Iran’s trust in Pakistan mediation weakens over Saudi military alliance

Iran’s confidence in Pakistan’s role as a mediator in its conflict with the United States is weakening following Islamabad’s growing military cooperation with Saudi Arabia, raising concerns about the credibility of the diplomatic channel and efforts to restore safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iranian lawmakers and commentators have questioned Pakistan’s neutrality since it joined a regional defence arrangement with Saudi Arabia, arguing that Islamabad’s military commitments to Riyadh undermine its ability to serve as an impartial intermediary between Tehran and Washington.

Iranian lawmaker Ahmad Naderi said Pakistan’s involvement alongside Saudi Arabia against the people of Yemen meant Islamabad could no longer be regarded as a mediator but rather as a regional intervenor.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also called on neighbouring countries to pursue self-reliance and genuine brotherhood, remarks interpreted in Tehran as reflecting growing reservations about Pakistan’s regional role.

The development threatens Pakistan’s position as a principal channel for negotiations between Washington and Tehran, a role Islamabad assumed over the past year at the expense of established intermediaries such as Oman and Qatar.

The shift in Iran’s position became more pronounced after the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement entered its operational phase in early October 2026. An emergency meeting of the alliance’s Strategic Political and Defence Committee in Riyadh authorised the rapid deployment of agreed forces to Saudi Arabia and appointed a retired Pakistani lieutenant general as its first secretary-general.

Conservative commentators, including Hassan Hanizadeh, described the meeting as evidence of deliberate Shia-Sunni polarisation engineered by Riyadh with Pakistan’s participation.

Iranian lawmakers who had previously dismissed the trilateral defence pact as largely symbolic reportedly reconsidered their position after Pakistani officers assumed senior roles within the alliance.

Pakistan had deployed about 8,000 troops, fighter aircraft and air defence systems to Saudi Arabia in early April 2026, with 16 JF-17 fighter jets reportedly pre-positioned months before the pact was signed on August 7.

Islamabad now occupies a senior administrative position in a military alliance whose activities have implications for Iran’s closest regional partner, the Houthi movement in Yemen, while maintaining that it can remain sufficiently neutral to relay messages between Tehran and Washington.

Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has acknowledged that Pakistani forces maintain a presence in the West Asian theatre and conduct reconnaissance to support Saudi operations.

The military commitments have fuelled questions about how Pakistan can reconcile its security obligations to Saudi Arabia with the impartiality required to mediate a conflict involving Iran.

Pakistan’s pursuit of a mediatory role has also attracted scrutiny over the economic and diplomatic benefits it has sought from Washington.

Islamabad hosted the April 2026 talks and presented itself to both capitals as an indispensable diplomatic channel, with Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir’s relationship with US President Donald Trump regarded as a key asset.

ALSO READ: Kogi govt to develop policies, strategies to guarantee safety in mining operations

The diplomatic engagement was followed by a trade arrangement that reduced threatened tariffs, an agreement on developing Pakistani oil reserves, a critical minerals memorandum involving the Frontier Works Organisation, and a cryptocurrency business linked to a subsidiary body of the Pakistani military.

Pakistan also sought a $10 billion stabilisation facility from the United States Treasury.

These developments have raised questions about whether Islamabad’s mediation efforts have been driven as much by the prospect of economic and strategic gains as by the objective of ending the conflict.

The record of the negotiations has further weakened confidence in Pakistan’s effectiveness. A provisional truce brokered by Pakistan and Qatar in June collapsed almost immediately, while hostilities have continued for more than 200 days.

Iranian analyst Seyed Mojtaba Jalalzadeh argued that repeated failures had downgraded Pakistan’s role from that of a mediator capable of resolving the conflict to that of a facilitator with access to the parties.

He warned that Islamabad’s reputation would continue to suffer if it repeatedly promised outcomes it could not deliver.

Analyst Grace Wermenbol has also noted that recurring conflict has eroded the trust needed to secure a durable ceasefire.

Farzana Shaikh of Chatham House raised the possibility that Tehran’s confidence in Islamabad had never been as strong as outside observers assumed, suggesting that Pakistan may have relied on a diplomatic reputation that was not firmly established.

Washington, meanwhile, has expanded its engagement with other intermediaries, reducing Pakistan’s position as the central channel for negotiations.

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry confirmed in October that exchanges between Tehran and Washington were continuing through Qatari mediation, while China has occasionally been brought into the process at Washington’s request.

Oman, which handled the Iranian diplomatic file for two decades before Pakistan’s emergence, has taken up the Strait of Hormuz track.

Analysts argue that Oman and other countries bordering the strategic waterway are better positioned than Pakistan to address shipping security, maritime access and minesweeping concerns.

The Iranian interior minister’s visit to Doha for talks with the Qatari Emir has also been viewed in the context of broader regional diplomatic engagement.

These parallel channels suggest that Pakistan is increasingly one of several intermediaries rather than the indispensable link it once sought to become.

However, Pakistan’s diplomatic role has not been formally withdrawn.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres described Pakistan as a trusted mediator during his October visit, while Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Pakistan remained the mediator, with Qatar available to assist if necessary.

Such statements indicate that Islamabad retains a recognised role in the negotiations, although public criticism from Iranian lawmakers and commentators points to growing reservations about its neutrality.

The stakes extend beyond relations between the countries to global energy markets and maritime trade.

Iran has proposed reopening the Strait of Hormuz within seven days of an agreement, while Araghchi has indicated that Tehran could respond to the American counter-proposal within days.

Reports have also suggested that the Trump administration is weighing military strikes ahead of the November midterm elections.

Disruptions to the strategic waterway since February have affected regional energy supplies and contributed to rising prices, increasing pressure on negotiators to reach an agreement.

Continued delays could deepen the economic consequences for energy-importing countries, with higher fuel costs affecting consumers and businesses from Karachi to Rotterdam.

Against this backdrop, retaining Pakistan as the lead mediator despite questions about its military alignment with Saudi Arabia risks complicating negotiations at a critical stage.

A possible alternative would be to reduce Islamabad’s leadership role without excluding it from the diplomatic process.

Oman or another West Asian country with established relations with Tehran could assume greater responsibility for mediation, while Pakistan continues to facilitate communication between the parties.

Such an arrangement would preserve Islamabad’s access to Washington and Tehran while addressing concerns about its neutrality.

The central challenge is ensuring that the diplomatic process rests on credible intermediaries capable of securing the confidence of both sides.

As negotiations over the conflict and the Strait of Hormuz continue, Pakistan’s ability to remain useful may depend less on its claim to be the principal mediator than on its willingness to operate within a broader diplomatic framework.