Ameer Abdullah
In academic and diplomatic circles, India is usually perceived as the master of strategic autonomy, capable of walking the tightrope between opposing camps. In contrast, Pakistan is often viewed as a state forced into binary choices by economic or security limitations. However, the current conflagration in the Middle East has turned this perception on its head.
Islamabad is a signatory to the Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) with Saudi Arabia, while it shares a sensitive border with a beleaguered Iran. However, Pakistan took a proactive approach during the crisis. First, Pakistan became the only Muslim country to condemn the attack on Iran and unequivocally called it a violation of international law. Second, the Pakistani leadership drew a clear red line regarding Saudi security. This signalled that while Pakistan sympathises with Iran’s plight, any spillover into the Kingdom would worsen the crisis.
Moreover, Pakistan immediately contacted all the Arab states affected by the crisis to show diplomatic support. Lastly, Pakistan resorted to mediation and acted as a bridge of assurances. It successfully extracted a promise from the Gulf monarchies that their soil would not be used for offensive strikes against Iran. In return, it also persuaded Tehran to limit its retaliatory strikes on Arab neighbours. This smart balancing allowed Pakistan to protect its primary financial backer without turning its neighbour into a permanent kinetic foe.
In contrast, India’s recent actions suggest a departure from strategic autonomy toward a “Special Strategic Partnership” with Israel. Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Israel occurred just 48 hours before the bombardment of Iran began. This visit was heavy on symbolism, with poor optics conveyed. Mr. Modi secured agreements on critical technology, defence equipment, and Indian labour at the cost of remaining conspicuously silent on the Gaza genocide and the impending strikes on Iran. It was an indication that India has abandoned its traditional policy of balancing, thereby reducing Indian influence.
The most visceral outcome of this was witnessed on the fifth day of the war. The Iranian frigate IRIS Dena, which had just departed the Indian port of Visakhapatnam, was torpedoed by a US submarine. This was a direct blow to Indian prestige. The sinking of a guest vessel in India’s maritime backyard shortly after participating in the MILAN 2026 naval exercise is a haunting metaphor for the current state of New Delhi’s influence.
The question arises as to how Pakistan managed to balance while India stumbled. The answer lies in the nature of their commitments.
Pakistan has formalised its relationship with Saudi Arabia, creating a transparent framework that Tehran understands. The SMDA’s non-threatening outlook towards Iran previously made it an aspirant to join the pact, as indicated by President Masoud Pezeshkian. Similarly, Pakistan’s efforts for mediation are seen as credible. The long-term fallout will likely see Pakistan emerging as a more reliable regional mediator and partner. If Islamabad can prevent further breakdown of Iran-Saudi relations, it secures its western border and its eastern financial lifeline.
Alternatively, India opted for a policy of de-hyphenation, which collapsed under the weight of active war. When bombs start falling, many realities are revealed. This saga has exposed that one cannot have the best of both worlds by continuing to be a “special partner” to the aggressor while claiming to be a “civilisational ally” to the victim. Furthermore, India’s domestic shift toward a more ideological, pro-Israel stance has narrowed the space for the pragmatic hedging that once characterised the Nehruvian or even the Vajpayee eras.
This perceived tilt has had immediate, devastating consequences for India’s regional stature. Despite investing heavily in the Chabahar Port to bypass Pakistan and reach Central Asia, India’s inability to protect its diplomatic and economic partners, or even to issue a condemnation of the strike, reveals a hollowed-out strategic independence. By failing to call out the breach of maritime norms, India has signalled that its policy is now subordinate to the priorities of the US-Israel camp.
For India, the risks are paramount. The Chabahar project is now a stranded asset in a war zone. India’s aspirations to lead the developing world have also been dented. This is because most of the Global South views the US-Israel actions, which India has tacitly supported, as a violation of international law. India’s refusal to speak up has alienated it from the very collective it seeks to lead. Pakistan, though still not fully out of danger owing to its economic imperative, has trodden the war zone with diplomatic finesse. In the words of a former Indian diplomat, while India has been striving to become a net security provider in the region, Pakistan has emerged as a net stability provider. The Tehran tightrope has shown that in the high-stakes game of Middle Eastern geopolitics, a smart, principled balance remains the ultimate currency of survival and relevance.
