Yves here. This finding of Reuters, as explained further by Andrew Korybko makes the position in favor of the United States of the so-called neutral Pakistani mediators reasonable, We told the readers that the reports from Pakistani sources about the status of the negotiations were not reliable. In particular, senior Pakistani officials, in public statements on their behalf, at least backed up US market-pleasing claims that a deal was twice as close. Forgive me for not looking up, but one is when the US presented the terms (or revised terms?) and Trump said that Iran would respond in 24 hours, which would have been Saturday. Pakistan stepped in and said, yes, Iran will respond within 24 hours. Iran said they would definitely not respond in 24 hours. I remember that their response came on Monday.
Similarly, recall rumors from anonymous Pakistani sources that Iran was considering acquiring a nuclear weapon from a third party and detonating it for demonstration purposes. This claim struck me as very pro-Israel, because it would support the argument, as Hegseth put it, that Iran is “nuclear”. [weapons] desires” were still the same.” To a certain extent, Iran-friendly experts, from Alastair Crooke to John Mearsheimer to Mohammed Marandi, were highly skeptical of the report.
Now we see that Trump has offered the Saudis a peaceful nuclear deal. The idea that Iran may be getting close to having a nuclear bomb, whether it is because of whispers like the one above, or the assessment of many experts, especially the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, that it would be wise in view of the aggressiveness of the US and Israel for Iran to build a nuclear weapon, would have given the impetus for this agreement that is now moving forward.
But Trump killed the deal by tying it to his Abrams Accord. Response from Aljazeera:
The President of the United States Donald Trump said that the cooperation agreement between people with Saudi Arabia is completely “subordinate” to the regime of normalizing relations with Israel as part of the Abrams Accords.
Trump’s statement on Thursday, a day after the deal was announced, created confusion about the already murky deal, the full details of which have not been released.
In a post on his Public Truth Account, the US president wrote that the agreement “will be approved, but it is entirely subject to Saudi Arabia joining the highly respected and successful Abraham Accords”.
Saudi Arabia did not immediately respond to the claim. Any acceptance of normal relations with Israel under the accords would represent a major pivot for Riyadh, which has long opposed such a prospect.
Trump’s statement came a day after the US Department of Energy announced that Washington and Riyadh had signed a “decade-long, multibillion-dollar nuclear cooperation agreement” and a “bilateral defense agreement” related to the launch of an illegal nuclear program.
The deal will need to be approved by the US Congress.
Korybko’s comments included scholars arguing that Pakistan is too close to China to engage with the US in this way. Disputing lawyer from Nakayama
China has been losing power in Pakistan and the CPEC project and the port project in Gwadar, have been reduced to a complete halt. In addition to local resistance for various reasons, China’s economy has been in a bad state since at least the last two years. Therefore, China cannot give free booty to the Pakistani power elite. As for the performance of Chinese weapons and radars, they did not receive enough credit during the brief conflict with Pakistan. I heard that Pakistan initiated the arms purchase inquiries from Russia, not from China. It is clear that Pakistan’s leadership wants to play Erdogan’s three-pronged game, but it is not very smart.
By Andrew Korybko, an American political analyst based in Moscow who focuses on the transition of the global system to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Originally published on his website
Reuters reported that “Pakistan is seeking a $10 billion fund from the US after mediating the Iran talks”, presenting its US-Iranian negotiation services as nothing more than a bailout bid. Until now, Pakistan and its media are promoting the aforementioned services as proof of the country’s importance, even claiming to herald the era of its importance to the world. Now those stories are revealed to be a combination of wishful thinking and propaganda.
Although Pakistan’s location is indeed strategic as it may act as a “Zipper for Eurasian Pan-Eurasian Integration”, this potential activity is not developed through mediation between the US and Iran, nor is it the way it was conceived as the cause of multi-regional processes that are in line with US interests. The only consolidating role the US wants Pakistan to play is one that increases Western influence in the region, such as facilitating the flow of weapons and terrorists to Afghanistan, at Russia’s expense.
The country’s pro-US de facto military dictatorship, installed after the April 2022 coup against former multi-national Prime Minister Imran Khan, is more than happy to do so, especially since its interests in Afghanistan are now linked to the US. Trump has talked about returning US troops to Bagram Airbase, but the Taliban, with whom Pakistan has been illegally fighting for half a year, has already refused, making it the interests of the US military dictatorship to de facto destabilize it.
After explaining the incomplete truth related to the previously mentioned narrative about the geostrategic importance of Pakistan, it is now time to discuss the thought of its merchant leadership. The Intercept reported in 2023 that Pakistan secretly agreed to arm Ukraine, back when the Western military complex was just beginning to ramp up production, in exchange for help securing a $6 billion IMF bailout. So there is a precedent for doing the US a diplomatic favor to get a direct bailout.
It was explained here how the MoU with Pakistan will gradually bring Iran back into the Western system led by the US within certain limits, which may be enough for the US to reward Pakistan with a $10 billion bailout, but the resumption of conflicts may lead the US to reconsider this quid pro quo. Pakistan will either have to bring Iran back to the table, join the war on the side of the US (“Non-NATO” after all, and have a defense agreement with Saudi Arabia), or do something else.
Expanding on the last point, that could well add to the flow of more weapons and terrorists into Afghanistan, potentially destabilizing Central Asia and causing problems for Russia. If asked to do so, there is no doubt that Pakistan will comply, as its pro-US military dictatorship has de facto returned its country to its historic role as a representative of the US state. It is impossible that they would reject any American request regarding Russia. Pakistan is also seeking another bailout.
So Iran and Russia should be careful as Pakistan is expected to do another favor to its US sponsors at its expense that it will respectively disguise itself as a regional peacekeeping service or deny any allegations of helping ISIS-K in Afghanistan if the Kremlin ever did. What is important is that today’s Pakistan has once again become a regional proxy for America that cannot be trusted by international leaders like Iran and Russia. Its pro-US de facto military dictatorship will always do its bidding.
