New Delhi: The ongoing crisis in West Asia has triggered a wider geopolitical debate over Pakistan’s role in the region. according to a report analysts and observers increasingly questioned what they describe as a “dual” or “double policy” approach in Islamabad’s foreign engagements.
The debate gained traction after remarks by the External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, who reportedly referred to Pakistan as a “broker” in the crisis, drawing sharp reactions and renewed scrutiny of Islamabad’s diplomatic positioning, according to a report by Assahifa.
Experts cited in the report suggest that Pakistan has long attempted to project itself as a mediator in regional conflicts, including the current West Asia tensions.
However, this role is often interpreted not as neutral diplomacy but as a pragmatic strategy aimed at securing strategic and economic advantages amid internal vulnerabilities such as economic fragility and reliance on international financial support.
Analysts argue that Islamabad’s balancing act—maintaining ties with the US, China, and key Gulf nations—has constrained its strategic autonomy while enabling it to remain relevant in multiple geopolitical theatres. This multi-alignment, while offering short-term leverage, has also led to perceptions of inconsistency in its foreign policy.
In the context of the current crisis, Pakistan has reportedly offered to facilitate dialogue and act as a communication channel between Washington and Tehran.
While such efforts have been framed as mediation, some observers view them as an attempt to maintain influence without committing to any single side.
The controversy has been further fuelled by reports and claims surrounding oil shipments and maritime activity in the Strait of Hormuz, with some analysts suggesting that such developments contribute to perceptions of conflicting interests being pursued simultaneously.
Observers also point to a divergence between Pakistan’s public rhetoric and diplomatic actions.
While issuing strong statements condemning actions by Israel and expressing solidarity with Iran, Islamabad has simultaneously maintained engagement with Western powers, reinforcing the impression of “dual messaging”.
This pattern, experts say, is not new but rooted in Pakistan’s historical role as a strategic intermediary—ranging from its alliance with the US during the Cold War to its involvement in the post-9/11 war on terror. Such positioning has often enabled Islamabad to secure financial and strategic support while navigating competing global interests.
However, analysts caution that this approach carries risks, particularly in terms of credibility. Engaging multiple sides simultaneously may undermine trust in Pakistan’s role as a mediator, especially in a volatile and high-stakes environment like the West Asia.
The debate also reflects broader concerns about the sustainability of such a foreign policy model.
As geopolitical alignments in West Asia continue to evolve, experts argue that maintaining ambiguity may become increasingly difficult, forcing clearer strategic choices.
At the same time, Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities and its position at the crossroads of major regional powers add to its strategic weight, even as questions persist about the long-term viability of its balancing strategy.
According to a report by Assahifa, the discussion surrounding Pakistan’s role underscores a larger question confronting global diplomacy: whether countries can continue to straddle competing interests while retaining credibility, or whether shifting geopolitical realities will compel more defined alignments.
(IANS)
