Pakistan cannot afford to allow its close relations with Saudi Arabia and the United States to undermine its historically important relationship with Iran. Geography, economic interests and regional security require Pakistan to maintain working relations with both sides, even when their strategic objectives conflict. The challenge is not simply to choose between Washington, Riyadh and Tehran. It is to develop a foreign policy that protects Pakistan's national interests without becoming entangled in a wider regional confrontation. Pakistan faces a difficult geopolitical balancing act involving three distinct relationships. Saudi Arabia: A close strategic and economic partner, with important security ties and religious significance for Pakistan. The United States: An influential global power whose financial, technological and economic reach affects Pakistan's access to international markets, financial institutions and energy projects. Iran: A neighboring country with which Pakistan shares a long border, historical connections, religious and cultural links, and common interests in border security and regional stability. These relationships are not mutually exclusive. However, tensions arise when commitments to one partner appear to conflict with the interests of another.
The Mecca Pact adds another dimension to this dilemma. If it is perceived by Tehran as strengthening a regional alignment against Iran, it could deepen Iranian suspicions about Pakistan's strategic intentions. Pakistan has therefore explained that its relations with Saudi Arabia are not intended to threaten Iran. The guiding principle should be that Pakistan's partnerships must serve Pakistan's national interests, not oblige it to adopt every position taken by its partners. The principal danger is not necessarily the existence of the Mecca Pact itself, but how Iran interprets its objectives and how its members implement their commitments. The agreement, signed by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey in August 2026, treats an armed attack against one member as an attack against all. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have completed their ratification processes, while Turkish Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee approved its ratification bill on October 27,2026, now it will be taken up by General Assembly for approval this month. Iran could understandably be concerned if the arrangement appears to consolidate a military front against it. Pakistan has addressed that perception through direct engagement rather than merely issuing assurances. There is, however, an important recent development. On 26 October, senior officials from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey met Iranian leaders in Tehran to discuss regional de-escalation. The meeting indicates that membership in the Mecca Pact has not prevented direct diplomacy with Iran. This creates an opportunity for Pakistan. Its diplomatic message should be clear: The pact is defensive and is not intended to threaten Iran. Pakistan will honor its legitimate commitments to Saudi Arabia while seeking to prevent hostilities between Saudi Arabia and Iran. No member should use collective defense commitments to justify unnecessary offensive action against a neighboring country. Iran, in turn, should respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Pakistan and other regional states. The real test of the pact will be whether it contributes to peace or draws its members into a wider war. The United States has explicitly opposed the Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline and warned of sanctions risks for entities conducting business with Iran. Pakistan cannot ignore these risks. Its economy needs foreign investment, access to international finance, trade and economic stability. A confrontation with Washington over one project could carry costs beyond the energy sector. But the opposite approach-allowing external pressure to determine every major Pakistani economic decision-also has long-term consequences. Pakistan should pursue an independent foreign policy based on national interest, international law and pragmatic diplomacy. This requires a three-part approach: Engage Washington directly. Explain Pakistan's energy requirements and request a specific sanctions waiver or other legally workable arrangement, supported by transparent safeguards and verifiable conditions. Maintain frank communication with Tehran. Explain the economic and legal constraints Pakistan faces, rather than allowing delays and uncertainty to be interpreted as hostility or a lack of goodwill. Explore alternatives without abandoning the issue. Examine phased implementation, alternative financing and energy arrangements, and other options that would be lawful under applicable sanctions. The pipeline has become more than an infrastructure project. Iran has initiated arbitration proceedings, and Pakistan faces the competing risks of financial penalties and possible secondary sanctions. In August 2026, the government established a high-powered committee to assess the legal, financial and energy implications. Pakistan should therefore seek a negotiated solution, not make promises it cannot fulfil or take financial risks it cannot sustain.
Pakistan has strong reasons to advocate the protection of civilians, respect for sovereignty and adherence to international humanitarian law. Those principles should apply irrespective of whether the party responsible is an adversary, a strategic partner or a major world power. Pakistan's close relationship with the United States may limit its diplomatic room for maneuver, but it should not prevent Islamabad from expressing principled objections to unlawful attacks or civilian casualties. Equally, Pakistan should distinguish between maintaining diplomatic relations with Washington and endorsing every American military or political decision. There is no contradiction in cooperating with the United States on matters of mutual interest while calling for an end to military escalation, a credible ceasefire and renewed negotiations with Iran.The same standard should apply to Israel, Iran and regional armed groups: attacks on civilians and violations of sovereignty must not be excused simply because they are committed by a friendly party. A credible Pakistani position would be firm on principles but measured in its language, avoiding rhetoric that closes the very diplomatic channels Pakistan needs.Why reconciliation between Washington, Riyadh and Tehran is essential. In my assessment, this is the most important part of issue. Pakistan cannot resolve the underlying regional conflict by itself. It can, however, help create conditions in which negotiations become possible and Pakistan has succeeded in achieving that objective due to efforts of FM Asim Munir. Saudi Arabia has legitimate security concerns, particularly in relation to missile and drone attacks and threats to critical infrastructure. Iran, meanwhile, has its own security demands and concerns about US and Israeli military action. Unless these competing concerns are addressed through negotiations, military deterrence can become a cycle of threats, retaliation and further escalation. The October 26 meeting in Tehran offers a potential opening. Reporting indicates that regional non-aggression arrangements and a resumption of US-Iran negotiations were among the issues discussed, although no comprehensive settlement was announced.
The way forward should include the following measures: Washington must demonstrate flexibility. Military pressure and economic sanctions cannot substitute indefinitely for a negotiated settlement. The United States should be prepared to consider reciprocal concessions in return for verifiable security commitments from Iran. Iran must be willing to negotiate. Its legitimate security concerns should be addressed alongside commitments to regional stability and respect for neighboring states. Saudi Arabia and Iran must establish durable understandings. Direct communication, non-aggression commitments and mechanisms for resolving disputes could reduce the risk of miscalculation. Pakistan and Turkey should facilitate dialogue. Their regional relationships give them an opportunity to help bridge differences rather than simply reinforce opposing positions. A settlement need not resolve every historical grievance immediately. Even an initial agreement on restraint, protection of civilian infrastructure and the resumption of negotiations would be valuable.
A practical line of direction for Pakistan would recommend a seven-point strategy. Keep diplomatic channels open with Iran. Establish regular, high-level consultations with Tehran. Explain Pakistan's commitments to Saudi Arabia and the economic constraints imposed by sanctions. At the same time, seek Iranian assurances on border security, non-interference and regional de-escalation. Define the limits of collective defence Pakistan should clarify, through appropriate diplomatic and legal channels, how the Mecca Pact will operate in practice. Any response to an attack must be consistent with the agreement, Pakistan's constitutional requirements and international law. The pact must not become an automatic route into a wider regional war. Offer Pakistan as a credible intermediary. Use existing contacts with Washington and Tehran to facilitate indirect negotiations. Coordinate with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, and work towards a sustained ceasefire and a framework for regional non-aggression. Pursue an independent but pragmatic policy towards Washington. Seek sanctions relief or a specific waiver for the gas pipeline, while cooperating with the United States on areas of mutual interest. Pakistan should neither invite unnecessary confrontation nor accept external pressure as a permanent substitute for sovereign decision-making. Resolve the gas pipeline dispute urgently. Complete an independent legal and financial assessment, pursue negotiations with Iran to manage the arbitration risk, and request a clear response from Washington on possible exemptions. In parallel, assess alternative energy supplies. Pakistan must avoid both an unmanageable sanctions exposure and an unnecessarily costly deterioration of relations with Iran. Apply consistent principles to regional conflicts. Speak clearly in favour of Palestinian rights, civilian protection, respect for sovereignty and compliance with international law. Pakistan's credibility will depend on applying these principles consistently, rather than according to the identity of the country involved. Build a regional mechanism for preventing war. Propose regular consultations among Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey and other willing regional states. Priorities should include military hotlines, advance notification of major military exercises, border security cooperation, protection of energy infrastructure and a process for resolving disputes peacefully. The greatest danger: Pakistan being forced to choose sides. Pakistan's geographical position makes neutrality in every sense neither realistic nor necessary. It has genuine security obligations and established partnerships. However, it should distinguish between fulfilling legitimate commitments and becoming a participant in a conflict that does not serve its national interests. Pakistan should therefore prepare for contingencies while giving diplomacy the highest priority. Quiet diplomacy, direct engagement and credible assurances may accomplish more than public declarations or confrontational rhetoric.
Pakistan must pursue peace without compromising its independence. Pakistan should not merely lie low and explain its difficulties to Iran but it should actively shape diplomatic efforts while maintaining a careful balance between its relationships with Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States. The Mecca Pact should be used as a channel for regional stability, not allowed to become a source of permanent confrontation with Tehran. Pakistan should honor its commitments to Saudi Arabia while making every reasonable effort to prevent a conflict that could endanger the entire region. At the same time, Washington must recognize that sustainable regional security cannot be built exclusively through military pressure, sanctions and demands for alignment. Iran must also recognize that regional stability requires respect for the sovereignty and security of its neighbors. The immediate priority is to turn the recent Tehran contacts into sustained negotiations, with Pakistan playing an active facilitating role. Pakistan's best strategy is neither unconditional alignment nor isolation. It is principled independence, strategic restraint and energetic diplomacy. The future of the region should not be determined by another round of war. It should be shaped by a willingness among the major powers and regional states to negotiate, make reciprocal concessions and recognize that lasting security cannot be achieved at the expense of every other country's security.US Vice President ultimately has agreed to meet Iranian leadership is a positive development. In the wake of weak position of Donald Trump in midterm elections and losing majority vote by Israel Prime Minister, Donald Trump may along with Israeli PM may go for the second round for which Trump has given many indications. It is the mind set of Trump and Netanyahu that needs change not the policy.
