. Until now, Pakistan and its sympathetic media outlets have presented their mediation efforts as proof of the country’s geostrategic importance, even suggesting that they heralded a significant era for Pakistan. However, these narratives have proven to be largely wishful thinking and propaganda.
While Pakistan holds a strategically valuable location—serving as a potential “Zipper of Eurasian Integration”—its role as a mediator between the US and Iran does not enhance this position. Instead, the US appears to desire Pakistan’s involvement primarily to extend its influence in the region, such as facilitating the flow of arms and combatants into Afghanistan, ultimately at Russia’s expense.
Following the post-modern coup against former Prime Minister Imran Khan in April 2022, Pakistan’s pro-US military regime is eager to align with American interests, especially in Afghanistan. Trump has alluded to the possibility of re-deploying US troops to Bagram Airbase, a notion complicated by Pakistan’s unacknowledged hostilities with the Taliban, which have been ongoing for nearly six months. Therefore, the pro-US Pakistani regime’s interests may align with destabilizing the Taliban.
Having clarified the misrepresentations surrounding Pakistan’s geostrategic significance, we must consider its leadership’s mercantilist orientation. According to The Intercept, Pakistan covertly agreed to supply arms to Ukraine during the initial phases of Western military support in exchange for securing a $6 billion IMF bailout. This precedent suggests that Pakistan might consider providing diplomatic support to the US in return for another financial lifeline.
The earlier-mentioned Iranian mediation effort seems poised to re-integrate Iran into the US-led Western framework, which could have resulted in the US rewarding Pakistan with a $10 billion bailout. However, the resurgence of hostilities might compel the US to reassess this arrangement. In that case, Pakistan may have to either reinstate Iran in negotiations, align with the US in the conflict, or provide another diplomatic favor.
Such favors might include facilitating arms and combatant flows into Afghanistan, destabilizing Central Asia, and creating new challenges for Russia. If the US requests this support, it’s highly likely that Pakistan will comply, especially given its current alignment with American interests. Thus, it seems improbable that Pakistan would refuse any request from its US allies, particularly as it seeks further financial support.
Consequently, Iran and Russia should remain vigilant, as Pakistan is expected to fulfill another request from the US, disguised as a diplomatic service for regional peace or dismissing any allegations of aiding ISIS-K in Afghanistan. Ultimately, it appears that Pakistan has reverted to its role as America’s regional proxy, making it a country that multipolar leaders like Iran and Russia should view with skepticism. Its military regime will inevitably cater to US demands.
