Pakistan’s dilemma: Standing with Iran or courting Trump?

Pakistan found itself caught in a high-stakes diplomatic tango as US President Donald Trump shocked the world by announcing a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Iran. Tel Aviv and Tehran agreed to a cease-fire proposal announced by Trump to end their 12-day war that roiled the Middle East.

This unexpected move came mere days after Pakistan had publicly condemned Trump’s airstrikes on Iran—an ironic twist, considering Islamabad had just nominated him for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize for mediating a separate crisis with India. It’s a performance as bold as it is inconsistent. Pakistan’s about-face is diplomatic inconsistency at its worst.

Pakistan praised Trump’s “decisive diplomatic intervention” in defusing the India-Pakistan crisis, in an effusive message Saturday night on the X platform when it announced its formal recommendation for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. By Sunday, as U.S. bombs fell on Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities, Islamabad condemned the U.S. for attacking Iran, saying the strikes “constituted a serious violation of international law”. This is a diplomatic identity crisis, not merely a shift in tone. It damages Pakistan’s reputation when a leader is praised one day and his actions are denounced the next, making both allies and enemies doubt the country’s moral character.

More from Opinion

Sergio Gor’s senate hearing signals the future of Indo-American ties How Trump’s ‘War on Drugs’ buildup against Venezuela has a hidden agenda

Trump’s strikes—and now his ceasefire—have put Pakistan in a precarious position and Pakistan’s response to the Iran crisis suggests a calibrated approach. Iran is Pakistan’s brotherly neighbour. Yet, after years of frosty relations with the U.S., Islamabad sees a golden opportunity under Trump’s administration to secure economic lifelines, like trade deals or cryptocurrency partnerships, and bolster its geopolitical clout. This duality risks alienating both sides and eroding Pakistan’s moral authority. This inconsistency doesn’t inspire trust.

The condemnation of U.S. strikes was swift but measured, emphasising diplomacy over military escalation. Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke with Iran’s president, showing unity but not promising military help. Pakistan has learned from the past. During the Cold War, distant allies like the U.S. weren’t always reliable, but neighbours like Iran will always be there. Keeping them happy matters.

Impact Shorts

More Shorts

How army remains Pakistan’s biggest business house

60 years on, why 1965 India–Pakistan war still matters

Now, with Trump brokering a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, Islamabad faces another test. Does it applaud the de-escalation, despite the earlier bombing of Iran and direct involvement in Israel’s conflict? Or does it stand firm on its condemnation, even as tensions ease? The White House lunch last week between Trump and Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir—the first such meeting with a Pakistani military leader—signals warming ties. Discussions reportedly covered trade, rare minerals, and even artificial intelligence, hinting at a potential economic windfall. But this cozying up to Trump clashes with Pakistan’s public outrage over the strikes on Iran, exposing a moral tension: Can a nation champion sovereignty and peace while aligning with a leader who bombed its neighbour—even if he later brokered a ceasefire?

The Iran-Israel crisis demands clarity, not contradictions. Islamabad could leverage its unique position—trusted by both Tehran and Washington—to mediate, as it once did during the Iran-Iraq War. But that requires a moral backbone, not just pragmatic hedging. A trade deal with the US might fill coffers, but at what cost to its soul?

Pakistan’s diplomatic drama is a lesson in the perils of playing both sides. Islamabad’s balancing act is daring but dangerous. One misstep could burn bridges with Iran, the U.S., or its own people.

Islamabad appears torn at the moment. It seeks Iranian solidarity and U.S. investment. It can’t ignore its people’s indignation over strikes on Iran, but it longs for Trump’s favour. Short-term gains could be purchased by this balancing act, but at what cost? Influence is based on consistency, credibility, and conviction rather than just military alliances or trade agreements.

Pakistan is caught at the crossroads. If it continues to hedge, it might end up with no friends or respect—just a reputation for saying one thing and acting another.

The writer is a columnist. His articles have appeared in various publications like The Independent, The Globe and Mail, South China Morning Post, The Straits Times, etc. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost’s views.