Did Pakistan’s Mediation with Iran Serve China’s Interests over America’s?
President Donald Trump repeatedly relies on Pakistan to mediate disputes with Iran, but is Pakistan an honest broker in the Middle East? Or, does Pakistani mediation advance China’s interests over that of the United States? According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), China supplies more than 80 percent of Pakistan’s military equipment, underscoring Pakistan’s structural dependence on Beijing. The two countries also share extensive defense, intelligence, security, and technological ties.
China has positioned Pakistan as the principal intermediary while shaping the broader diplomatic agenda in the background.
This dynamic was evident during the April 2026 U.S.-Iran ceasefire, when China played a behind-the-scenes role while allowing Pakistan to remain the visible diplomatic interlocutor. The pattern continues. Beijing has encouraged Pakistan’s mediation efforts through high-level engagements in Beijing and Shanghai and by promoting initiatives such as the joint five-point regional peace framework. Recently, Foreign Minister Wang Yi also urged Pakistan to intensify its diplomatic mediation. China has positioned Pakistan as the principal intermediary while shaping the broader diplomatic agenda in the background. This also explains why Beijing has shown little concern over Pakistan’s outreach to Trump or Trump’s praise for Field Marshal Asim Munir: Pakistan’s diplomacy ultimately advances Chinese strategic interests.
Several reports reinforce these concerns. China reportedly will supply 300–400 shoulder-fired QW-12 and FN-16 Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems (MANPADS) to Iran via Pakistan in the coming weeks in a deal worth $60–70 million, a move that would boost Iran’s air-defense capabilities and undermine Pakistan’s claimed neutrality. Munir also reportedly has reached a business arrangement with Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps chief Ahmad Vahidi regarding the transportation of Iranian oil through Pakistan under a joint transport venture. Other reporting suggests that this arrangement helped prevent Iranian attacks on Saudi Arabia, with Munir allegedly telling Vahidi that if Iran attacked Saudi Arabia, Pakistan would terminate the deal. This suggests that Pakistan’s mediation efforts were not impartial and did not accurately convey Iran’s actual position to Washington.
During the war, many reports suggested that Pakistan was acting as a transit point for fuel and other delivery to Iran via a Balochistan border crossing. China also reportedly delivered critical weaponry and electronic countermeasures from China, utilizing the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor’s Karakoram Highway and Gwadar Port to bypass U.S. naval blockades.
To please Beijing, Pakistan mandated a digital transition, ordering its civilian and defense personnel to shift all official communication to the Chinese platform WeChat while banning the use of WhatsApp on official devices, claiming that the Western app was subject to hostile intelligence surveillance.
As U.S. defense expert and Institute for the Study of War Chairman Jack Keane recently stated, Pakistan is a “compromised” intermediary because it historically favors Tehran over Washington.
Nor did Pakistan help only Iran. To fulfill its defense commitments under its strategic mutual defense pact with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan supplied Chinese JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft, HQ-9 air defense systems, and other Chinese military equipment to Riyadh, effectively serving as China’s delivery agent in the region and promoting Chinese defense platforms. In doing so, Pakistan reinforced its role as China’s strategic partner and regional conduit, advancing Beijing’s long-term strategic influence by integrating Gulf Arab states more deeply into China’s defense supply chains, maintenance networks, and engineering ecosystems, thereby laying the groundwork for enduring Chinese dependencies in the region.
Concerns about Pakistan’s neutrality are becoming increasingly visible within the United States. During recent remarks on regional diplomacy, Trump omitted Pakistan when discussing ongoing mediation efforts, instead highlighting Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar as key partners. In contrast, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei endorsed Islamabad’s mediation efforts, while Parliament Speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf stated that negotiations continue through Pakistan. As U.S. defense expert and Institute for the Study of War Chairman Jack Keane recently stated, Pakistan is a “compromised” intermediary because it historically favors Tehran over Washington.
The question for Trump is—after Pakistan’s support for the Taliban, its safe-haven for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, and now its efforts to help China during the Iran conflict—how much evidence does Washington need before determining Pakistan is not an ally, let alone a Major Non-NATO ally?