There has been a sharp criticism of the US policy on Syria and Yemen largely described as “a policy of inaction and disengagement”. In the Middle East context, the Syrian crisis, which erupted seven years ago, has caused grave human tragedies and a mass migration of Biblical proportions. The crisis continues unabated but with a difference; Russia and Iran have emerged as major actors in the crisis. These countries’ intervention has saved President Bashar Al Assad’s regime,from an imminent collapse which the political analysts were predicting to happen in a matter of weeks if not days. It caused nervousness all around the Middle East as a sequel to the “Arab Spring” which started with Tunisia and engulfed Egypt, Libya and was now poised to change the “tyrannical rule” of the last Baathist bastion. American policy on Syria and Yemen seems to have a pattern which, prima facie, may look inactive or lackluster but has retrospectively benefitted the country’s economy. The US maintained a meaningful silence when Iran-Saudi tensions were brewing up over Yemen and Syria. This was the time when after a protracted dialogue Iran had agreed to sign the nuclear deal.Hadn’t there been a Syrian or Yemen crisis how would the US sell weapons worth $300 billion to Saudi Arabia and UAE?These crises have come as boon to the American economy creating hundreds and thousands of jobs in America; unemployment is all time low in the country in twenty years. Simultaneously, the Yemen and Syrian crises and Iran’s missile programme became an easy alibi for the Americans to blame Iran for meddling in the Middle East and pull out of the nuclear deal known as Joint Comprehensive Programme of Action (JCPOA). For Israel, the emerging situation in the region, especially Syria, is unacceptable where Iran, an archrival, has fast become an arbiter in the Middle East, especially close to Israel’s “backyard”. Israel’s fierce opposition to the Iranian nuclear deal and its strong protestations against Iran’s missile programme and meddling in the Middle East also became the major pretext for President Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA. Secondly, already skeptical of Iranian interventionist policies in Yemen and Syria, Saudi Arabia opposed the nuclear deal on the pretext that Iran was solely responsible for instability in the region.Saudis feared that Obama’s rapprochement with Iran through the JCPOA would raise Iran’s strategic profile in the Middle East, a dreaded scenario for Saudis and GCC member states. It also posed a challenge to Israel because of Iran’s military presence in Syria. Thirdly, the crisis in Syria and instability in Iraq and Lebanon have given strategic advantage to Iran posing a bigger challenge for the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. For Iran, its presence in Syria has been a matter of political survival; being the champion of Shiaism, the ruling clergy in Iran considers it as a religious obligation to intervene in Syria to save the holy Shrines. Even much before Syrian crisis erupted,Iran has always maintained cordial relations with Syria which were further consolidated during Iran-Iraq war and Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait. Iran has also gained access to Lebanon through Syria which effectively encircles Israel. In order to counter Iranian maneuvers in the region, Trump administration’s withdrawal from JCPOA and reimposition of sanctions has put pressures on the Iranian economy. Already Iranian currency, the Rial, has plunged 80 percent since April this year which is unprecedented. With such pressures the US intends to raise Iran’s “cost of engagement” in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. Israel is likely to indulge in sabre rattling but it would be happy if Iran’s resources were drained out in the ongoing tensions in the region. The simmering tensions between Iran and regional countries would also keep investments away from Iran. Americans are hoping that as a result of sanctions imposed against Iran, there would be general unrest in the country leading to “regime change”. However, it would be too early to venture a guess despite American optimism about the “regime change”. For countries like Pakistan it has become a tightrope walking to maintain a balance in its relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia.While Iran is a direct neighbour with strong historic ties, Saudi Arabia is the land of the holiest places for the entire Muslim Ummah Unfortunately, the tiff between Iran and Saudi Arabia has caused a sharp divide not only within the GCC countries but negatively impacted the Muslim world. For countries like Pakistan it has become a tightrope walking to maintain a balance in its relationship between Iran and Saudi Arabia. While Iran is a direct neighbour with strong historic ties, Saudi Arabia is the land of the holiest places for the entire Muslim Ummah. More significantly, over two million Pakistanis working in Saudi Arabia are contributing$5 billion as annual remittance to the country. On Syrian crisis, all the stakeholders are appreciative of Pakistan’s balanced stance urging the parties in the dispute to resolve their issues through peaceful means, and without interference from outside. However, Yemen poses a huge challenge for Pakistan’s diplomacy in maintaining a balance between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Although Pakistani parliament’s resolution calling for neutrality on Yemen crisis disappointed Saudi Arabia and UAE, it was later appreciated by these countries that employment of peaceful means for the resolution of disputes between states offered much better chances of success than waging a war which could be initiated at will but seldom arrive at a timely or favourable conclusion for the parties involved. In such a scenario, Pakistan’s participation in the Yemen war would have disastrous consequences for the country, especially when Pakistan is a nuclear power. The following aspects need to be looked into by the policy makers before deciding about Pakistan’s overseas engagements. Yemen was the first parliament in the world which publically congratulated Pakistan on its nuclear tests; other countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia condemned Pakistani tests although privately they congratulated Pakistan. As a nuclear power Pakistan should be very cautious on the question of involvement of its military in third countries, especially those countries which are non-nuclear weapon states. We should not forget that for the past four decades Pakistan has been a sponsor of “Negative Security Assurances” resolution in the UN General Assembly which calls upon Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) to give assurance to the international community that their nuclear weapons would not be used against non-nuclear weapon states. Bilaterally, however, Pakistan can offer security assurances to any country, including Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries. In response to criticism, Iran maintains that its Al-Quds forces are stationed in Syria and Iraq under bilateral agreements and would be ready to withdraw if the host states so desired. Pakistan’s military assistance to the GCC countries should not be surprising, as already Pakistan has been providing military training to a number of GCC countries and Iran. The foremost consideration for the policy makers in Pakistan should be to adopt a measured stance in volatile situations such as Yemen and Syria. For a country like Pakistan, which has rendered tremendous sacrifices since 9/11, involvement of its troops in a third country would be detrimental to its core interests. More importantly, a neutral Pakistan still offers to the warring Muslim countries a chance to seek its good offices. However, by aligning with one of the parties, in the dispute Pakistan would loose its credibility as an honest broker. To its critics, Pakistan can always counsel that its hands are already full due to permanent hostility displayed by India and unstable conditions prevailing in Afghanistan. In fact, a brotherly Afghanistan has harmed Pakistan more in terms of blood and treasure than our eastern enemy. The writer is a former ambassador Published in Daily Times, October 17th 2018.