How did Donald Trump corner Pakistan? Michael Kugelman, an expert at the U.S. think tank Atlantic Council, observes that Pakistan currently finds itself “between a rock and a hard place.” Specifically, on May 25, amidst the Iran nuclear deal negotiations, Trump presented a condition to six Muslim-majority nations—including Pakistan—requiring them to sign the Abraham Accords. In essence, this meant they had to formally recognize Israel as a sovereign state and establish diplomatic relations with it; however, Pakistan refused. But why?
Pakistan’s animosity toward Israel dates back to 1947—the very year of Pakistan’s inception. At that time, the United Nations held a vote to partition Palestine into two separate entities: one for the Jews and the other for the Arabs. Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, voted against this proposal, declaring that Pakistan stood in solidarity with the Arab cause. Despite this, when Israel was officially established on May 14, 1948, Pakistan refused to grant it diplomatic recognition. In June 1967, the “Six-Day War” erupted between Israel and the Arab nations; during this conflict, Pakistan dispatched its pilots to fight on the side of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. A Pakistani pilot, Saiful Azam, notably shot down four Israeli fighter jets while flying first for the Jordanian Air Force and later for the Iraqi Air Force. The depth of this bitter animosity between Israel and Pakistan is underscored by the fact that Pakistani passports explicitly bear the inscription: “Not valid for Israel.” Over the course of their 78-year history, there have been attempts to mend relations between the two nations. On September 1, 2005, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri met with Israel’s Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom in Istanbul. A few days later, President Musharraf met with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly session. This move triggered a political firestorm within Pakistan; hardline religious organizations—such as Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam—launched a fierce campaign of opposition against Musharraf. Musharraf faced accusations of betraying both Islam and the Palestinian cause, ultimately forcing him to back down. Now, let us return to
Trump’s Abraham Accords: on September 15, 2020, it was Donald Trump himself who… The objective behind establishing the Abraham Accords was to improve relations between Israel and Muslim nations—a goal that has already been achieved with countries like Kazakhstan. President Trump now seeks to include other Muslim nations in this initiative as well. While some nations may have one or two specific reasons for choosing not to participate, experts believe that Trump may have made this statement specifically to keep Pakistan excluded from the process. Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif, has categorically rejected Trump’s overture. In an interview with Samaa TV, he stated, “I do not believe that we should join agreements that run counter to our own principles and outlook.” Pakistan has consistently linked the recognition of Israel to the establishment of an independent Palestine; consequently, joining the Abraham Accords is currently not a viable option for the country. Pakistan views itself as the standard-bearer of the Islamic world—the only Muslim nation to possess nuclear weapons. In this context, recognizing Israel as a sovereign state would completely erode its credibility within the Islamic world. However, saying “no” to Trump could also prove costly for Pakistan. Its economic situation is dire; it has staved off bankruptcy 24 times to date by securing loans from the IMF. Pakistan’s total national debt exceeds 70% of its GDP, and more than half of the government’s revenue is consumed solely by interest payments on these loans. Given that the United States holds the largest voting share—16.5%—within the IMF, if Trump were to become displeased with Pakistan, securing future loans would become exceedingly difficult. Furthermore, the U.S. is the sole supplier of the F-16—the most advanced aircraft in the Pakistan Air Force’s arsenal. Should Pakistan defy Trump, the provision of software updates and technical support for these aircraft could be suspended. Pakistan attempted to bolster its international standing by positioning itself as a mediator between the U.S. and Iran; however, Trump’s “return gift” has left Pakistan in a tangled predicament. We will continue to keep you updated on all future developments as they unfold.
Donald Trump Offers Pakistan a Chance to Join the ‘Abraham Accords’
Amidst peace efforts in the Middle East, the United States has launched fresh strikes against missile bases in southern Iran and near Bandar Abbas. In response, Iran has stated that Gulf nations will no longer serve as shields for U.S. bases. Diplomatic talks regarding a ceasefire are currently underway in Qatar. Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump has extended an offer to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and other Muslim nations to join the ‘Abraham Accords.’ However, joining this agreement is considered a difficult prospect for Pakistan, a nation that has historically supported an independent Palestinian state. Concurrently, tensions are also continuously escalating between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Amidst efforts to restore peace in the Middle East, the United States has launched fresh attacks against Iran. Furthermore, President Trump has presented a proposal to Pakistan—which has been attempting to mediate the conflict—that has left not only Pakistan but also several other Middle Eastern nations astonished. Is Trump’s demand simply that they join the Abraham Accords? Captain Tim Hawkins, a spokesperson for the U.S. Central Command, confirmed that the U.S. carried out attacks near the southern Iranian city of Bandar Abbas. Bandar Abbas is a vital port city situated in the Strait of Hormuz. Following the U.S. attacks, a statement was issued by Iran’s Supreme Leader. According to the BBC Persian Service, Iran’s Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, released a written message declaring that nations in the Gulf region will no longer serve as staging grounds for U.S. military bases. He further asserted that the Zionist regime and Israel are reaching the final stages of their existence. Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the conflict remain ongoing; Iranian officials are currently engaged in talks with Qatari mediators in Doha. Despite the recent attacks, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that finalizing the progress achieved regarding a peace deal with Iran could take several days. Such negotiations typically require time—indeed, disagreements can arise over even a single word or line of text. If an agreement is to be reached, these differences must be resolved; ultimately, however, the outcome will be either a sound agreement or no agreement at all. Before this, Ismail Baghai, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, had reiterated this very point.
It appears that a resolution is not currently in sight. The BBC’s South Asia correspondent, Musahari, suggests that the recent US strikes could impact the ongoing negotiations. Iranian officials have been consistently citing a lack of trust while simultaneously attempting to advance talks with the Prime Minister of Qatar in Doha; consequently, it remains difficult to understand how these strikes might actually facilitate the progress of negotiations. Meanwhile, the US Secretary of State has stated that discussions regarding certain issues are currently underway and that progress may be seen in the coming days. Amidst this, tensions also appear to be escalating in Lebanon; the Israeli Prime Minister has vowed to intensify attacks. It is worth noting that Iran views these two conflicts as interconnected—even if the United States does not perceive them as such. Residents in southern regions have been forced to flee their homes. Israeli security forces have reported conducting strikes against Hezbollah strongholds in several areas across eastern Lebanon, including the Bekaa Valley. Conversely, Hezbollah claims to have targeted multiple sites in southern Lebanon and northern Israel on Monday using drones and rockets—an action it described as retaliation for Israel’s violations during the conflict. At present, it remains unclear what impact—if any—the US strikes on Iran and the Israeli military operations in Lebanon
will have a potential peace agreement between the United States and Iran.
BBC Middle East Correspondent Younanli provides further details: “The focus right now is truly on reopening the Strait.” It is believed that the primary objective at this moment is to reopen the Strait of Hormuz; doing so could significantly alleviate pressure on global energy markets. Additionally, discussions are underway to unfreeze various Iranian assets—some of which are currently held in Qatari banks. According to reports, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) may be drafted to facilitate negotiations over the next 30 to 60 days regarding Iran’s nuclear program—specifically addressing the fate of Iran’s current stockpile of enriched uranium, as well as the future trajectory of its nuclear activities. Furthermore, attention is turning to the request made by US President Donald Trump to Pakistan and several other Muslim nations. Trump has appealed to these countries to join and expand the “Abraham Accords.” Before proceeding, let us first understand exactly what the Abraham Accords are. The Abraham Accords consist of a series of agreements designed to normalize relations between Israel and Muslim-majority nations. Under the framework of the Abraham Accords, the United States acted as a mediator to facilitate the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between Israel and four Muslim-majority countries. This initiative was launched in 2020, during Donald Trump’s first term as president. Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the United Arab Emirates were the first nations to sign these agreements. Now, President Trump has extended this invitation to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan, urging them to also join the Abraham Accords. However, several Arab nations have previously criticized this policy, arguing that it fails to offer a clear resolution regarding the status of the occupied Palestinian territories.
Only time will tell how these nations will respond to the appeal to join the Abraham Accords; however, Pakistan, which has previously acted as a mediator to facilitate agreements between Iran and the United States… What role will the vote play? Will it accede to Ram’s demand? What has been the historical stance of Pakistan regarding Israel? And why was Pakistan unable to join the Abraham Accords during Ram’s first term? BBC correspondent Umar Daraz, reporting from Pakistan, answers all these questions. The Pakistani state supports the Palestinian cause and has consistently maintained this stance. Therefore, what will be the position of the Pakistani state regarding the Abraham Accords this time around? This is a pertinent question, as the Accords do not contain any provisions for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Furthermore—and historically speaking—Pakistan has no diplomatic relations with Israel; indeed, Pakistani passports explicitly bear the inscription: “This passport is not valid for Israel.” Diplomatically, Pakistan has consistently advocated for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state—specifically one based on the pre-1967 borders—and it will not support any arrangement that deviates from this objective. Historically, this has remained the consistent position within Pakistan: a commitment to the cause of an independent Palestinian state.