Pakistan has a strange talent: when the world starts to take it a little too seriously, it produces an “excuse me” moment so startling that the script writes itself. A week later, it presents itself as a serious mediator between the United States and Iran. The next day, a US senator publicly questioned whether Iran had quietly grounded Iranian military aircraft at its air bases.
The latest incident may not surprise many, because Pakistan’s strategic doctrine often resembles that friend who lies vehemently, and then surveillance cameras discover that he still insists that everyone is misunderstanding the situation. Whether it is harboring terrorists, denying military ties, or claiming neutrality while taking sides, Islamabad has mastered the art of rhetoric. “Nothing happened here” Even though satellite images and foreign intelligence suggest otherwise.This is the reason behind US Senator Lindsey Graham’s frank statement on Tuesday – “I don’t trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them” -It was something waiting to happen.
The immediate cause was the recent report that Iranian military aircraft, including reconnaissance aircraft, were allowed to take shelter at Pakistan’s Noor Khan Air Base during the ongoing standoff between the United States and Iran. But the logic was simple: for many capitals, from New Delhi to Washington, Pakistan’s credibility came with a permanent asterisk: tread carefully, with history attached.
Iranian aircraft at the Pakistani air base
The controversy erupted after a CBS News report claimed that Iranian military aircraft used Pakistani facilities, including Noor Khan Air Base, during the ceasefire phase of the US-Iran conflict. The proposal was explosive: A country that presents itself as a neutral mediator in peace talks may have been quietly helping Tehran protect strategic assets from potential US strikes.Pakistan denied this, of course. The State Department said the planes and personnel were only related to the diplomatic logistics of the plane “Islamabad speaks”and back-channel negotiations hosted by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Commander Asim Munir. It’s called the military corner “Misleading and exciting”.This scrutiny has intensified because Asim Munir is not an ordinary military commander in the current situation. His recent rise in Pakistan’s power structure, with the military increasingly superior to civilian power under Shahbaz Sharif, has reinforced the view that foreign policy, security decisions, and even crisis diplomacy, are directed through the military rather than the elected government.
But the trust deficit is so deep that Islamabad’s denial is no longer enough. According to CNN, US officials are increasingly skeptical that Pakistani mediators are softening Iran’s position, and are reporting more “Upbeat” The image of the Trump administration is more than what Tehran is actually offering. According to CNN sources, many Trump officials now believe that Pakistani mediators were not forceful enough in conveying Trump’s frustration to Iranian negotiators.In other words, Pakistan is accused of not only facilitating diplomacy, but also managing perceptions to buy time for Iran.
The claim “there are no terrorists” collapsed within days
For India, the most recent example came during Operation Sindoor. After India struck the terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir following the terror attack in Pahalgam, Islamabad’s official response was immediate and categorical: there were no terrorist camps, no terrorist leaders, and India targeted civilians.Then came the funeral videos. Members of the Pakistani military, including uniformed officers, were seen attending funerals of terror activists linked to banned groups.
For India, it was the perfect demonstration of a familiar contradiction: harboring terrorists but denying the existence of such an ecosystem.
Abbottabad template
Long before Operation Sindor or the dispute over Iranian aircraft, there was the event that shaped American suspicions for a generation: Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad.For years, Pakistan has insisted that the Al Qaeda leader is nowhere to be found on its soil. However, in 2011, US Marines found him living in a large compound a short distance from the Pakistan Military Academy.
The Americans did not inform Pakistan before the raid, fearing that someone within the establishment would inform him.This remains perhaps the most famous “regret” in intelligence history. Either Pakistan did not know that the world’s most wanted terrorist was living next to one of its leading military institutions, or it knew and concealed it.
Neither explanation inspires confidence.
The double game as a doctrine
Further complicating the double game is Pakistan’s three-front security crisis, which represents a kind of internal “triple problem” that the Pakistani military has struggled to contain. On the one hand there is the Afghan Taliban regime, whose return to power did not translate into strategic calm in Islamabad; On the other hand, there is the Pakistani Taliban, which has intensified its attacks inside Pakistan and in the southwest, and the long-running Baloch insurgency continues to challenge state control.
With crises pressing from all three directions, the Pakistani establishment is trying to manage external influence while working to fight fires at home.This recurring pattern has led many analysts to say that Pakistan “Double game” It is not accidental but structural. It has long used non-state actors, strategic ambiguity, and carefully considered deniability as tools of statecraft.During the war launched by the United States in Afghanistan, Pakistan was designated as a major non-NATO ally, while at the same time it was accused of allowing the Taliban leadership and the Haqqani network to operate from its territory. American aid flowed. Rebel sanctuaries allegedly remained in place. By the time Kabul fell in 2021, the strategic community in Washington had largely accepted that Pakistan played the role of patron and ally.It seems that the same scenario will be repeated in 2026.Pakistan wants to be seen as indispensable to Washington, while also retaining influence with Tehran, Beijing, the Gulf states, and domestic constituencies. You try to be everyone’s channel and no one’s enemy. But Islamabad’s actions often create the opposite impression: they speak to different realities for different capitals.
Pakistan likes to describe itself as a bridge between the Islamic world and the West, between rivals, between war and diplomacy. But palpation He will not succeed unless both parties trust his ability to withstand.Today, this trust is clearly eroding. In Washington, parts of the Trump administration are said to be considering whether Pakistan should remain central to the US-Iranian channel. Internal instability in Pakistan has deepened mistrust. Imran Khan’s dismissal and imprisonment after his disagreements with the military establishment sharpened the perception that real power in Islamabad still rests not in the hands of elected leaders but in the hands of Rawalpindi’s generals.
For outside powers, this means that any diplomatic assurance from Pakistan comes with an obvious question: Who really speaks for the country?
Bonus: “oops” moments that became a global meme
Some of Pakistan’s credibility crises are geopolitical. Others commit such self-inflicted acts that they escape diplomacy altogether and enter meme culture. In recent years, Islamabad’s global image has been damaged not only by accusations of double-dealing, but also by a series of communications blunders that quickly became widespread.The most recent came in April 2026, when Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif briefly posted what appeared to be a draft of an unedited message on X while commenting on the US-Iran ceasefire. The post, which was shared widely online, is said to have that label “Draft – Message of the Prime Minister of Pakistan on X” before it was edited, sparking speculation that Islamabad had mistakenly published an internal transcript during a sensitive diplomatic moment.
Returning to September 2017, we find that Pakistan suffered one of its most prominent diplomatic setbacks at the United Nations. Its envoy, Maleeha Lodhi, uploaded a photo as evidence of alleged Indian atrocities in Kashmir. The photo was quickly identified as that of a Palestinian girl injured in Gaza in 2014, turning Pakistan’s response into an international embarrassment.
For Pakistan, the real problem no longer lies with any single claim, whether related to Iranian aircraft, terrorist safe havens, or mixed diplomatic messages. Indeed, decades of strategic ambiguity have created a credibility trap, and every denial now arrives with disbelief, and every crisis threatens to become another global “sorry” moment.
