Islamabad wants the status of a regional mediator, but its reliance on Arab financial support and inflammatory rhetoric towards Israel raise questions about its diplomatic credibility.
Pakistan is seeking to project itself as a serious diplomatic actor in the Middle East. Yet its economic dependence on Gulf money, combined with inflammatory statements from senior officials, exposes the limits of that ambition.
The immediate financial pressure is clear. Pakistan is due to repay a $3.5 billion loan to the United Arab Emirates this month, a payment Reuters says could strain foreign exchange reserves and risk complications under Islamabad’s $7 billion IMF programme. Pakistan’s reserves stood at about $16.4 billion on March 27, making the UAE repayment a substantial burden.
This is not an isolated problem. Saudi Arabia has repeatedly supported Pakistan’s finances through deposits at the State Bank of Pakistan. Reuters reported that Riyadh extended the term of a $3 billion deposit for another year, underlining Islamabad’s continuing dependence on external support to stabilise its economy.
Pakistan’s government is now exploring further options to manage its reserves, including bonds, commercial borrowing and possible discussions with Saudi Arabia. That is the language of a state trying to keep its financing structure intact, not of one operating from a position of strategic autonomy.
Against this background, Islamabad has tried to place itself at the centre of regional diplomacy, including through efforts connected to recent US-Iran talks. But Pakistan’s claim to be a constructive intermediary has been weakened by Defence Minister Khawaja Asif’s deleted social media post describing Israel as a “curse for humanity” and saying those involved in Israel’s creation should “burn in hell”.
The issue is not whether Pakistan may criticise Israel. States do that routinely. The issue is whether a country seeking a mediating role can afford such language from its defence minister while simultaneously depending on Gulf lenders and international creditors. Diplomacy requires discipline. Pakistan’s leadership instead appears to alternate between financial appeals abroad and performative rhetoric at home.
This contradiction matters. Gulf states may still see Pakistan as useful because of its military weight, its ties across the Muslim world and its channels to Iran. But usefulness is not the same as credibility. A government relying on UAE and Saudi support while issuing incendiary statements on one of the region’s central conflicts risks looking less like a mediator than a financially constrained actor trying to satisfy multiple audiences at once.
Pakistan’s foreign ministry has denied that the UAE repayment is linked to geopolitical tensions. That may be correct. The available reporting does not establish that Gulf lenders are punishing Islamabad over Iran or Israel. But the broader picture remains damaging: Pakistan’s economy remains dependent on outside support, and its political messaging often undermines the diplomatic role it seeks to claim.
For Islamabad, the lesson is plain. A country cannot build regional influence on borrowed money and undisciplined rhetoric. Until Pakistan reduces its external financial vulnerability and imposes restraint on those speaking in its name, its claim to serious Middle East diplomacy will remain open to question.
