There is an old saying in diplomacy: nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests. But in Pakistan’s case, even trust has become disposable. The latest allegations that Islamabad quietly allowed Iran to park sensitive aircraft at Pakistani airbases while simultaneously posturing as a mediator between the United States and Iran only reinforces a decades-old pattern — speak one language in Washington, practice another in Rawalpindi.
If these reports are indeed true, then this is not merely diplomatic hypocrisy. It is strategic deceit masquerading as mediation.
Ironically, none of this should surprise the United States. Pakistan’s history is littered with examples of duplicity so blatant that even its allies have repeatedly admitted being misled. The world does not need a reminder that the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden, was found comfortably hiding in Abbottabad — virtually under the nose of Pakistan’s military establishment. And who was betrayed then? The same United States that had pumped billions of dollars into Pakistan in military and economic aid after the 9/11 attacks.
Washington trusted Islamabad with advanced weaponry, including F-16 fighter jets, claiming Pakistan was a frontline ally in the “war against terror.” Yet, America ultimately had to conduct the covert Abbottabad operation without even informing Pakistan’s leadership. That fact alone remains the biggest indictment of Pakistan’s credibility.
In fact, this e-paper had already sounded the alarm much before these reports surfaced. At a time when sections of the global media were busy portraying Pakistan as an “honest broker” between Washington and Tehran, we had cautioned that Islamabad’s sudden transformation into a peace-loving mediator deserved suspicion, not applause. After all, this is the same establishment that perfected the art of fighting terrorism by day and sheltering terrorists by night. From hiding Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad to allegedly helping strategic assets of Iran today, Pakistan’s playbook has remained remarkably consistent — deceive, deny, and then demand more aid. Unfortunately, the world’s superpowers repeatedly behave like victims of selective amnesia whenever Rawalpindi offers a fresh geopolitical bargain wrapped in diplomatic packaging.
Now history appears to be rhyming again.
Pakistan reportedly positioned itself as a peacemaker between the US and Iran even as accusations emerge that it quietly helped Tehran shield strategic aircraft from potential American strikes. This is classic Pakistan — selling itself as a fire extinguisher while allegedly carrying fuel in the other hand.
What makes the episode more troubling is not Pakistan’s behavior. That pattern is already well documented. The real question is: why does Washington continue to fall into the same trap?
Part of the answer perhaps lies in the transactional style of diplomacy associated with US President Donald Trump. Trump’s foreign policy instincts have often prioritized immediate tactical gains over long-term strategic caution. Pakistan’s military establishment understands this weakness perfectly. It knows how to package itself as “indispensable” during moments of crisis — whether in Afghanistan yesterday or Iran today.
The lure may now be economic promises, strategic geography, or even the exaggerated talk of mineral access and regional leverage. But history repeatedly shows that Pakistan’s establishment plays multiple sides simultaneously, extracting benefits from each camp while remaining loyal only to its own survival.
India has understood this reality far more clearly than many Western capitals. For decades, New Delhi has consistently warned the world that terrorism cannot coexist with selective diplomacy. One cannot condemn extremism in public while empowering states accused of nurturing radical networks in private.
India’s recent counterterror operations after the Pahalgam killings — referred to in political circles as “Operation Sindhoor 1.0” — reflected a tougher strategic doctrine: terror sanctuaries cannot be allowed immunity merely because they hide behind geopolitical convenience. Several terror infrastructure networks were reportedly dismantled, sending a message that patience with proxy warfare has limits.
That is why many strategic observers find Washington’s continued flirtation with Islamabad deeply puzzling. The United States repeatedly describes India as a trusted democratic ally. Trump himself has publicly praised his rapport with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Yet America still appears willing to entertain Pakistan’s military establishment whenever short-term regional compulsions arise.
Worse, sections of the international establishment continue legitimizing figures like Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir despite growing concerns over Pakistan’s internal instability, extremist ecosystem, and military overreach. Dressing up generals with titles and ceremonial prestige does not transform a troubled state into a trustworthy partner
The uncomfortable truth is this: Pakistan’s ruling establishment has mastered the art of strategic blackmail. It projects itself as too dangerous to ignore and too useful to abandon. Successive American administrations have repeatedly convinced themselves that they can “manage” Pakistan. Almost every time, they have ended up discovering that Pakistan was managing them instead.
The world may continue debating geopolitics, mediation, and regional balances. But one fact has survived every decade unchanged — trusting Pakistan without caution has historically come at a heavy price.
