As tensions between the United States and Iran continue to escalate, Pakistan finds itself in an increasingly difficult geopolitical position. With Washington carrying out strikes against Iran and Tehran responding by targeting US installations across the Persian Gulf, Islamabad faces growing pressure to protect its strategic interests while avoiding direct involvement in the conflict.
According to the article, Pakistan’s immediate priorities include safeguarding energy imports and remittance flows, securing its nearly 900-km border with Iran, preventing sectarian tensions at home, and maintaining its role as a potential mediator between Washington and Tehran.
However, the article argues that Pakistan’s neutrality is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain because of its Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement with Saudi Arabia, under which thousands of Pakistani troops and advanced fighter aircraft have been deployed in the Kingdom.
Pakistan has historically sought to balance its close ties with both Iran and Saudi Arabia. Sharing a border with Iran, hosting one of the world’s largest Shia populations and maintaining longstanding strategic relations with Saudi Arabia, Islamabad has traditionally avoided taking sides in regional conflicts.
The article states that the situation has become more complicated following US and allied strikes on Iranian military infrastructure and Tehran’s subsequent retaliatory attacks targeting US military installations and commercial shipping routes across the Gulf region. It notes that attacks near Saudi Arabia, including around Prince Sultan Air Base, raise concerns because Pakistani military personnel are stationed there.
According to the article, the Pakistan-Saudi Arabia mutual defence pact treats an attack on either country as an attack on both, drawing comparisons with NATO’s collective defence principle. It also claims that Pakistan has deployed more than 8,000 troops, a squadron of JF-17 fighter aircraft, and Chinese-made air defence systems to Saudi Arabia under existing security arrangements.
The article argues that if Iranian missile or drone attacks were to strike locations hosting Pakistani personnel, Islamabad could face mounting pressure to respond militarily, potentially drawing it directly into the conflict.
It further suggests that Pakistan’s leadership faces a difficult strategic choice. Responding militarily in support of Saudi Arabia could place Pakistan alongside the US-led coalition, increasing tensions along its western border, aggravating sectarian divisions and potentially encouraging insurgent activity in Balochistan.
On the other hand, failing to respond to attacks on Pakistani forces could weaken Pakistan’s security commitments to Gulf allies and jeopardise crucial financial assistance from Saudi Arabia, which remains important for Pakistan’s economy.
The article concludes that any direct involvement in the conflict would also complicate Pakistan’s broader security challenges, including its border tensions with Afghanistan, domestic militancy, and its ongoing strategic rivalry with India, making the current crisis one of the most significant geopolitical tests for Islamabad in recent years.