Executive Summary
Pakistan finds itself at a complicated crossroad, where it has a long-standing ally and partner in the US as well as a pact-bound Saudi Arabia on one side, and its Organisation for Islamic Cooperation (OIC) ally Iran on the other. The American-led military campaign in Iran splits expectations of Pakistan. On one hand, it is contractually obligated to provide unequivocal support to US and Saudi Arabia through mutual defence pacts with both those nations. On the other hand, economic, religious and security affiliations with neighbouring Iran complicate Pakistan’s commitments. As the Pakistan brokered ceasefire hangs by a thread, Islamabad’s capacity to sustain its balancing act is being tested in real time, with consequences that extend well beyond the region.
Key Points
- Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) in September 2025, proclaiming an attack on one as an attack on both.
- Pakistan did not invoke the pact in its conflict against Afghanistan in October 2025.
- Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif condoled the assassination of Ayatollah Khameini, contradicting its ally, US.
- Saudi Arabia invoked the SMDA after Iranian drone and missile strikes in the wider West Asian region struck Riyadh.
- Pakistani Field Marshall Asim Munir visited Riyadh and held discussions about the conflict.
- Instead of military participation, Pakistan offered mediation between its OIC partner and its treaty allies.
Analysis
Pakistan has been a US-ally for decades, ever since the early years of the Cold War when the two nations signed the Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement. Since then, the US has endowed Pakistan with military hardware, diplomatic access, and, most importantly, billions in economic aid. In return, Pakistan has been a gracious host and a reluctant partner to American troops in the counterterrorism operations. In the ongoing conflict, Pakistan is obligated to stand with its long-time ally US against Iran. This stance is consolidated by the SMDA signed with Saudi Arabia, which was targeted by Iranian drones and missiles.
Pakistan has deep economic reliance, people-to-people relations and security ties with Iran,which complicate Islamabad’s stance. However, the most prominent connection remains the hesitant primacy of religious solidarity in Pakistan’s foreign policy. The cumulative effect of these ties are manifest in Pakistan’s muted condemnation of Iran and equivocal support of the American war efforts. Pakistan PM’s condolement of Khamenei’s death, and reaffirmation of “complete solidarity” with Iran last year accentuate its paradoxical priorities.
These conflicting partnerships are increasingly difficult to manage for Pakistan. Formal treaties contradict informal-yet-significant ideological alignments. An unpleasant outcome of Pakistan’s balancing is a strain in relations with either or all sides. Saudi Arabia is reportedly upset with the cautious support from Pakistan, which falls short of the former’s expectations vis-à-vis the SMDA. If the ceasefire holds, it saves the trouble of choosing sides. However, regardless of how this conflict progresses, Pakistan needs to untangle its commitments. Such are the perils of parallel partnerships; Pakistan built its foreign policy like a house with two foundations.
Policy Implications
- Pakistan needs a clearly defined foreign policy doctrine that demarcates red lines for when treaty obligations are enforceable. Ambiguity may work as a peacetime strategy. But in active conflict, it can read as unreliability.
- Islamabad should proactively engage with Riyadh to manage expectations around the SMDA. Overpromising and underdelivering many prove costly.
- The one true asset of Pakistan is its access to all parties. Islamabad should formalise it into a structured diplomatic role of a reliable mediator.