PAKISTAN’S DOUBLE GAME: MEDIATOR BY WORDS, SUSPECT BY RECORD

Pakistan: The Epicentre of Terrorism and the Crisis of Regional Trust

The recent remarks by Ebrahim Rezaei, a member of Iran’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, have once again raised serious questions about Pakistan’s credibility, regional conduct and long-standing association with militant networks. His criticism of Islamabad’s position during the Iran conflict highlights a broader concern: whether a country facing persistent allegations over its handling of terrorist organisations can convincingly present itself as a neutral force for peace.

Pakistan’s image as a regional mediator is undermined by decades of controversy surrounding militant groups operating from its territory. Successive international assessments have documented the presence of organisations targeting India, Afghanistan and other countries. The United States’ 2019 Country Report on Terrorism, for example, identified Pakistan as a safe haven for certain regionally focused terrorist groups and criticised its failure to decisively dismantle their operational capabilities. Such findings have contributed to persistent international concerns about Islamabad’s counterterrorism commitments.

A History of Militant Networks

Pakistan’s association with terrorism cannot be understood solely through its diplomatic statements. Groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed have been linked to major terrorist attacks, including the 2008 Mumbai attacks and violence in Jammu and Kashmir. Their continued prominence in regional security debates raises questions about the effectiveness and consistency of Pakistan’s counterterrorism policies. International observers have also raised concerns about alleged historical connections between militant organisations and elements of Pakistan’s security establishment, allegations that Islamabad has disputed.

The consequences extend far beyond India. Pakistan itself has suffered devastating terrorist violence, with groups such as the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and Islamic State-Khorasan targeting civilians, security personnel and public institutions. This painful reality demonstrates that militancy cannot be controlled indefinitely as an instrument of strategic influence. Networks tolerated for geopolitical purposes can eventually turn against the state that once sought to manage them.

Can Pakistan Be a Neutral Mediator?

Rezaei’s criticism of Pakistan’s mediation role in the Iran conflict reflects a fundamental principle of diplomacy: credibility depends on trust, consistency and impartiality. A mediator must convince conflicting parties that its actions are guided by a genuine commitment to peace rather than strategic convenience.

Pakistan maintains important relationships with Washington, Tehran, Riyadh and other regional capitals. These connections can provide valuable diplomatic channels. However, its defence partnerships, regional rivalries and security controversies inevitably invite scrutiny when Islamabad attempts to broker negotiations between adversaries.

Pakistan’s involvement in diplomatic initiatives does not automatically make it an unfit mediator. Nevertheless, its credibility depends on whether it can demonstrate transparency, respect the interests of all parties and avoid using diplomacy primarily to improve its international standing.

The Regional Cost of Terrorism

The continued presence of militant networks has imposed enormous human and economic costs across South Asia. Terrorist violence damages public confidence, disrupts investment, deepens hostility between neighbouring countries and creates opportunities for further escalation. For India, attacks attributed to Pakistan-based organisations remain a central security concern. For Afghanistan, cross-border militancy has contributed to continuing tensions. For Pakistan, domestic terrorism threatens stability and the lives of its own citizens.

Calling Pakistan the “epicentre of terrorism” is therefore a powerful political description, but it should be assessed against verifiable evidence rather than treated as an uncontested legal designation. The central issue is whether authorities consistently dismantle terrorist infrastructure, prosecute those responsible and prevent militant groups from operating across borders.

Conclusion

Pakistan cannot secure lasting regional influence through diplomatic messaging alone. If Islamabad wants the international community to recognise it as a credible peacemaker, it must demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to eliminating terrorism in all its forms, without distinctions based on strategic usefulness.