Eve, here. This Reuters finding, further unpacked by Andrew Korybko, makes sense for the supposedly neutral Pakistani mediator’s pro-U.S. stance, but we have been telling our readers that reports from Pakistani sources on the status of negotiations cannot be trusted. Pakistani officials, in particular, have at least twice backed the US market-pleasing claim that a deal is near in public statements in their own names. I’m sorry I haven’t looked into it, but one of them was when the US offered conditions (or modified conditions?) and President Trump said Iran would respond within 24 hours, which was supposed to be Saturday. Pakistan agreed: “Yes, Iran intends to respond within 24 hours.” Iran said it was unlikely to respond within 24 hours. I remember their response was Monday.
Similarly, recall rumors from anonymous Pakistani sources that Iran is considering obtaining nuclear weapons from a third party and detonating them for demonstration purposes. I felt that this argument was very pro-Israel, as it supports the Iran “nuclear” storyline, as Hegseth said. [weapons] For some, friendly Iranian experts, from Alastair Crook to John Mearsheimer to Mohammed Marandi, were deeply skeptical of the report.
Now we see that Trump has offered Saudi Arabia a peaceful nuclear deal. Whether it’s the whispers mentioned above or the assessment by many experts, especially a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, that Iran would be wise to develop a nuclear weapon in light of U.S. and Israeli aggression, the idea that Iran may be moving closer to acquiring a nuclear bomb may have given impetus to the ongoing deal.
But President Trump just killed the deal by tying it to the Abrams deal plan. From Al Jazeera:
US President Donald Trump said the civil nuclear cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia is “fully compliant” with Saudi Arabia normalizing relations with Israel as part of the Abrams agreement.
President Trump’s statement on Thursday, a day after announcing the deal, adds to the confusion surrounding the deal, which is already opaque and details have not yet been made public.
In a post on his Truth social account, President Trump wrote that the deal “will be approved, but entirely conditional on Saudi Arabia joining the highly respected and successful Abraham Accords.”
Saudi Arabia did not immediately respond to the claims. Accepting normalization of relations with Israel under the deal would be a major turning point for Riyadh, which has long opposed such a prospect.
President Trump’s statement came a day after the U.S. Department of Energy announced that Washington and Riyadh signed a “peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement for a multi-decade, multibillion-dollar partnership” and a “bilateral safeguards agreement” related to the launch of a civilian nuclear program.
The agreement requires approval from the U.S. Congress.
Comments on Coribco included readers who argued that Pakistan is too close to China to side with the US in this way. Nakayama’s representative opposition debate
China is losing influence in Pakistan, with CPEC efforts and the Gwadar port project slowing to a near halt. In addition to local resistance for a variety of reasons, China’s economy has been in a slump for at least two years. Therefore, China cannot provide any more free spoils to Pakistan’s power elite. The performance of China’s weapons and radars was not sufficiently evaluated during the short-term conflict with Pakistan. I heard that Pakistan has started inquiring Russia, not China, about purchasing weapons. Pakistan’s leadership clearly wants to play Erdogan’s game on three sides, but they are none the wiser.
Andrew Korybko is a Moscow-based American political analyst specializing in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the new Cold War. He holds a doctorate from MGIMO, which is affiliated with the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Originally published on his website
Reuters reported that “Pakistan is seeking $10 billion in funds from the United States after mediating negotiations with Iran,” claiming that the mediation services between the United States and Iran are nothing but a relief measure. Up until this point, Pakistan and its media outlets had touted the aforementioned services as evidence of the country’s geostrategic importance, even claiming that they ushered in an era of global significance for Pakistan. It is now clear that these stories were a combination of wishful thinking and propaganda.
Pakistan’s position is certainly strategic as it has the potential to function as a “zipper of pan-Eurasian integration,” but this potential function is not facilitated by mediation between the United States and Iran, nor is the way in which it has been conceived as a catalyst for regional multipolar processes aligned with US interests. The only integrationist role the United States wants Pakistan to play is to expand Western influence in the region, including facilitating the flow of arms and terrorists into Afghanistan at the expense of Russia.
The country’s pro-American de facto military dictatorship, installed after the post-modern April 2022 coup against former multipolar Prime Minister Imran Khan, is willing to comply, especially since the interests of both countries now align with those of the United States in Afghanistan. President Trump has discussed returning U.S. troops to Bagram Air Base, but the Taliban, who have been unofficially at war with Pakistan for nearly six months, have already rejected the move, citing destabilizing interests in the pro-U.S. de facto military dictatorship.
Having explained the half-truths associated with the above story about Pakistan’s geopolitical importance, it is now time to discuss the mercantilist mindset of its leaders. The Intercept reported in 2023 that Pakistan secretly agreed to supply arms to Ukraine in exchange for a $6 billion bailout from the IMF, just as Western military-industrial complexes were just beginning to ramp up production. Therefore, precedent exists that makes direct relief diplomatically advantageous for the United States.
It describes how a Pakistan-brokered memorandum of understanding would gradually bring Iran back into the US-led Western order within certain limits, and while a $10 billion bailout from the US to Pakistan would probably have been enough, a resumption of hostilities could cause the US to reconsider this quid pro quo. In that case, Pakistan would have to either bring Iran back to the table, join hostilities on the US side (after all, Iran is a “major non-NATO ally” and has a mutual defense agreement with Saudi Arabia), or show another favor.
Expanding on that last point would very likely include facilitating the flow of further arms and terrorists into Afghanistan, which could destabilize Central Asia and cause problems for Russia. With a pro-American de facto military dictatorship returning Pakistan to its historic role as America’s regional proxy, there is no doubt that Pakistan will respond if asked. Therefore, it is inconceivable that they would refuse US requests regarding Russia. Pakistan is also in desperate need of new relief.
Therefore, Iran and Russia should be on guard as Pakistan is expected to show another favor to its US patrons in the near future, either at the expense of disguising selfless diplomatic efforts for regional peace or denying the Kremlin’s accusations of supporting ISIS-K in Afghanistan. The bottom line is that today Pakistan is once again America’s regional proxy and should not be trusted by multipolar leaders like Iran and Russia. The pro-American de facto military dictatorship will always do its bidding.
