Yves here. This Reuters find, as unpacked further by Andrew Korybko makes the America-favoring stance of supposedly neutral Pakistan mediators make sense, We had told readers that reports from Pakistan sources on the state of negotiations were unreliable. In particular, senior Pakistan officials, in public statements in their own name, at least twice supported US market-pleasing claims that a deal was nigh. Forgive me for not looking them up, but one was when the US had presented terms (or a revision of terms?) and Trump said Iran would answer in 24 hours, which would have been on a Saturday. Pakistan chimed in and said, yes, Iran was going to reply in 24 hours. Iran said they most certainly were not going to respond in 24 hours. I recall that their reaction came on Monday.

Similarly, recall the rumor from an anonymous Pakistan sources that Iran was considering getting a nuclear weapon from a third party and detonating it for demonstration purposes. This claim struck me as extremely Israel-favoring, since it would support the story line, as Hegseth put it, that Iran’s “nuclear [weapons] ambitions” were still intact. To a person, Iran friendly experts, from Alastair Crooke to John Mearsheimer to Mohammed Marandi, were very skeptical of this report.

Now we see that Trump has offered the Saudis a peaceful nuclear deal. The idea that Iran might be moving closer to having a nuclear bomb, whether due to whispers like the one above, or the assessment of many experts, in particular the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, that it would be prudent in light of US and Israel aggression for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, could have provided an impetus for this agreement now moving forward.

But Trump just killed the deal by tying it to his Abrams Accord scheme. From Aljazeera:

United States President Donald Trump has said that a civilian nuclear cooperation deal with Saudi Arabia is “totally subject” to the kingdom normalising relations with Israel as part of the Abrams Accords.

Trump’s statement on Thursday, a day after the agreement was announced, has cast confusion over an already opaque deal, the full details of which have not been released.

In a post on his Truth Social Account, the US president wrote that the agreement “will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords”.

Saudi Arabia did not immediately respond to the claim. Any acceptance of normalising ties 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 peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement for a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar partnership” as well as a “bilateral safeguard agreement” related to the launching of a civilian nuclear programme.

The deal will require approval from the US Congress.

The comments on the Korybko included readers contending that Pakistan was too close to China to sidle up to the US this way. A representative contrary contention from Nakayama

China has been losing influence in Pakistan and the work of CPEC as well as the port project at Gwadar, has been slowed down to the point of total suspension. In addition to local resistance for various reasons, China’s economy has been in a tailspin since at least two years ago. Therefore, China cannot offer more free loot to the Pakistani power elites. As for the performance of Chinese weapons and radars, they did not earn enough praise during the short conflict with Pakistan. I heard that Pakistan initiated weapon purchase inquiries to Russia, not China. Pakistan’s leadership obviously wants to play the Erdogan game on three sides, but they are not as smart.

By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website

Reuters reported that “Pakistan seeks $10 billion fund from US after mediating Iran talks”, which presented its US-Iranian mediation services as nothing but a bid to get a bailout. Up till this point, Pakistan and its media surrogates touted the aforesaid services as supposed proof of the country’s geostrategic importance, even going as far as claiming that they herald an era of global importance for it. Those narratives were now revealed to have been a combination of wishful thinking and propaganda.

While Pakistan’s location is indeed strategic since it could serve as the “Zipper of Eurasian Pan-Eurasian Integration”, this potential function isn’t advanced by mediating between the US and Iran, nor is the way in which it was conceived as a catalyst of regional multipolar processes in alignment with US interests. The only integrationist role that the US wants for Pakistan is that which expands Western influence in the region, such as facilitating the flow of arms and terrorists into Afghanistan, at Russia’s expense.

The country’s pro-US de facto military dictatorship, which was installed after April 2022’s post-modern coup against former multipolar Prime Minister Imran Khan, is more than happy to oblige, especially since its respective interests in Afghanistan now dovetail with the US’. Trump has talked about returning US troops to Bagram Airbase, but the Taliban with which Pakistan has been unofficially warring for nearly half a year already refuses, ergo its pro-US de facto military dictatorship’s interests in destabilizing it.

Having explained the half-truth connected with the earlier-mentioned narrative about Pakistan’s geostrategic importance, it’s now time to discuss its leadership’s mercantilist mindset. The Intercept reported in 2023 that Pakistan secretly agreed to arm Ukraine, back when the West’s military-industrial complex was only just beginning to ramp up production, in exchange for help in securing a $6 billion IMF bailout. The precedent therefore exists for it to do a diplomatic favor for the US for a direct bailout.

It was explained here how the Pakistani-mediated MoU will gradually return Iran to the US-led Western order within certain limits, which would have likely sufficed for the US then rewarding Pakistan with a $10 billion bailout, but the resumption of hostilities might lead to the US reconsidering this quid pro quo. Pakistan would then have to either bring Iran back to the table, join the hostilities on the US’ side (it’s a “Major Non-NATO Ally” after all and in a mutual defense pact with Saudi Arabia), or do a different favor.

Expanding on the last point, that could very well include facilitating the flow of more arms and terrorists into Afghanistan, which could then destabilize Central Asia and cause problems for Russia. If asked to do so, there’s no doubt that Pakistan would comply, since its pro-US de facto military dictatorship has returned their country to its historical role as America’s regional proxy. It’s accordingly inconceivable that they’d reject any American request regarding Russia. Pakistan is also desperate for another bailout too.

Iran and Russia should therefore be on guard since Pakistan is expected to soon do its US patron another favor at their expense that it’ll either respectively disguise as a selfless diplomatic service for regional peace or deny any accusations of aiding ISIS-K in Afghanistan if the Kremlin ever makes them. The bottom line is that today’s Pakistan is once again America’s regional proxy that shouldn’t be trusted by multipolar leaders like Iran and Russia. Its pro-US de facto military dictatorship will always do its bidding.