Pakistan’s double game in the Iran crisis

In international diplomacy, credibility is everything. Nations that seek to mediate conflicts are expected to maintain neutrality and inspire confidence among all sides. But recent revelations reported by CBS News have raised serious questions about Pakistan’s conduct during the ongoing United States-Iran crisis. According to the report by Farnaz Fassihi and Margaret Brennan, American officials allege that Pakistan quietly allowed Iranian military aircraft to shelter at one of its most sensitive airbases even while publicly presenting itself as a mediator between Washington and Tehran.

If these allegations are accurate, they reveal a troubling pattern of strategic duplicity that has long defined Pakistan’s foreign policy. Islamabad appears to have sought the prestige of diplomacy while simultaneously assisting one side in the conflict behind the scenes. This is not merely a diplomatic inconsistency. It is a profound breach of trust that could reshape how the United States and other powers view Pakistan’s role in regional affairs.

According to the CBS News report, Iranian military aircraft, including a reconnaissance platform, were reportedly moved to Nur Khan Air Base near Rawalpindi during the height of American military pressure on Iran. U.S. officials believe this move was intended to protect Iranian assets from potential strikes.

The significance of this revelation cannot be overstated. Nur Khan is among Pakistan’s most strategically important military facilities and lies close to the country’s military headquarters. Allowing Iranian aircraft to use such a base would almost certainly have required approval at the highest levels of Pakistan’s military establishment. This was not a minor logistical gesture. It would have represented a deliberate strategic decision.

At the same time, Pakistan was positioning itself as a diplomatic bridge between Washington and Tehran. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar publicly emphasized Pakistan’s efforts to facilitate dialogue and reduce tensions in the Gulf. Pakistan was also reportedly used as a channel to convey messages between the two governments.

This dual-track approach has drawn concern in Washington. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham reportedly said that if the allegations are confirmed, Pakistan’s role as a mediator would need to be fundamentally reassessed. His remarks reflect broader concerns within U.S. policy circles that Islamabad may once again be attempting to play both sides of a major geopolitical confrontation.

Pakistan has denied the allegations. Officials argue that such aircraft movements would have been difficult to conceal. Yet Pakistan’s history has repeatedly shown its ability to maintain contradictory relationships. For decades, it has been a formal ally of the United States while simultaneously nurturing ties and networks that often complicate Washington’s strategic objectives.

This latest episode fits into that larger pattern. Pakistan relies heavily on Western financial support while maintaining close ties with China and cultivating strategic relationships with Iran and Gulf states. Its leadership has often sought to extract diplomatic and economic benefits by presenting itself as indispensable to multiple rival powers.

But in today’s geopolitical environment, strategic ambiguity carries greater risks than rewards. Trust is a scarce commodity. If mediators are perceived as covert participants, their usefulness rapidly diminishes. For Washington, the allegations reported by CBS News reinforce long-standing doubts about whether Pakistan can be relied upon as a genuinely neutral interlocutor.

The broader lesson is that diplomacy cannot succeed without transparency. Mediation requires confidence that the intermediary is acting in good faith rather than advancing hidden agendas. If Pakistan did indeed provide sanctuary to Iranian military aircraft while simultaneously facilitating negotiations, it undermined the very role it sought to play.

In the end, Pakistan may have overestimated its ability to balance competing loyalties. The attempt to be both mediator and strategic accomplice is a dangerous gamble. In international politics, trust once lost is extraordinarily difficult to restore. For Pakistan, the consequences of this episode may extend far beyond the current crisis, casting a long shadow over its future diplomatic credibility.