Pakistan's bid to position itself as a neutral mediator in the US-Iran conflict is facing serious credibility questions, according to an analysis published in American media outlet PJ Media. The report argues that Islamabad's deepening defence commitments to Gulf Arab monarchies have fuelled Tehran's suspicions, undermining any claim to impartiality before negotiations even begin.

The Defence Pacts Complicating Islamabad's Neutrality

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement in Mecca on 7 August, pledging collective deterrence against acts of aggression. The agreement holds that an armed attack on any one signatory would be treated as an attack on all three. Pakistan has also signed a separate pact with Saudi Arabia and has a pending agreement with Kuwait, further anchoring Islamabad within US and Saudi security frameworks, according to the report.

Just two days after the Mecca agreement was signed, Iranian-backed Houthis struck an oil facility on Saudi Arabia's Red Sea coast. The coalition has yet to respond militarily, and Pakistan has refrained from any military action in response to Iranian strikes on the kingdom — even while being bound by the mutual defence pact.

Tehran's View: Complicit, Not Neutral

Turkish journalist Uzay Bulut, writing for PJ Media, posed a pointed question: 'How efficient can Pakistan be as a mediator between Tehran, Washington, and Islamabad when it is attempting to play all sides while simultaneously losing the trust of all?'

The report notes that Tehran's current narrative casts Pakistan as 'complicit in external aggression', a framing that directly limits Islamabad's credibility as an impartial broker. Islamabad has also clarified that the Mecca pact does not extend to its nuclear deterrent — rejecting suggestions that a nuclear umbrella could cover its Gulf allies.

Decades of Strained Iran-Pakistan Relations

The trust deficit between Iran and Pakistan is not new. According to the report, their relationship has historically been characterised by 'pragmatic cooperation despite divergent strategic orientations.' Both nations maintain trade links, yet periodic frictions have repeatedly surfaced.

Key fault lines include Pakistan's close defence cooperation with Saudi Arabia; Tehran's suspicion of Islamabad's alignment with US-led coalitions in Afghanistan and Iraq; and mutual allegations of providing space for cross-border activities of militant groups such as Jaish ul-Adl and Baloch militant organisations. 'Persistent mistrust between Iran and Pakistan causes frequent cross-border security friction, proxy competition, and diplomatic tightropes,' the report stated.

Economic Vulnerabilities Shaping Pakistan's Choices

Pakistan's room for manoeuvre is further constrained by a precarious economic position. The report describes Pakistan's economy as 'near-bankrupt', heavily reliant on continued international bailouts. Gulf states — principally Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others — reportedly supply more than 85 per cent of Pakistan's oil requirements and almost all of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) needs.

This energy and financial dependence on the very bloc that Tehran views with suspicion makes a genuinely neutral Pakistani posture structurally difficult, analysts argue. Islamabad's diplomatic ambitions, in other words, are constrained by the economic lifelines it cannot afford to sever.

What Comes Next

Whether Pakistan can recalibrate its positioning to salvage a credible mediator role remains uncertain. The combination of binding defence pacts, economic dependence on Gulf states, and a long history of mistrust with Iran presents formidable obstacles. Without tangible confidence-building measures with Tehran, Islamabad's mediator ambitions are likely to remain aspirational rather than operational.