Every conflict presents an opportunity, at least from China’s perspective. As Beijing faces scrutiny for not openly backing its strategic partner Iran, Chinese media and social media have spotlighted Pakistan’s offer to mediate in the US–Israel-Iran conflict.
Islamabad is serving as a convenient proxy through which it can project influence without direct involvement. Chinese commentary and online chatter are now actively amplifying the narrative that Pakistan is one of the few countries trusted by both Washington and Tehran, with backing from major regional powers. On Weibo, the hashtag ‘China responds to Pakistan’s willingness to mediate between the US and Iran’ has amassed millions of views.
Pakistan as a credible mediator
Chinese commentary highlights several reasons Pakistan is being viewed as a credible intermediary. Writing in Guangming Daily, reporter Yang Runfu noted that while direct US-Iran engagement remains uncertain, Pakistan—supported by countries such as Egypt and Turkey—has emerged as an important conduit.
A key element of the emerging Chinese narrative is Pakistan’s perceived access and neutrality. It also places Islamabad within a broader alignment with Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—a loose configuration combining military capabilities, nuclear deterrence, and Gulf financial resources.
Central to this discourse is Pakistan’s perceived ability to keep communication channels open across divides. Chinese media note that, just before the outbreak of hostilities, Pakistan’s leadership, including Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, traveled to Iran to meet senior officials.
Since tensions escalated, Chinese commentary has portrayed Pakistan as maintaining a balanced and communicative posture, positioning it as capable of facilitating dialogue not only between the US and Iran but potentially involving Israel as well. Analysts frame this role as the product of geography, historical ties, and accumulated trust: Pakistan’s long border with Iran creates enduring interdependence, while decades of counterterrorism cooperation with the US have built institutional familiarity.
One Chinese commentator summarised Pakistan’s mediating role in three dimensions:
- Access: Pakistan maintains functional channels with both Washington and Tehran.
- Relative neutrality: Free of US bases and not seen as tightly aligned with Washington like some Gulf states, Pakistan eases Iranian concerns. Its nuclear status adds a layer of deterrence and autonomy.
- Self-interest: A US-Iran conflict, especially disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, is threatening Pakistan’s energy supplies, driving up oil prices, and straining its economy. From this perspective, mediation has now become a strategic necessity.
A Weibo post categorised Pakistan’s close ties with Washington as the basis. According to one user, the two countries have maintained close military and political cooperation for decades, and the current administration has a good personal relationship with US President Donald Trump.
Some commentators even frame Pakistan as an “active stabiliser”. Liu Zongyi, director of the Center for South Asia Studies, the Shanghai Institute of International Relations, notes that Pakistan condemns US and Israeli actions against Iran while avoiding offending Washington, and its ties with Israel remain weak.
As the only Muslim-majority nuclear-armed state, it is seen by many Muslim countries as a potential counterbalance to Israel, adding pressure. Pakistan also faces Saudi demands to defend or counter Iran, but resists aligning openly with the US and Israel, preferring a mediating role.
Iran, meanwhile, he argued, may favour Pakistan amid strained Arab ties and low trust in negotiations. In his view, Pakistan has emerged as a “greatest common divisor” acceptable to the Gulf states, Iran, and the US, though Turkey and others could also play a role.
Also read: India’s goal of isolating Pakistan is facing a setback
Overstated role?
China’s support for Pakistan’s mediation serves a strategic purpose. By spotlighting Islamabad, Beijing lends it international legitimacy while keeping itself removed from direct involvement. Chinese commentary contrasts Pakistan with India, which is largely absent from this space due to its perceived alignment with Israel.
Some analysts argue that Islamabad’s involvement in peace talks has made New Delhi uneasy. A successful ceasefire facilitated by Pakistan could enhance its international standing and undermine India’s regional strategy.
Ding Long, professor at the Institute of Middle East Studies at Shanghai International Studies University, suggests that while both the US and Iran should be willing to negotiate, and mediators such as Pakistan, Turkey, and Egypt exist, any talks are likely to be extremely difficult. Other observers describe Pakistan’s shift from the “periphery” to the “centre” of regional diplomacy as remarkable.
Even so, a Chinese commentator cautions that discussion around Pakistan’s role may be exaggerated. Its earlier success in facilitating US-China rapprochement in the 1970s owed largely to political will in Washington and Beijing, where Pakistani diplomacy had a little role to play.
Today, those conditions are absent. Deep mistrust, limited US appetite for concessions, and Iran’s fear of escalation constrain meaningful progress. Signals from the US and Israel about persistent use of force reinforce Tehran’s scepticism. Unlike the discreet, trust-based diplomacy of the past, current engagement appears more public and performative, where the US projects strength, Iran signals defiance, and Pakistan asserts relevance.
While several Chinese observers emphasise Pakistan’s neutrality and access as rationales for it to be a successful mediator, its actual leverage is limited. It can provide a venue and maintain channels with multiple parties at best, but it lacks the strategic and economic weight to shape outcomes in a US-Iran confrontation. Much of its “stabilising” role is symbolic, contingent on the willingness of the US, Iran, and Israel to engage.
The Chinese narrative may amplify Pakistan’s importance but it cannot overlook the structural constraints that limit its real impact.
Sana Hashmi, PhD, is a fellow at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation. She tweets @sanahashmi1. Views are personal.
(Edited by Ratan Priya)