Islamabad, March 28 (NationPress) Pakistan, due to its ties with the A Q Khan network — a global nuclear smuggling operation that provided enrichment technology to Iran, Libya, and North Korea — lacks the necessary credibility to assume the role of a reliable mediator as it reportedly seeks to convey an American proposal to Iran and offer to facilitate discussions, according to a recent report.

“This is not mediation; this is about control. The entity that defines the meeting dictates the results. This situation revolves around security interests: Israel, the US, the Gulf states, the West, and India. The answer is clear: not Pakistan. While Pakistan can communicate messages, it lacks the authority to broker an agreement. A mediator must relinquish their interests, which Pakistan cannot do. A nation with vested interests cannot serve as a neutral party; it becomes a participant,” stated Shay Gal, an Israeli analyst, in The Eurasian Times.

“A nation that gave rise to the A Q Khan network, which supplied enrichment expertise to Iran, Libya, and North Korea, cannot be viewed as a credible guardian of an agreement aimed at restraining Iran. The entity that created the issue cannot be expected to ensure its resolution,” he continued.

The analyst pointed out that for years, the United States has struggled to dismantle terrorist sanctuaries in northwestern Pakistan, despite considerable reliance on the Pakistani military and significant investments.

“As of 2026, the assessment remains stark: terrorism persists, conflict zones are active, attacks are escalating, and casualties are increasing. A state grappling with continuity, infrastructure security, and control over sensitive areas cannot forge a solid agreement with Iran. It seeks relief, not resolution. The term ‘Pakistan’ lacks transparency. The key player managing this situation is not a transparent civilian government operating under effective oversight, but primarily the military establishment,” Gal emphasized.

The report further indicated that if these developments proceed, Pakistan may enhance its standing in Washington following years of skepticism.

“There could be a decrease in criticism regarding its priorities, reduced pressure concerning its missile program — identified by the end of 2024 as an emerging threat to the United States and already sanctioned. This could lead to a deeper sense of indispensability in the eyes of both Riyadh and the White House. Internally, it would legitimize the military establishment’s dominance as Pakistan’s primary international point of contact,” it noted.

Moreover, the report highlighted that the ongoing conflict has revealed Pakistan’s vulnerability to energy shocks and spillovers from the crisis, even as it continues its negotiations with the International Monetary Fund. A swift shift from military action to diplomatic talks can have immediate effects on energy prices.

“This transition alters market expectations and expands Islamabad’s strategic options. Bringing Iran back onto an American track, even partially, reopens discussions regarding projects and relief measures frozen under sanctions, including energy corridors between Iran and Pakistan,” stated the report from The Eurasian Times.

Expressing concerns over Pakistan’s contentious history of contributing to regional instability, the report cautioned, “If Washington opts for Pakistan merely because it is available — rather than because it is the right choice — it risks perpetuating the same cycle of placing crises in the hands of those who benefit from them. Such an agreement does not eliminate the threat; it merely postpones it. Israel has already rejected it outright.”