The Case for an Iran–Pakistan Defence Pact

Ahmed Ali 

Islamabad: Iran appears to be standing at a pivotal diplomatic moment as cautious engagement with Washington resumes. On the table is a familiar but consequential proposition: relief from decades of economic sanctions in exchange for restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. 

While the offer carries clear economic appeal, it also raises long-standing concerns in Tehran about strategic vulnerability and the reliability of external guarantees.

In this context, Iran may find it prudent to pause before committing to any agreement that, while attractive on paper, does not fully resolve its deeper security concerns. Instead of relying solely on distant assurances, a stronger regional framework, particularly involving Islamabad, could offer a more durable strategic foundation.

History has repeatedly shown that states relying exclusively on external assurances for security often face uncertainty when geopolitical conditions shift. Iran, more than most, has experienced the consequences of such volatility.

From Tehran’s perspective, what is required is not merely a legal or diplomatic commitment, but a tangible deterrent that can discourage potential aggression before it occurs. This is where the idea of a formal defence partnership with Pakistan enters the discussion, one negotiated at both military and political levels, and clearly defined in scope and consequence.

Read More: https://thepenpk.com/the-new-cold-war-is-economic/

Under such a framework, an attack on Iran could be treated as an attack on Pakistan itself. If made credible and publicly articulated, such a commitment would significantly alter regional calculations. Pakistan, as a nuclear-armed state with extensive military experience in the region, would introduce a level of deterrence that Iran cannot generate on its own.

Any serious assessment of Iran’s security environment inevitably includes Israel as a central variable. Israeli political and military leadership has repeatedly signalled concerns over Iran’s nuclear capabilities, and the region has already witnessed years of covert and overt confrontations.

These have included strikes on Iranian-linked positions, assassinations of nuclear scientists, and attacks on air defence infrastructure. From Tehran’s standpoint, these developments underscore the urgency of a credible deterrence mechanism that goes beyond diplomatic assurances tied to negotiations with Washington.

Within this argument, a Pakistan–Iran defence understanding is framed as a stabilising mechanism. A clearly defined commitment that an attack on Iran would trigger a response from Pakistan would, in theory, reshape strategic planning in Tel Aviv and introduce a new layer of deterrence into an already complex regional equation.

Supporters of this view argue that Pakistan’s involvement is not without precedent. Islamabad has historically viewed the security of Muslim-majority countries through both strategic and moral lenses. More practically, instability in Iran, particularly if driven by sustained external pressure or military escalation, could directly affect Pakistan’s western border through refugee flows and heightened sectarian sensitivities.

Pakistan and Iran share a long border, deep cultural ties, and overlapping regional interests. Despite this proximity, their relationship has at times been influenced by broader geopolitical rivalries and sectarian dynamics, limiting the potential for sustained strategic cooperation.

Proponents of closer alignment argue that the current geopolitical moment presents a rare opportunity to reset that trajectory. A structured dialogue between Iranian and Pakistani civilian and military leadership could establish a framework for mutual defence cooperation that strengthens Iran’s security posture ahead of any final diplomatic settlement with the United States.

Read More: https://thepenpk.com/chinas-quiet-game-in-the-us-iran-war/

For Pakistan, such a development could also enhance its regional standing. It would signal a degree of strategic autonomy and reinforce Islamabad’s role as a key actor in shaping western regional stability, rather than remaining solely influenced by competing external powers.

Any potential agreement with Washington would not only need to address nuclear restrictions but also the broader question of economic recovery after years of sanctions. Without meaningful economic reintegration, Iran risks entering a fragile post-deal environment marked by continued structural pressure and recurring instability.

Here again, Pakistan is positioned as a potential partner in long-term economic engagement. One of the most frequently cited opportunities is the long-delayed Iran–Pakistan gas pipeline project, which could provide Pakistan with energy security while offering Iran a stable export channel beyond Western markets.

Beyond energy, there is scope for expanded bilateral trade, agricultural and industrial cooperation, and joint infrastructure development linking Central Asia to the Arabian Sea.

This argument does not frame regional alignment as a rejection of engagement with the West. Rather, it positions it as a stabilising prerequisite for any sustainable agreement. A secure and regionally anchored Iran would be less likely to depend on proxy networks or accelerated defensive escalation, both of which contribute to regional instability.

From this perspective, a structured security relationship with Pakistan is not intended to replace diplomacy with Washington but to strengthen Iran’s bargaining position and long-term stability.

For the United States, such regional arrangements need not be viewed as contradictory to diplomacy. In fact, regional security frameworks often complement broader peace efforts. While Washington cannot provide absolute guarantees, particularly in a complex theatre involving multiple actors, a credible regional deterrence structure could contribute to reducing escalation risks.

At a moment when Iran is weighing the costs and benefits of renewed engagement with the United States, the question of security guarantees remains central. The proposal for deeper strategic alignment with Pakistan reflects a broader argument: that durable peace is more likely when regional powers are directly integrated into the security equation.

Whether such an approach becomes viable will depend on political will in Tehran and Islamabad, as well as the broader regional environment. What remains clear is that any lasting settlement in the region will require more than diplomatic signatures, it will require enforceable, credible security architectures that all key actors take seriously.