In the volatile geography of the Middle East, the interplay of history, ideology, and shifting strategic interests continues to shape a complex theatre of diplomacy and confrontation. The rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran, deeply rooted in sectarian identity and regional ambitions, has come to define the contours of Middle Eastern politics. This tension, which oscillates between diplomatic overtures and strategic hostilities, now demands renewed attention as recent developments expose the fragility of even the most tentative reconciliations. Within this intricate landscape, Pakistan emerges as a potential interlocutor, positioned by its historical, religious, and geopolitical linkages with both nations to facilitate a meaningful easing of tensions.
Follow CPF WhatsApp Channel for Daily Exam Updates
Cssprepforum, led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, supports 70,000+ monthly aspirants with premium CSS/PMS prep. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for daily CSS/PMS updates, solved past papers, expert articles, and free prep resources.
The Middle East's importance lies not only in its abundance of oil and natural gas but also in its geographical placement, acting as a connective corridor between Asia, Africa, and Europe. However, this prized location has not translated into peace or prosperity for all. It has instead become a site of contest among major global powers and a battleground for rival ideologies. Within this milieu, Saudi Arabia, as the guardian of Sunni Islam and custodian of Islam's holiest sites, finds itself in perpetual tension with Iran, the ideological bastion of Shi’ism. The rivalry is not merely religious, it is also political, strategic, and deeply symbolic. In this adversarial space, fault lines have widened through conflicts that span Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, with both states backing opposing factions in these crises.
A pivotal moment in this hostile relationship unfolded in 2016, when the execution of Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr by Saudi authorities triggered a wave of fury across Shia communities. Sheikh Nimr was a vocal critic of the Saudi monarchy and a prominent Shia cleric. His death provoked attacks on Saudi diplomatic missions in Iran, leading Riyadh to sever diplomatic ties with Tehran. The symbolic rupture extended far beyond mere protocol, marking a descent into deeper distrust. This episode underscored how quickly tensions could escalate and how easily diplomacy could be derailed by actions interpreted through sectarian lenses.
Following that rupture, the proxy war in Yemen became a focal point of rivalry. Here, Iran-backed Houthi rebels challenged the Saudi-supported Yemeni government. Saudi Arabia, viewing Iranian influence in Yemen as a strategic encirclement from the south, responded with military intervention in 2015. What followed was a protracted humanitarian disaster and an intractable military conflict that neither side could decisively win. Yemen became the latest canvas on which Riyadh and Tehran projected their fears and ambitions, further entrenching mutual hostility.
Simultaneously, the Syrian conflict illustrated another axis of divergence. Iran’s unwavering support for the Assad regime, providing manpower, military expertise, and financial backing, was instrumental in the Syrian government's survival. For Tehran, Syria was a keystone in the so-called "Shia crescent" stretching from Iran to Lebanon. In contrast, Saudi Arabia bankrolled and supported various opposition factions, viewing the fall of Assad as a strategic opportunity to curb Iranian ascendancy in the Levant. These opposing agendas transformed Syria into a theatre of proxy war, indirectly pitting Iranian Revolutionary Guards against Saudi-backed groups in one of the bloodiest chapters of the region’s modern history.
Moreover, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) further complicated the rivalry. While the agreement promised to limit Iran’s nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief, Saudi Arabia viewed it with deep skepticism. For Riyadh, the deal emboldened Tehran by restoring its economic strength and regional influence. Billions in unfrozen assets and renewed oil exports enabled Iran to reinvest in its regional allies and proxies, amplifying Saudi fears of encirclement and diminishing trust in Western security guarantees, particularly those from Washington. Hence, what was marketed globally as a pathway to peace was interpreted in Riyadh as an invitation for Iranian expansionism.
Against this turbulent backdrop, Pakistan’s role is not only desirable, it may prove essential. Historically, Pakistan has maintained cordial, if occasionally complicated, ties with both Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is a country where both Sunni and Shia populations coexist, often uneasily but with a level of equilibrium rare in the region. Pakistan has repeatedly affirmed its commitment to neutrality in Middle Eastern disputes, most notably when its Parliament voted against joining the Saudi-led war in Yemen, despite considerable pressure. This delicate balancing act has preserved Pakistan’s credibility as an honest broker, a rare attribute in a polarized region.
Pakistan can start by facilitating structured bilateral talks between Riyadh and Tehran. Unlike other external actors driven by vested interests, Pakistan has no imperial legacy or overt economic agenda in the Gulf, allowing it to approach mediation with relatively clean hands. Structured diplomacy, focused on shared security concerns such as terrorism, trade cooperation, and border stability, could plant the seeds of dialogue even amid deep-rooted mistrust. Pakistan’s diplomatic channels are open and active in both capitals, giving it the operational access needed to shuttle messages, de-escalate misunderstandings, and propose incremental steps toward reconciliation.
Furthermore, Pakistan could leverage the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to form a regional peace task force, one aimed not at enforcing political settlements but at humanitarian coordination and ceasefire monitoring in conflict zones like Yemen or Syria. With the consent of both Iran and Saudi Arabia, such a force, comprising neutral Muslim countries, could act as a buffer in flashpoints of sectarian violence. Pakistan’s military experience in UN peacekeeping missions lends institutional credibility to such a proposal.
Moreover, religious diplomacy must not be underestimated. Given its robust network of Sunni and Shia scholars and a population that has grappled with internal sectarianism, Pakistan could host interfaith conferences and scholarly dialogue platforms involving clerics from both countries. Unlike state-level negotiations, religious dialogue can bridge emotional and ideological divides, offering a softer but equally vital path to de-escalation. The shared cultural and religious traditions that bind the Islamic world can be revitalized to emphasize commonality over division, and Pakistan is uniquely situated to convene this effort.
In addition, confidence-building measures (CBMs) can be proposed through economic and strategic cooperation. Joint infrastructure projects, cultural exchanges, and mutual guarantees on the safety of pilgrims during Hajj and Ziyarat seasons could humanize each side to the other. Agreements on intelligence sharing regarding non-state actors and arms smuggling could also reduce misunderstandings and foster a baseline of trust. These measures may appear modest, but in a region where minor incidents can ignite major conflicts, such trust-building steps matter.
Pakistan’s most significant asset in this process is its strategic neutrality. Its refusal to align unconditionally with either bloc has occasionally caused frustration in Riyadh and unease in Tehran, but in the realm of diplomacy, this ambiguity is an advantage. Neutrality, however, must not equate to inaction. Pakistan must proactively use its credibility to guide both parties toward dialogue. It must also shield itself from becoming entangled in the rivalries it seeks to resolve. Balancing economic dependencies, especially on Saudi investment and remittances, with sovereign foreign policy decisions will be critical if Pakistan is to sustain its role as a mediator.
Nonetheless, challenges remain. Iran’s skepticism of Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia, particularly its military cooperation and past role in Islamic military coalitions, poses credibility issues. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia might perceive any closeness with Iran as a betrayal of strategic alignment. Internally, Pakistan’s own sectarian tensions must be carefully managed, as any perception of favoritism abroad could inflame divisions at home. Moreover, global powers like the United States, China, and Russia are unlikely to remain indifferent to any shift in regional balance, adding layers of complexity to Pakistan’s mediation efforts.
3.5-Month Extensive Compulsory Subjects Course for CSS Aspirants
Struggling with CSS Compulsory subjects? Crack Pakistan Affairs, Islamiat, GSA & Current Affairs in just 3.5 months with Howfiv’s expert-led course. New batches every April, August & December! Secure your spot now – WhatsApp 0300-6322446!
Despite these constraints, the opportunity is real. For Pakistan, reducing tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran is not a favour to either, it is a strategic imperative. Instability in the Gulf impacts Pakistan’s energy security, economic prospects, and diaspora well-being. Conversely, regional peace could unlock trade corridors, attract investment, and cement Pakistan’s status as a responsible actor in global diplomacy.
The Middle East may never achieve perfect harmony, but it can aspire to reduced hostility, fewer proxy wars, and functional diplomatic channels. If Pakistan can contribute even modestly to this vision, the dividends for its regional stature and internal cohesion would be immense. In this delicate moment, mediation is not just possible, it is necessary. And few are better placed to do so than Pakistan.
