It is obvious that the war monger sitting in Tel Aviv, Netanyahu, wants to expand the boundaries of Israel. Following the October 7, 2023, attacks, Israel utilised the conflict to advance expansionist objectives in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria. The campaign escalated beyond counter-terrorism to include annexation efforts, settlement expansion, and the creation of security vacuums through military occupation and infrastructure destruction. Israel leverages conflicts with Iran to aggressively reshape the Middle East, aiming for a broader regional transformation, including the potential realisation of a “Greater Israel.” This strategy involves utilising U.S.-backed strikes and escalating regional instability to create a power vacuum, a plan that is ultimately thwarted by Pakistan recognising the underlying design. Pakistan urged Riyadh to avoid direct military involvement even after Iranian strikes on Saudi territory. Saudi restraint was decisive. It compelled other GCC states to hold the line against escalation. A regional chain reaction was avoided at its first link. Pakistan then convincingly involved Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Türkiye in active de-escalation. The four emerged as the core diplomatic bloc. Leveraging unique access, Pakistan maintained a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement with Riyadh while preserving decades of trust with Tehran. Islamabad publicly condemned strikes on Iran and privately assured Iranian leaders that Saudi territory would not be used for further attacks. This impressive credibility mattered a lot. On March 29, Pakistan hosted a quadrilateral meeting in Islamabad with the foreign ministers of Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. Backed by intensive efforts led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Chief of Defence Forces General Asim Munir, Pakistan announced a ceasefire and hosted the first round of “Islamabad Talks.” A 45-day roadmap was proposed with immediate ceasefire, phased reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, and a plan for broader talks. Washington accepted the ceasefire before its own escalation deadline. Pakistan’s diplomacy helped secure a US-Iran ceasefire and opened space for a wider peace process. The subsequent Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding helped preserve Lebanon’s sovereignty and reduced the risk of further Israeli territorial expansion. The strongest signal came in post-war negotiations. Washington floated an expanded Abraham Accords package, inviting Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Türkiye, Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan to normalise with Israel. Pakistan rejected it. That refusal preserved a principled stance on Palestine and denied Israel the regional legitimisation it sought to lock in after the fighting. The outcome reversed the hardliner calculus. Instead of collapse, de-escalation produced a more durable understanding between Iran and GCC states. Instead of chaos, diplomatic channels stayed open. Israel, which had anticipated a Syria-like breakdown across the region, was left frustrated. Its military gains could not be translated into political annexation because the wider war it needed never materialised. Three factors explain why Greater Israel ambitions were checked.
Greater Israel was never just about maps. It was about engineering a regional collapse so that new facts on the ground would become irreversible.
First, diplomacy effectively stalled escalation. The Islamabad bloc kept mediation alive when the region stood on the brink. By preventing a Gulf-Iran war, it removed the strategic vacuum Israel was counting on. Second, legal and normative pressure was maintained on war-mongering quarters. Pakistan and partners consistently framed water, borders, and occupation as questions of international law, not just security. That framing isolated annexationist rhetoric and kept global attention on sovereignty instead of expansion. Third, regional actors opted for stability over entanglement. Saudi Arabia’s decision not to be drawn in, Türkiye’s insistence on border restraint, and Qatar’s mediation role all denied Israel the multi-front war it needed to justify permanent territorial changes. The lesson is clear. Greater Israel was never just about maps. It was about engineering a regional collapse so that new facts on the ground would become irreversible. That engineering failed because Pakistan, together with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Türkiye, chose a different path which revolved around ceasefire over escalation, law over annexation, and diplomacy over vacuum. The threats have not fully vanished. Settlement expansion, rhetoric of transfer, and incursions into neighbours are alive. However, an exploitable strategic window is not available. Gaza was not annexed. Palestinians were not dislocated en masse. Lebanon’s sovereignty was preserved in the post-war framework. Syria was not left indefinitely defenceless. And the Strait of Hormuz stayed open.
Though the Greater Israel drive was effectively deterred through multi-dimensional measures, fresh exchanges of strikes between the US and Iran are posing renewed challenges for the mediators. Preserving the fragile peace will be the ultimate goal for which the world is again looking towards Pakistan.
The writer is a freelance columnist.