Despite Pakistan’s efforts to mediate between Iran and the United States, the US-Pakistan relationship is unlikely to grow into a long-term strategic partnership.

Pakistan surprised both supporters and skeptics with its sudden elevation last month as a diplomatic intermediary between Washington and Tehran. Long viewed with suspicion by US policymakers who questioned its commitment to counterterrorism during the Afghanistan War, Islamabad is now being recast—at least momentarily—as an indispensable broker in efforts to defuse the Iran War. Even as formal talks have faltered, Pakistan continues to shuttle messages between the two sides, underscoring its unexpected centrality in a conflict where few viable channels remain.

This shift, however, appears less the result of a deep structural realignment than of a fortuitous convergence of events: the outbreak of war between the United States and Iran intersected with Pakistan’s evolving diplomatic posture with Washington. Islamabad had been methodically cultivating ties with the Trump administration through unconventional gestures, such as nominating President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize and exploring partnerships tied to the Trump family’s business interests. Pakistan’s parallel relationships with Washington and Tehran suddenly took on greater weight, creating an opening for Pakistan to position itself as a mediator.

Trump’s affinity for Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir—whom he has publicly praised and hosted at the White House in a break from protocol—had helped warm bilateral ties over the past year. That convergence of prior diplomatic momentum and the current conflict ultimately positioned Pakistan as an intermediary between Washington and Tehran, thrusting it into the global spotlight.

Pakistan’s efforts to advance talks continue behind the scenes. But what comes next in the broader US policy toward Pakistan is still an open question. Whether this diplomatic resurgence can translate into a broader reset in US-Pakistan relations that extends beyond the current administration and marks the beginning of a new chapter in how Pakistan is viewed in Washington is far less certain.

Pakistan Skepticism on Capitol Hill

Skepticism remains about treating Pakistan as a credible long-term ally. Lawmakers in both parties broadly welcome Pakistan’s role in trying to de-escalate the crisis but remain wary of any broader strategic shift. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), a close Trump ally and member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, told The National Interest that he remains wary of Pakistan’s reliability as a long-term partner.

“I’ve long described Pakistan as a problematic ally. They are an ally, but there are challenges we struggle with,” Cruz said. “To the extent that the Iranian mullahs will listen to the leaders of Pakistan…that is helpful,” Cruz said, adding, “President Trump has thanked the Pakistani leadership for their engagement at the end of the day.”

That instrumental view—seeing Pakistan as necessary in the current moment, but treating any deeper engagement with caution—is widely shared on Capitol Hill.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) voiced similar concerns, pointing to Pakistan’s track record on terrorism. “There are a lot of things that raise my attention—that before trusting them, we should verify,” said Booker, also a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A recent social media post by Pakistan’s defense minister that was critical of Israel raised concerns for Sen. Rick Scott (R-CA), who demanded that the country demonstrate it was acting in “good faith.” Scott told the author he nonetheless appreciates Islamabad’s mediation efforts—even as he questioned Tehran’s seriousness about reaching a deal.

At an April 22 Capitol Hill event organized by the Indian Embassy to mark the first anniversary of the deadly 2025 terror attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir—which killed 26 civilians and triggered a brief but intense conflict with Pakistan the following month—Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) accused Pakistan of continuing to harbor militant groups. He argued that anti-India militant outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) still operates with a sanctuary inside the country.

“As the world focuses on Islamabad, where the [Iran] talks are taking place, or not taking place, or might be taking place, we have to use this as an opportunity to demand that the Pakistani government clamp down on the LeT and the JeM [Jaish-e-Mohammmad],” Sherman said at the event.

These views suggest Pakistan’s diplomatic moment has yet to soften its image in Washington. The dominant view, at least on Capitol Hill, remains that engagement with Pakistan is conditional and episodic rather than evidence of structural trust.

According to Christine Fair, a security studies professor at Georgetown University, there has been no indication that Pakistan’s newfound relevance will significantly redefine the future of its dynamic with Washington.

“The US-Pakistan relationship is built on one pillar, and that pillar happens to be whatever the issue of that particular day is,” she said in a phone interview. Unlike Washington’s deeply institutionalized partnership with India, Fair argued, ties with Pakistan lack broad bureaucratic or political backing. “When there has been a convergence of interests, the United States and Pakistanis work together. When there is not, what comes to the fore are Pakistan’s policies that deeply vex Washington,” she said.

Still, some analysts see room for Pakistan to extend its relevance beyond the current crisis. Elizabeth Threlkeld, the director of the South Asia program at the Stimson Center, noted that Islamabad has demonstrated an ability to insert itself into high-stakes diplomacy in ways that resonate in Washington.

“Pakistan has found ways to make itself relevant to this administration that go beyond the current diplomatic effort,” she said in a phone interview. Even if a US-Iran deal remains elusive, Threlkeld added, Pakistan’s role has already shown it can “contribute in a meaningful way” on the global stage.

Pakistan’s Missed Opportunity

Pakistan has so far shown limited signs of institutionalizing or capitalizing on this moment in Washington. Its finance minister was in the capital last month for the annual International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank spring meetings—engagements that had been scheduled well before Pakistan gained its current diplomatic relevance. That visit offered a timely opportunity to broaden outreach among the US business community and position Pakistan as an investment destination amid heightened visibility.

Instead, the trip proceeded largely according to the original agenda, with little indication that it was adjusted or expanded to reflect Islamabad’s new role as a diplomatic intermediary. A similar pattern is evident in the public posture of the Embassy of Pakistan, whose messaging has largely echoed official positions from Islamabad, with limited evidence of a parallel effort in Washington to expand engagement with the policy community or to shape broader perceptions at a moment of heightened attention. 

Opportunities to reframe Pakistan’s role, from a security liability to a diplomatic actor seeking to mediate conflict, have not been fully leveraged in public-facing outreach. The recent Indian Embassy event on the Hill, which featured fresh allegations of Pakistani involvement in terrorism, went largely unchallenged by Pakistani officials—even as Pakistan receives public praise for its efforts to mediate peace between Iran and the United States.

Pakistan’s apparent failure to translate its current diplomatic visibility into a sustained effort to reshape its image or build lasting momentum in Washington reinforces a central feature of this relationship: it remains reactive rather than institutionalized, and continues to rest heavily on personal rapport between the two countries’ leaderships.

Ultimately, for this diplomatic opening to endure beyond the current crisis, Pakistan will need to offer Washington more than mediation—especially credible trade and investment opportunities. Yet Islamabad is not currently in a position to do so. Its fragile economic outlook and persistent security challenges continue to limit its appeal as a commercial partner. 

That reality was once again brought into focus on Tuesday when the State Department announced the phased closure of the US Consulate General in Peshawar over security concerns. “This decision reflects our commitment to the safety of our diplomatic personnel and efficient resource management,” it said in a written statement. 

Even in sectors of renewed US interest, such as critical minerals, the investment climate remains highly uncertain. 

Much of Pakistan’s mineral wealth lies in Balochistan, a province plagued by insurgency, where militant groups have repeatedly attacked infrastructure and foreign-backed projects. These security risks reinforce deep skepticism among American investors and policymakers alike. As a result, despite its temporary geopolitical relevance, Pakistan is unlikely to be viewed as a credible long-term investment destination or trading partner. In an administration where relations are fundamentally transactional, this gap raises serious questions about how long Pakistan’s diplomatic moment in Washington can truly last.

About the Author: Ailia Zehra

Ailia Zehra is a Washington, DC-based journalist and associate editor at Inside US Trade, where she reports on trade policy on Capitol Hill, supply chain resilience, and US trade ties with India. Her work has appeared in Foreign Policy, The Hill, The Diplomat, and other publications. She holds a dual master’s degree in Global Journalism and Near Eastern Studies from New York University.

The post Why the US-Pakistan Moment Won’t Last appeared first on The National Interest.