Asif Haroon Raja
Pakistan’s Rise to Fame Indigestible to the Spoilers
Following his high profile meetings in Tehran, Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir travelled directly to Beijing without delay, where he held an extensive closed-door consultation with Chinese President Xi Jinping — a development that, according to some commentators, stirred intense concern in Washington.
According to the narratives promoted by several news channels, which received widespread international media attention, Pakistan’s military leadership conveyed to the Chinese side what was described as a major diplomatic breakthrough: that the decades-old danger of direct conflict between the United States and Iran could be moving toward de-escalation, with an interim understanding entering its final phase.
Pakistan was uniquely positioned to engage simultaneously with two of the world’s greatest strategic rivals — Washington and Beijing — and succeeded in earning the confidence of both on a highly sensitive geopolitical mission.
It represented one of Pakistan’s most significant geopolitical manoeuvres in recent history. A diplomatic deadlock between Iran and the United States, long considered irresolvable by many international analysts, was now being revisited through the strategic efforts of policymakers in Rawalpindi and Islamabad.
It showed that Pakistan is no longer merely an ordinary state on the world map, but an increasingly influential “kingmaker” in Middle Eastern and global politics — a country whose participation is becoming essential in major peace initiatives and regional economic frameworks.
Such developments naturally alarmed countries like Israel, India, and sections within the American establishment. In all probability it spurred them to launch the deadly suicide attack on a train in Quetta through their proxy BLA when Asim Munir was still in Tehran.
It was followed by the shooting incident near the White House in Washington on the same night, and soon after, triggered discussion around the Abraham Accords. It suggested that these events formed part of a wider atmosphere of geopolitical tension and strategic signaling. The purpose was to scuttle the peace talks.
The US Attempt to Revive Abraham Accords
Global diplomatic pressure has once again shaped relations between the United States, Saudi Arabia, and countries across the Middle East regarding the issue of normalization with Israel.
U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham openly emphasized the importance of more concrete strategic cooperation in responding to regional dynamics, particularly concerning a joint response to Iran’s geopolitical influence in the region.
In his official statement, Graham referred to major defense agreements and bilateral investment commitments that have long existed between the parties.
He questioned the future of those strategic partnerships if regional allies are unwilling to take a firm position alongside the United States and Israel on the front line.
Graham stressed, “If Iran is considered a threat to the region, then Middle Eastern countries should also be directly involved,” while also raising critical questions regarding military cooperation commitments if a wider regional conflict were to escalate.
Furthermore, Graham issued a warning if calls to join the Abraham Accords are rejected. “If you refuse to take this path as suggested by President Donald Trump, it will have serious consequences for our future relationship and make this peace proposal unacceptable.
Saudi Arabia’s Stance
Saudi Arabia, through statements by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Foreign Minister Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud, has remained consistent with its diplomatic position.
Riyadh emphasized that normalization or full diplomatic recognition of Israel will only happen if there is a real commitment to a two-state solution, including the establishment of an independent Palestinian State and an end to the conflict in Gaza.
Sensationalisation by Social Media
Some circles in Pakistan and outside are making a mountain out of a molehill on this issue, particularly those unsettled by Pakistan’s rising stature and strategic relevance.
A segment has persistently sought to undermine Pakistan and its institutions as a matter of policy. In pursuit of political and personal interests, they glorify Pakistan’s adversaries and amplify anti-Pakistan narratives to discredit the state. It is against this backdrop of negativity that the issue is being sensationalised
Dispassionate View
The matter, however, deserves to be examined calmly, rationally, and dispassionately. One must clearly distinguish between aspirations, ambitions, political motives, and ground realities.
Israel has long aspired to gain universal legitimacy and recognition, particularly from the 22 Arab States. The US-led Western bloc has consistently supported this objective.
Israel has projected itself as a perpetual victim, advocating its “right to self-defence” and “secure borders.” The West has largely endorsed these claims while denying the same rights to others.
Israel seeks to legitimise its occupation of nearly 92 percent of Palestinian land and ultimately absorb the remainder. The United States and several European powers have enabled and facilitated this expansionist agenda.
The vision of “Greater Israel” remains a deeply rooted ideological ambition among influential Zionist circles, justified by what they regard as a biblical entitlement.
The US has extended unwavering support to this project, including political, military, and financial backing during the devastating war in Gaza.
Washington has also confronted Iran militarily on more than one occasion in support of Israeli objectives.
Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu are portrayed as being driven by the same ideological force. In the context of the Middle East, their agenda is seen as centered on fulfilling prophecies associated with the Torah and the Bible.
Christian Zionists believe that Jewish control extending from the Euphrates to the Nile, along with the reconstruction of Solomon’s Temple, is a necessary precondition for the second coming of Jesus Christ.
For this reason, American support for Israel is viewed by them as a religious obligation.
According to this perspective, regardless of how much Muslims invoke the name of Prophet Abraham or sign Abraham Accords, hardline Jewish and extremist Christian groups are united in supporting a crusade-like campaign that could lead to the genocide of Muslims.
During his first term, President Trump went to extraordinary lengths to advance Israeli interests; one major outcome being the Abraham Accords signed in 2020.
Trump wanted all Arab States to join the accords and effectively abandon the two-state solution. However, Saudi Arabia refrained from doing so, while Pakistan firmly adhered to its principled position on Palestine.
In his second term, Trump’s strategic objectives reportedly included facilitating the absorption of Gaza, the West Bank, southern Lebanon and part of Syria into the Israeli sphere, denuclearising Iran, and completing the expansion of the Abraham Accords framework.
Changed Geopolitical Dynamics
The four-day India-Pakistan conflict and the ongoing confrontation involving Iran have significantly altered regional dynamics.
Today, Pakistan stands strategically stronger in South Asia, while India appears weakened diplomatically and militarily.
In the Middle East, the conflict has strengthened Iran’s regional standing while exposing the limitations of both the United States and Israel.
Neither appears capable of dictating terms as they once did, since military superiority has failed to achieve their declared objectives.
The termination of war has become a strategic necessity for the United States for multiple reasons, whereas Iran appears prepared to sustain pressure.
Washington is in no position to launch a large-scale ground offensive and prolong the war, while the option of tactical nuclear weapons remains virtually inconceivable because of the catastrophic regional and global consequences.
Trump’s repeated emphasis on uranium enrichment appears aimed more at appeasing Benjamin Netanyahu and safeguarding his domestic political standing than resolving the dispute itself.
Iran has consistently maintained that it does not seek to build a nuclear bomb and continues to adhere to that position. The issue had effectively been addressed through the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015.
Israel, however, pressured Trump to withdraw from the agreement due to concerns over Iran’s growing missile capabilities and regional influence.
In this context, attempts to revive the Abraham Accords appear more like a face-saving exercise than a viable strategic breakthrough.
Pakistan’s Principled Stance on Palestine
Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has rejected the possibility of Islamabad joining the Abraham Accords, saying Pakistan could not become part of any arrangement that conflicted with its “fundamental ideologies”, after US President Donald Trump publicly urged several Muslim-majority countries to normalise relations with Israel.
“Personally, I don’t think we should join any accord that clashes with our fundamental ideologies,” Asif said in an interview with a local news channel.
“Right now no initiative in this regard has been taken by us, nor has anyone asked us.”
When pressed whether Pakistan had been approached by Washington regarding joining the Abraham Accords, Asif said Islamabad’s position remained unchanged.
Pakistan rejected Trump’s proposal of Abraham Accords, calling the two issues ( Iran-US ceasefire , Palestine- Israel) not interlinked and cannot be made so.
Iran Consider Trump Untrustworthy
Iran has reportedly made it clear that it does not trust Trump, arguing that his words change too quickly to be taken seriously.
According to Tehran’s view, the problem is not just disagreement — it is unpredictability. One moment, Trump signals openness, confidence, or even the possibility of a deal. A few hours later, the message shifts completely, leaving diplomats, allies, markets, and opponents trying to figure out what America’s real position actually is.
For Iran, that kind of inconsistency makes negotiations almost impossible. How can any country commit to an agreement when the person across the table may say one thing in the morning and the opposite by evening?
The statement highlights a bigger issue: diplomacy depends on trust, stability, and clear messaging. Without that, every promise becomes uncertain and every negotiation turns into a guessing game.
In Tehran’s eyes, Trump is simply too unpredictable to trust.
Visit of Iranian Officials to Doha
The Governor of the Iranian Central Bank and other senior officials recently visited Doha, but this time the tone was far less conciliatory than before.
Although the door to financial diplomacy between Iran and Qatar reopened once again, the atmosphere carried a quiet rigidity, where pressure was clearly visible behind diplomatic smiles.
Tehran conveyed in unequivocal terms that it would no longer tolerate further delays regarding the nearly $25 billion in frozen Iranian assets held in Qatar.
It made clear that before any new agreement or memorandum of understanding could be signed, tangible progress on the release of those funds would be essential.
The harsh realities of diplomacy are now becoming increasingly evident. Relationships may outwardly appear cordial, but beneath the surface every actor pursues its interests with full intensity and strategic calculation.
The visit of the Governor of the Iranian Central Bank to Doha was viewed in this context. This time, Iran demanded clear accountability and signaled that verbal assurances alone are no longer sufficient. From Tehran’s perspective, the real test is no longer promises, but their implementation.
This issue is not emerging for the first time. During earlier indirect negotiations between Iran and the United States, there had been major announcements regarding the restoration of Iran’s frozen assets, with Qatar acting as a guarantor throughout the process.
However, despite the passage of time, the funds were never fully transferred to Iran. As a result, the perception within Tehran has strengthened that international agreements often appear powerful in words, yet political obstacles render them ineffective in practice.
Iran has now made it clear that no new promise or assurance will be accepted at face value. Tehran wants a substantial portion of its frozen assets to be released in advance as a guarantee, so that any subsequent negotiations can proceed on a credible and practical foundation.
For Iran, this is no longer merely a financial matter; it has increasingly become a symbol of economic sovereignty and resistance against international pressure.
Middle East Chessboard
The diplomatic chessboard of the Middle East is once again demonstrating that regional relations are not sustained merely through statements and meetings.
Real power lies with those who can translate commitments into action. Until Tehran gains genuine access to its assets, this quiet financial standoff between Doha and Iran is likely to continue with the same intensity.
Iran’s relations with the UAE and Bahrain will remain constrained as long as the two States serve the US and Israeli agenda against Iran.
American Attack to Reignite Confrontation
Reports of American strikes near Iranian strategic locations, including Shaqm Island, Bandar Abbas, and areas close to the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran’s reprisal by firing 400 missiles, have only deepened regional instability.
Some analysts view it as a possible pretext to reignite confrontation with Iran.
Collective Resistance
Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Pakistan, which have resisted aligning fully with the US agenda in the Middle East, are now in a stronger position to reject external pressure.
These countries in partnership with Egypt and possibly Jordan can collectively assert that recognition of Israel must remain conditional upon the establishment of an independent Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
The foremost priority today is not the expansion of diplomatic accords, but an immediate end to the war, followed by sincere negotiations aimed at achieving a just, lasting, and peaceful resolution of the Palestinian conflict.
Gratitude to Benjamin Netanyahu
The world should, in a sense, be grateful to Benjamin Netanyahu. Until recently, Israel appeared invincible. Today, because of Netanyahu’s policies and actions, Israel stands increasingly humiliated in the eyes of the world.
Israeli coastlines, Mossad headquarters, airports, and even sensitive nuclear facilities have reportedly come under successful missile attacks, shattering the long-promoted narrative of Israel’s invulnerability.
At the same time, the humiliation and strategic embarrassment suffered by the United States due to Netanyahu’s relentless pressure and political blackmail have left a stain that, according to critics, America may never fully erase, regardless of how long it tries to restore its lost prestige.
Netanyahu has undoubtedly exposed before the world the military methods, strategies, and vulnerabilities of both Israel and the United States.
After this conflict, Israel may have little choice but to behave like a more restrained and responsible state within the international community, because the dual humiliation it has faced in this war is likely to remain a lasting burden on its strategic psyche.
Israel may have prolonged the conflict for a few days by using Emirati, Bahraini, Jordanian, and Iraqi territory and facilities, but for Iran the war has clarified the distinction between friends and adversaries.
Israel’s absence from a meaningful negotiating framework may neither allow it to live in peace nor die in peace.
Ironically, Pakistan that does not even formally recognise Israel’s legitimacy has emerged as a mediator in the conflict. Israel now finds itself trapped in a situation where neither remaining nor retreating appears easy.
Netanyahu has previously used American presidents to advance his agenda, and now, according to critics, he is similarly attempting to influence the leadership in Abu Dhabi.
It should be remembered that the path to peace in the Gulf passes through Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iran, whereas the path to instability invariably passes through Israel.
“Wal-Lah Najdain” — Allah Almighty has shown mankind two paths: the path of good and the path of evil, while also granting human beings the freedom to choose between them.
Today, many in the Global South and across the Muslim world believe they should be grateful to Netanyahu, because it is largely due to his own aggressive and uncompromising policies that Israel now finds itself facing unprecedented isolation and humiliation.
Net Result:
Narendra Modi has, paradoxically, turned out to be a strategic gift for Pakistan. His highly ambitious, nationalist, and increasingly authoritarian policies have, in the eyes of critics, undermined India’s regional standing and pushed the country into a difficult strategic position.
Conversely, his politics of hostility and the pursuit of the “Akhand Bharat” narrative have inadvertently enhanced Pakistan’s relevance, credibility, and strategic importance in regional and global affairs.
Similarly, Benjamin Netanyahu pursued an aggressive strategy aimed at eliminating Israel’s adversaries in the Middle East and advancing the vision of “Greater Israel.”
However, these policies appear to have backfired, leaving Israel increasingly isolated internationally, while casting serious doubts over Netanyahu’s own political future.
At the same time, Donald Trump, in his quest to “Make America Great Again” by attempting to contain China and Russia through tariffs, sanctions, and geopolitical pressure — while simultaneously supporting Israel’s regional ambitions — now finds himself facing mounting strategic, political, and economic challenges.
About the Author
Brigadier (Retd) Asif Haroon Raja, SI (M) is a war veteran. He is Command and Staff Course and War Course qualified, holds an MSc in War Studies, and served as Defence Attaché in Egypt and Sudan, as well as Dean of the Corps of Military Attachés in Cairo.
He is a defence, security, and geopolitical analyst, international columnist, author of five books, former Chairman of Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Patron-in-Chief of Centre for Development Studies Think Tank, Director of Meesakh Research Centre; he regularly appears on media platforms.
