Pakistan is trying to keep two relationships intact at once. To Saudi Arabia, it says it will honour its defence commitments. To Iran, it says it wants the Houthi problem settled without a wider war. The weeks since the Houthi barrage on Saudi Arabia escalated show how carefully Islamabad is choosing its words for each audience.
Tehran-based analyst Javad Heiran-Nia put the dividing line clearly. In his reading, Iran tolerates the defence of Saudi territory but treats offensive action against the Houthis as a red line. Much of what Pakistan has said and done since can be read against that distinction.
September 10: two messages on the same day
On September 10, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Sajjad Haider Khan, was asked how Islamabad would meet its obligations under the Mecca pact after the Houthi barrage on Saudi Arabia escalated. His answer was that there was “no such thing under discussion right now.” He added that Pakistan would act under the agreement when the time came.
The same day, Reuters reported that Islamabad had warned Iran to rein in its Yemeni allies. Within hours, Pakistan told the media that no military response was on the table, and then sent a message to Tehran that its partners were pushing Pakistan towards one.
The two messages were addressed to different audiences and spoke to different stages of the same problem. The weeks that followed repeated that pattern.
September 25: a red line and a meeting in Riyadh
On September 25, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif told the UN General Assembly that any threat to Mecca and Medina was a red line for Pakistan.
The same day, Field Marshal Asim Munir met Saudi Defence Minister Prince Khalid bin Salman in Riyadh. The meeting took place at a gathering of defence chiefs from Mecca pact allies, and the agenda covered intelligence cooperation, military coordination and capability integration.
October 2: Dar describes the Tehran side
On October 2, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar gave an unusually detailed account of Pakistan’s conversations with Iran. He said he raised the pact with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on the margins of the UN meetings in New York, and explained how Pakistan would honour it.
According to Dar, Iran floated a political approach to the Houthis as an alternative to military action. He stressed that this was brainstorming between two foreign ministers and not a written offer.
Three days later: forces to be deployed
Three days later, ministers of Pakistan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia met in Riyadh and agreed to deploy forces. Afterwards, Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said Islamabad and Ankara were present in the operational area in a supportive role. He said Pakistan was involved in reconnaissance and that only Saudi forces were fighting.
It was the most operational public statement any Pakistani minister had made since the pact was signed in August. It also fits the distinction Heiran-Nia described: a supportive role for the defence of Saudi territory, without offensive action against the Houthis.
How Iran and the Houthis reacted?
Iran’s response came in two registers. On October 4, Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran hoped the reports of deployment were untrue. After the activation, state media took a sharper tone. The Tasnim news agency ran a headline accusing Turkey and Pakistan of joining the Saudi war.
The Houthis have drawn their own conclusions. Official Mohammed Al-Bukhaiti has reportedly warned Pakistan and Turkey of retaliation if they deploy in support of Riyadh. Even so, Houthi commentary since the activation has largely assumed that neither country will join the war directly.
What remains unclear?
Several important details are still missing:
- Where the reconnaissance happens. Asif did not say whether it takes place over Saudi territory, along the Yemeni border, or through intelligence passed to Saudi-led forces.
- Whether it will satisfy Tehran. It is unclear if a reconnaissance role will be enough for Iran.
- The size of the deployment. The joint statement gave no troop numbers or equipment lists.
A two-track approach since spring
This stance is not new. Pakistan has run on two tracks since the spring. On March 3, Dar told the Senate that he had reminded Araghchi of Pakistan’s defence obligations to Saudi Arabia. According to Dar, the Iranian foreign minister asked for assurances that Saudi territory would not be used against Iran.
In October, the Saudi track gained a committee and a communiqué, while the Iranian track gained a more sceptical audience. Dar’s October 2 account is the latest on the record. Both Pezeshkian and Araghchi, he said, wanted the Houthi matter concluded. Iran has not publicly disputed that account.
What to watch next?
Three things will show where this goes. First, any detail on the scope and location of Pakistan’s reconnaissance role. Second, whether Iran’s tone shifts from hope to open criticism of Islamabad. Third, whether the political approach to the Houthis that Dar described gets any written form. Until then, Pakistan’s balancing act depends on a careful gap between what it says to Riyadh and what it says to Tehran.
Frequently asked questions
What is the Mecca pact?
- It is a defence agreement signed in August under which Pakistan has obligations towards Saudi Arabia. Pakistan has said it would act under the pact when the time came.
What role is Pakistan playing in Saudi Arabia’s defence?
- Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said Pakistan is in a supportive role, involved in reconnaissance, and that only Saudi forces are fighting.
How has Iran reacted?
- Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran hoped deployment reports were untrue, while Tasnim accused Turkey and Pakistan of joining the Saudi war.
What did Ishaq Dar say about talks with Iran?
- He said Iran floated a political approach to the Houthis as an alternative to military action, but stressed it was brainstorming and not a written offer.
What have the Houthis said?
- Official Mohammed Al-Bukhaiti has reportedly warned Pakistan and Turkey of retaliation if they deploy in support of Riyadh.
