Pakistan as a Middle Power: America’s Strategic Blind Spot

Washington’s South Asia strategy has become increasingly centered on India. Given India’s economic rise, military modernization and growing role in balancing China, that shift is understandable. But a regional strategy built too narrowly around India risks overlooking an uncomfortable geopolitical reality: Pakistan remains one of the few states capable of maintaining working relations simultaneously with China, Iran, the Gulf monarchies and the United States.

That diplomatic access matters more than many policymakers in Washington may currently assume.

Pakistan is unlikely to rival India economically or replace it strategically in American calculations. But the value of states in a fragmented international order is no longer measured only through economic scale or military expenditure. Increasingly, influence also comes from the ability to move between rival blocs, preserve communication channels and operate in geopolitical spaces where formally aligned powers cannot.

That is where Pakistan’s strategic relevance is quietly returning.

Recent tensions involving the United States and Iran illustrated this reality. During a period of heightened regional confrontation, Pakistan reportedly helped facilitate communication between both sides while also engaging Gulf partners and broader regional actors. Whether viewed as formal mediation or quiet diplomatic engagement, the episode highlighted Islamabad’s ability to maintain relationships across deeply polarized geopolitical camps.

Few countries possess that level of diplomatic flexibility simultaneously with Washington, Beijing, Tehran and the Gulf monarchies.

In an international system increasingly defined by overlapping crises and competing blocs, that flexibility may prove strategically valuable.

Why Middle Powers Matter Again
For decades, global influence was largely measured through economic size, military capability and technological superiority. Those factors remain central, but geopolitical fragmentation is elevating another category of states: middle powers capable of manoeuvring between rival camps without becoming fully dependent on any single one.

Political scientist Joseph Nye argued that influence depends not only on coercive capability, but also on diplomatic credibility and the ability to shape outcomes indirectly. Viewed through this broader framework, Pakistan’s recent diplomatic activity reflects an ability to influence regional dynamics beyond what its economic limitations alone would traditionally predict.

Middle powers are not defined by wealth alone. Some derive influence from geography, others from coalition-building, energy access or diplomatic reach. What matters is the ability to shape events beyond what raw national resources would normally allow.

Pakistan increasingly fits that description.
Pakistan’s Geography Still Gives It Strategic Weight

Pakistan occupies one of the world’s most consequential geographic positions. It sits at the intersection of South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East and the Indian Ocean while bordering Iran, Afghanistan, China and India simultaneously.

Few countries combine that geography with functioning relations across mutually adversarial actors.

Islamabad maintains working ties with Washington, Beijing, Tehran and Gulf capitals simultaneously, giving it diplomatic room that many formally aligned states lack. For the United States, this matters as crises across the Middle East, the Red Sea and the Indo-Pacific increasingly overlap.

Washington requires partners capable of preserving communication channels across politically divided regions. Pakistan’s ability to engage Iran and Gulf monarchies while maintaining ties with both China and the United States gives Islamabad strategic relevance extending beyond counterterrorism cooperation alone.

This does not mean Pakistan will replace India in American strategic thinking. Nor does it erase decades of mistrust and policy divergence in U.S.-Pakistan relations. But it does suggest that Washington benefits from viewing Pakistan as more than simply a crisis-management problem.

Ignoring Pakistan’s diplomatic utility risks narrowing America’s regional options at a time when geopolitical flexibility is becoming increasingly important.

Pakistan’s Image Is Gradually Changing

For years, Pakistan was internationally associated primarily with terrorism, instability and economic fragility. Those perceptions have not disappeared, but recent developments have complicated older assumptions.

A recent military confrontation with India raised new questions about assumptions surrounding conventional military asymmetry in South Asia while also reinforcing Pakistan’s reputation as a capable security actor. Islamabad managed the confrontation without triggering broader regional escalation, strengthening perceptions of strategic restraint alongside military credibility.

That matters diplomatically.
Pakistan’s growing engagement with Gulf states increasingly reflects not only labor ties or religious affinity, but also long-standing military cooperation and security coordination. Islamabad is gradually attempting to reposition itself internationally not simply as a security state, but as a strategically connected regional actor capable of balancing diplomacy, deterrence and geopolitical flexibility.

Whether that repositioning succeeds will depend largely on internal stability and economic performance. But the shift in perception is already noticeable.

Multi-Alignment Has Become Pakistan’s Comparative Advantage

Pakistan’s foreign policy increasingly reflects multi-alignment rather than rigid bloc politics. Unlike states tied firmly to one geopolitical camp, Islamabad has maintained functional relations simultaneously with the United States, China, Iran and Gulf monarchies.

For Tehran, Pakistan represents a practical intermediary because both countries maintain relatively stable relations rooted in geography and historical ties despite periodic tensions. For Washington, Pakistan remains useful because decades of military and intelligence cooperation created institutional familiarity and communication channels that continue to matter during regional crises.

This balancing strategy is not without risks. Managing relationships across rival powers requires constant calibration, especially as U.S.-China competition intensifies and Middle Eastern rivalries evolve. Yet in a fragmented geopolitical environment, countries capable of speaking to all sides are becoming increasingly valuable.

That may ultimately become Pakistan’s most important comparative advantage.

Geography Alone Will Not Be Enough
Pakistan’s geography remains one of its greatest long-term strengths. The growing importance of Karachi Port and continued development around Gwadar position the country as a potential connectivity hub linking Asia, the Middle East and Africa. As global trade routes diversify and supply-chain competition intensifies, Pakistan’s location is likely to become even more strategically relevant.

But geography alone cannot sustain middle-power status.

Pakistan’s greatest vulnerabilities remain internal. Political polarization, governance uncertainty and recurring institutional tensions continue to undermine long-term planning and investor confidence. Persistent militancy, particularly linked to instability along the Afghan frontier and insurgency in Balochistan, continues to damage Pakistan’s international image and discourage sustained investment.

For decades, Pakistan has struggled to convert geopolitical importance into durable economic transformation. Strategic relevance repeatedly generated international attention, but rarely produced long-term structural reform.

Without internal stability and economic modernization, Pakistan risks remaining strategically important but structurally constrained.

Washington Should Avoid Viewing South Asia Through a Single Lens

The international system is entering a period where influence will increasingly belong not only to major powers, but also to states capable of operating across geopolitical divides. That reality carries important implications for American strategy.

The United States does not need to choose between India and Pakistan. India will remain central to Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy for the foreseeable future. But a South Asia policy built exclusively around India risks overlooking the strategic utility of states capable of maintaining diplomatic access across rival blocs.

Pakistan’s value to Washington lies less in economic competition with India and more in its ability to preserve channels of communication across politically fractured regions.

In an increasingly fragmented international order, that kind of access may prove more strategically useful than current assumptions allow.

Saima Afzal is a researcher specializing in South Asian security, counterterrorism, and broader geopolitical dynamics across the Middle East, Afghanistan, and the Indo-Pacific. Her work examines strategic affairs and evolving patterns of regional conflict. She is currently a PhD candidate at Justus Liebig University, Germany.

   Comments0