Tel Aviv, April 18 (NationPress) As the one-year mark of the brutal Pahalgam terror attack nears, Pakistan is reportedly engaged in a well-known dual narrative. According to a recent article,

Sergio Restelli, a geopolitical expert and political advisor writing for the 'Times of Israel', highlights that on one hand, Pakistan positions itself as a responsible mediator in one of the Middle East’s most perilous crises, striving to promote dialogue between Iran and the United States. Conversely, it is entangled in the ongoing issue of cross-border terrorism in Kashmir, where India holds it accountable for the 2025 terror attack in Pahalgam, creating a stark contradiction.

The expert pointed out that Pakistan has historically utilized mediation as a strategy to maintain its diplomatic significance, particularly during periods of diminished regional influence.

“The reasoning is simple. By inserting itself into a crisis outside its immediate geography, Islamabad aims to reshape its global image from one of a security threat to that of a solution provider. However, this strategy consistently clashes with the internal contradictions of the country,” Restelli emphasized.

As the anniversary of the Pahalgam terror attack approaches, he noted that the core issue is credibility rather than attribution.

Restelli further argued that Pakistan, which has been repeatedly accused of enabling or tolerating non-state actors, lacks the moral authority to mediate conflicts elsewhere—this contradiction is too significant to overlook.

“This is where Pakistan’s internal dynamics become crucial. The nation’s foreign policy is not solely directed by its civilian leadership but is heavily influenced by its military establishment. The same institution that now presents itself as a peacemaker internationally has historically engaged in asymmetric strategies in its neighboring regions. This duality is not coincidental; it reflects a security doctrine that differentiates between operational theatres instead of adhering to a consistent principle,” he stated.

Focusing on the case of Iran, Restelli noted that Pakistan desires stability, as a broader regional conflict could jeopardize its borders, energy security, and already fragile economy. In contrast, instability in Kashmir is often viewed as a bargaining chip, leading to a foreign policy that is more situational than principled, adaptive, and coherent.

Critiquing Islamabad’s contradictory stance, he concluded, “Ultimately, Pakistan is not an unexpected peacemaker; it is a predictable one—a state that mediates when necessary and destabilizes when possible. This is not diplomacy; it is strategy constrained by circumstance.”