Remarks by India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar describing Pakistan as a “dalal” (broker) in the ongoing West Asia crisis have sparked strong reactions in Islamabad, with observers saying the comment reflects growing criticism of the role attributed to Pakistan in regional conflicts.
Analysts say Pakistan has for years sought to present itself as a mediator in crises. However, this role is not always interpreted within a conventional diplomatic framework, and is described in some analyses as a pragmatic approach aimed at securing strategic and economic gains, within what some view as a political and economic structure that encourages such behavior.
According to expert assessments, this approach is linked to internal factors including economic fragility, recurring balance-of-payments crises, and continued reliance on support from the International Monetary Fund, alongside ties with key partners such as the United States, China, and Gulf states, which are seen as limiting strategic autonomy.
In this context, Pakistan’s foreign policy is described in these analyses as prioritizing short-term approaches, where mediation is at times presented as a tool for managing crises and securing external support, rather than as part of a long-term strategic vision.
This pattern, according to historical readings, is rooted in earlier roles played by Pakistan, including its position as a U.S. ally during the Cold War, its role as a key channel for supporting Afghan mujahideen in the 1980s, and later as a major partner in the post-9/11 “War on Terror,” despite continued links between elements of its internal landscape and militant groups.
Some analysts argue that this overlap between cooperation and contradiction has enabled Islamabad to maintain its strategic relevance and secure significant financial support, while preserving a degree of ambiguity in its policies.
In the context of the current West Asia crisis, reports indicate that Pakistan has offered to host talks between parties to the conflict and has sought to act as a communication channel between Washington and Tehran, in what has been presented as a mediation effort.
However, some observers interpret this role as an attempt to avoid direct involvement in the conflict while simultaneously maintaining positive relations with influential powers, particularly the United States, reflecting what is described as a delicate balance between declared neutrality and indirect alignment.
In this regard, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as a point of contention. Statements attributed to U.S. President Donald Trump suggested that Iran allowed oil tankers, some reportedly linked to Pakistan, to pass through as a “goodwill gesture.” Iranian officials, however, denied this account, maintaining that strict control over the waterway remained in place.
Some media reports have also suggested that the same oil shipments may have later been directed to Israel, Iran’s main adversary. Analysts say such incidents feed perceptions accusing Pakistan of pursuing a “double policy,” presenting itself as a mediator while some of its actions are interpreted as serving multiple and potentially conflicting interests.
This perception is further reinforced, according to observers, when comparing Pakistan’s diplomatic messaging with its public rhetoric. The country issued strong warnings to Israel following reports of strikes near its mission in Tehran, in statements seen as reflecting solidarity with Iran.
However, this rhetoric coincides with efforts to play a mediating role and maintain communication channels with the United States, which some analyses present as indicative of a pattern of “dual messaging” between conciliatory diplomacy and more confrontational public discourse.
Experts note that this approach is not new, but extends to Pakistan’s broader positioning between major powers, including its relations with China through projects such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, alongside continued engagement with Washington.
This middle-ground positioning is seen by others as a source of risk, as it may undermine trust in Pakistan’s role as a mediator if interpreted as engagement with competing sides simultaneously.
Analysts also point to what is described as a “moral hazard,” whereby international actors may rely on Pakistan for short-term objectives while remaining cautious about its long-term reliability.
Domestically, experts warn that continued reliance on external support may deepen economic fragility and delay structural reforms.
This dynamic takes on added significance given Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities, which enhance its strategic weight but also raise concerns about escalation management, particularly in the absence of a clearly defined “no first use” policy.
Some analysts further argue that a degree of ambiguity in military doctrine, including the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons, may increase uncertainty during crises, although some assessments suggest that recent regional developments have limited the effectiveness of this approach.
Overall, the debate over Pakistan’s role in the West Asia crisis reflects a broader discussion about the nature of mediation in the international system and the limits of balancing national interests with regional stability.
According to observers, the key question remains whether this model, combining mediation with strategic positioning between powers, can be sustained, or whether shifting geopolitical dynamics will require clearer alignments and commitments.
