Israel’s military campaigns after October 2023 were part of a broader strategy to advance the Greater Israel project, but Pakistan’s diplomacy literally frustrated that Israeli strategy.
For decades, the idea of Greater Israel remained largely confined to ideological circles within Revisionist Zionism and sections of Israel’s religious nationalist movement. The upheaval that followed the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 changed the regional balance of power.
Israel suddenly found itself confronting weakened adversaries, diminished regional resistance and an international environment that initially afforded it considerable military freedom. This moment was used to pursue objectives extending far beyond defeating Hamas.
The first indication emerged in Gaza. As the war intensified, public debate within Israel increasingly focused on the territory’s future. Calls by influential Israeli ministers for permanent Israeli control of Gaza, proposals encouraging the displacement of Palestinians, and discussions about rebuilding Israeli settlements suggested that the conflict was opening the door to long-term territorial change. Simultaneously, settlement activity in the occupied West Bank continued to expand, reinforcing concerns that annexation remained an active political objective rather than a forgotten aspiration.
By helping to keep that wider conflict from materialising, Pakistan and its regional partners denied Israeli hardliners the fractured regional environment they had expected to exploit.
Israel’s military operations soon stretched well beyond the Palestinian territories. In southern Lebanon, Israeli forces established a deeper military presence under the banner of protecting national security. Syria presented an even greater strategic opportunity. The collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s government left the country fragmented and militarily vulnerable. Hundreds of Israeli airstrikes destroyed much of Syria’s remaining defence infrastructure before Israeli forces expanded into parts of southern Syria. Each operation was explained in terms of immediate security, yet the cumulative outcome steadily altered the political and military map of the Levant.
The confrontation with Iran carried even greater significance. Tehran represented the principal regional power capable of challenging Israel’s strategic freedom of action. The June 2025 war substantially weakened Iran’s regional posture and disrupted the network of allied groups that had long constrained Israeli military planning. Encouraged by those gains, Israel sought another major military campaign against Iran in early 2026. Washington viewed the crisis primarily through the prism of Iran’s nuclear program. Israel’s calculations appeared considerably broader. A prolonged regional conflict promised to reshape the Middle East in ways that military victories in Gaza or Lebanon alone could never achieve.
Such a conflict would almost certainly have extended beyond Israel and Iran. Kurdish armed groups were expected to increase pressure along Iran’s western frontier, raising the prospect of Turkiye becoming directly involved. Lebanon faced the danger of another destructive war. Syria risked becoming the battlefield for competing regional powers once again. Above all, the possibility of direct confrontation between Iran and the Gulf Arab states threatened to plunge the entire region into prolonged instability. A fractured Middle East, consumed by multiple wars and competing rivalries, would have created conditions favourable for consolidating new territorial realities while leaving neighbouring states too preoccupied to mount a coordinated political response.
Pakistan reached a different conclusion. Islamabad recognised that preventing regional escalation had become as important as addressing the immediate military crisis. Unlike many other regional actors, Pakistan enjoyed the confidence of both Tehran and Riyadh. It maintained a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement with Saudi Arabia while preserving decades of political trust with Iran. That unique diplomatic position enabled Islamabad to communicate with both sides at a time when direct dialogue had become increasingly difficult.
Working closely with Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Qatar, Pakistan consistently encouraged restraint rather than retaliation. Saudi Arabia’s decision to avoid direct military involvement proved especially significant. Once Riyadh stayed out of the conflict, other Gulf Cooperation Council states also resisted the pressure to widen the war. This prevented the emergence of precisely the regional confrontation that many feared would consume the Middle East.
Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts gradually evolved into a broader peace initiative. The quadrilateral meeting hosted in Islamabad, bringing together the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Egypt, reopened diplomatic channels that had all but collapsed. Intensive engagement led by Chief of Defence Forces Field Marshal Asim Munir and Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif produced the Islamabad Talks and a roadmap centred on an immediate ceasefire and phased de-escalation. Washington accepted the ceasefire before its own timetable for further military escalation expired, allowing diplomacy to regain the initiative.
Islamabad’s role did not end with securing a ceasefire. During discussions over the post-war political settlement, Pakistan rejected proposals linking an expanded Abraham Accords framework with its own recognition of Israel. Islamabad maintained that durable peace in the Middle East required a just resolution of the Palestinian question rather than diplomatic normalisation detached from Palestinian rights. That position preserved Pakistan’s longstanding policy while strengthening its credibility across the Muslim world.
The greatest achievement of this diplomatic effort was not simply ending another military confrontation. It prevented the Middle East from sliding into a conflict that could have fundamentally altered the region’s geopolitical balance. A direct war involving Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and the Gulf states would have weakened every major Muslim power simultaneously while creating strategic opportunities for those seeking to consolidate territorial gains. By helping to keep that wider conflict from materialising, Pakistan and its regional partners denied Israeli hardliners the fractured regional environment they had expected to exploit.
Military power can transform battlefields with remarkable speed. Reordering an entire region, however, requires political circumstances that extend far beyond military success. Those circumstances never fully emerged. Pakistan, working alongside Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Qatar, helped replace escalation with diplomacy at a decisive moment.
Pakistan, working alongside Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Qatar, helped replace escalation with diplomacy at a decisive moment. Their collective effort frustrated a strategy that many critics believe could have accelerated the long-standing ambition of a Greater Israel while sparing the Middle East another generation of destructive regional war.
The writer is a freelance columnist.