A return to 1979, Iran, Afghanistan and South and West Asia.
History often tends to repeat itself and shortsighted leaders tend to repeat errors of their own predecessors. The Trump Administrations emboldening of Pakistan is one such error which will eventually cost the United States dearly. In 1979 the US and Saudi Arabia made a strategic decision to use Pakistan, under the leadership of General Zia ul Haq, to start a proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan. Over decades, Pakistan has played both sides against each other and 9/11 was the eventual result of this strategic mistake.
The US continued dependance on Pakistan during the War on Terror, not only handed Kabul to the Taliban but also cost the US dearly in terms of human life and money.
The situation today may be a version of history repeating itself. Then the spark was the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan, now the spark is Iran, its nuclear activities and support to terrorism. Then the Islamic revolution in Iran establish the Ayatollah regime we have today. Then Saudi Arabia chose to engage Pakistan as its proxy, now Saudi Arabia has chosen a nuclear Pakistan to be its strategic defence partner. Then Pakistan was ruled by a defacto General who promoted Nawaz Sharif’s political career, now the Sharif brothers are hostage to a Field Marshall who is strengething his de-facto rule.
Pakistan’s emergence as a diplomatic intermediary between Washington and Tehran has transformed its international image almost overnight. Once viewed primarily through the lens of political instability, economic crisis and terrorism, Islamabad has suddenly seem to have become an indispensable diplomatic actor. The successful facilitation of talks between the United States and Iran has earned Pakistan praise from capitals that only months ago were openly critical of its domestic governance and these capitals have now started ignoring Pakistan’s own problems.
This newfound prestige has also reduced international scrutiny of Pakistan’s conduct at home and in its immediate neighbourhood, an issue which risks the stability of South Asia and the world, given the unstable dictatorship is also the worlds only Islamic nuclear power.
Even as Islamabad has been applauded abroad, Pakistan has continued military operations across the Afghan border, further deepening tensions with the Taliban government. Cross-border strikes and military confrontations have become increasingly frequent, raising concerns that Pakistan is pursuing coercion rather than diplomacy in its western neighbourhood. At the same time, Pakistan’s domestic political landscape continues to deteriorate.
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan, an ethnic Pashtun, remains imprisoned despite repeated calls from international observers for due process and judicial independence-an image of Zuliqar Ali Bhutto, also imprisoned by a military dictator.
Critics increasingly argue that Pakistan is evolving from military influence over civilian politics into a system where political authority is effectively concentrated under the country’s military establishment led by Field Marshal Asim Munir.
The political crackdown has coincided with growing unrest in Balochistan. The sentencing of prominent Baloch activist Mahrang Baloch and other activists has attracted strong criticism from international human rights organisations, which argue that peaceful political dissent is increasingly being criminalised. Pakistani authorities reject those accusations and maintain that prosecutions are conducted according to law. Nevertheless, the perception that political opposition and ethnic grievances are being addressed primarily through coercive measures risks further alienating Baloch communities.
Pakistan’s internal trajectory increasingly resembles a dual consolidation of power. One is political, with opposition leaders sidelined and institutions operating under unprecedented military influence. The other is ethnic, where many critics argue that decision making has become increasingly centralised within the country’s traditional Punjabi establishment, fuelling resentment among peripheral provinces including Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. At the risk of all out rebellion, the Pakistan army continues to subdue all dissent in Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
While this characterisation remains contested within Pakistan, the perception itself has become politically significant. Pakistan’s enhanced diplomatic standing also carries broader regional implications.
Iran is unlikely to forget Islamabad’s role in facilitating negotiations with Washington as will it not be able to get rid of the continued dependance. The Ayatollah’s will rather make common cause with a Sunni dictatorship than make peace with unbelievers. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey believe that they can together control the Persian theocracy, despite millennial experience that has shown otherwise.
For Israel a Sunni alliance of countries openly hostile to it, with a nuclear power and a NATO member who control its Shia foe which in turn is dependant on this alliance should be a cause of great concern.
For India, which shares a long and sensitive border with Pakistan and has invested heavily in projects such as Chabahar Port, any substantial shift in Tehran’s strategic alignment deserves close attention as it risks its strategic depth in South, West and Central Asia.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has already publicly defended Iran’s right to retain its ballistic missile programme, arguing that the negotiations should not impose “double standards” by demanding that Tehran surrender capabilities other states retain.
That position may be understandable from Islamabad’s diplomatic perspective trying to ingratiate itself with Tehram, but it illustrates a broader strategic convergence between Pakistan and Iran that India cannot afford to ignore. A ballistic Iran with a closer relationship with a nuclear state like Pakistan is a danger to Israel and its existence, also given both Pakistan and Iran have a history and strategy of supporting Islamic extremist and terrorist groups.
Closer defence cooperation between Tehran and Islamabad does not automatically imply proliferation or military transfers. However, history demonstrates that deeper strategic partnerships often expand into intelligence cooperation, defence technology exchanges and broader security coordination. Given Pakistan’s own nuclear status and Iran’s continued missile ambitions, policymakers in New Delhi nd Jerusalem will inevitably examine these developments with caution.
The broader concern is not that Pakistan has become an effective mediator. Successful diplomacy should always be welcomed. The concern is that diplomatic success abroad may provide political cover for democratic backsliding at home and embolden behaviour to create a new dictatorship in South Asia. How long before Field Marshall Munir decides to take advantage of President Trump’s patronage and install himself as the President of Pakistan?
History repeatedly shows that governments enjoying international strategic importance often face reduced external pressure over internal governance. Whether it is the US pandering to Pakistan or the EU continuing its GSP+ status despite human rights abuses, Pakistan may now find itself in precisely that position. If international partners become reluctant to criticise Islamabad because they value its regional utility, then the cost will ultimately be borne by political opponents, ethnic minorities and regional stability.
Diplomacy should enhance a nation’s international standing. It should not become a shield against accountability.
