Caught in regional crossfire, Pakistan treads carefully in Iran-Israel crisis

Defence affairs

As missiles streak across the skies of the Middle East and tensions escalate, Pakistan has chosen a familiar posture of cautious diplomacy, relying on carefully worded statements that avoid direct confrontation.

Over the past week, Israel and the United States launched a joint military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, prompting Iran to retaliate with missile attacks on a U.S. base in Qatar. While global headlines tracked the spiraling conflict, Pakistan responded with words of sympathy and concern -- yet avoided naming any of the key players directly, especially the United States.

This is in line with Pakistan’s long-standing diplomatic pattern: when regional crises erupt, its foreign policy leans toward restraint -- opting for reflection over confrontation, ambiguity over clarity.

In its latest response, the government followed a well-worn playbook. A National Security Committee (NSC) meeting chaired by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif condemned “military attacks” on Iran and expressed sorrow over civilian casualties. But the official statement stopped short of identifying the United States.

When Iran retaliated with missile strikes targeting a U.S. military installation in Qatar, Prime Minister Sharif contacted the ambassadors of Qatar and Saudi Arabia to convey solidarity and concern — once again, without naming Iran.

Adding to the diplomatic choreography, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a “complete and total ceasefire” between Iran and Israel in the early hours of Tuesday. Yet, tensions remain high, and both countries appear to be recalibrating their next moves — keeping the region on edge.

Confused messaging?

Pakistan’s reluctance to assign blame is rooted in the complexity of its regional relationships. It relies heavily on financial assistance, energy imports, and the employment of millions of Pakistani workers in Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

It also shares a sensitive and lengthy border with Iran, where sectarian, ethnic, and security dynamics require ongoing cooperation. Meanwhile, despite recent strains, Pakistan still depends on the U.S. for military, diplomatic, and financial support.

These overlapping interests have shaped a foreign policy that, to some observers, seems reactive and inconsistent -- where Pakistan’s stance is less about principles and more about the identities of those involved.

International perceptions and behind-the-scenes alignment

Pakistan’s balancing act hasn’t gone unnoticed abroad. It has raised questions in international circles: where does Islamabad truly stand?

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking to a news channel, commented, “A bunch of these countries putting out statements condemning us — privately, they all agree with us that this needed to be done.” While Rubio did not mention Pakistan by name, his remark underscores a wider reality — that public neutrality can often mask private alignment, especially for nations facing economic hardship or security dependencies.

In Pakistan’s case, analysts argue, the reluctance to explicitly name powerful states is less about neutrality and more a reflection of structural constraints -- whether it’s the country’s fragile economy, dependency on Gulf aid, or strategic considerations tied to the U.S.-India equation.

A repeated pattern of selective language

Pakistan’s current stance is not an isolated case. During past Saudi-Iran tensions, Islamabad offered mediation but avoided publicly identifying perpetrators. In the early days of the Ukraine war, it withheld judgment -- trying to balance longstanding Western military ties with growing trade and infrastructure cooperation with Russia and China.

This linguistic tightrope allows Islamabad flexibility. But some observers argue that such ambiguity limits Pakistan’s ability to project itself as a consistent and credible diplomatic actor on the world stage.