Pakistan’s vote at the United Nations Security Council this week captured the dilemma at the heart of its Middle East policy.

On Wednesday, the council adopted Resolution 2817, a Bahrain-led text condemning Iran’s missile and drone attacks on Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan. The resolution passed with 13 votes in favour, while China and Russia abstained. Pakistan not only voted for the measure, but it was also among its 135 co-sponsors.

The resolution “condemns in the strongest terms the egregious attacks” carried out by Iran and stresses that such actions constitute “a breach of international law and a serious threat to international peace and security.” It also demands the immediate cessation of attacks and condemns the targeting of civilians and critical infrastructure, including energy facilities and maritime routes in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

Noting that nearly 140 Member States co-sponsored the resolution, Bahrain’s representative Jamal Fares Al Rowaie, said that the high number reflects the world’s “collective conscience”.

Pakistan’s UN envoy, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, made that case directly at the council when he explained Pakistan’s vote on the Situation in the Middle East. He said Pakistan supported both resolutions because each addressed “urgent aspects” of the crisis. Ambassador Ahmad also highlighted the human impact of the crisis on Pakistan. He told the council that at least two Pakistani nationals had been killed in attacks in the United Arab Emirates, while millions of Pakistanis living across the Gulf region remain exposed to the conflict.

Warning that everyone is impacted by the conflict, the envoy called for an “immediate and complete cessation of hostilities” and a return to dialogue. He also said Pakistan stood in “complete solidarity” with the Gulf states and their peoples.

According to a diplomatic source, the vote for the Bahrain-led resolution signalled that attacks on Gulf states could not be brushed aside, while the vote for the Russian draft was a reminder that Islamabad does not want its support for Arab partners to be read as endorsement of an open-ended regional war.

According to a diplomatic source, the vote for the Bahrain-led resolution signalled that attacks on Gulf states could not be brushed aside, while the vote for the Russian draft was a reminder that Islamabad does not want its support for Arab partners to be read as endorsement of an open-ended regional war.

The adopted resolution goes beyond a routine diplomatic statement. It reaffirms the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Gulf states and underscores their right to individual and collective self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter.

Pakistan’s envoy also condemned missile and drone strikes on civilian infrastructure, including schools, residential neighbourhoods, oil installations and desalination plants, warning that such attacks were intensifying the humanitarian toll of the conflict.

China voiced similar concerns about the trajectory of the conflict. Beijing’s representative warned that the current escalation had “no legitimacy or legal basis” and urged all parties – particularly the US and Israel – to stop military operations and prevent the crisis from spiralling further.

Israel’s envoy, meanwhile, defended the pressure on Tehran and said the Security Council’s condemnation was long overdue. Israeli diplomats argued that Iran’s missile and drone strikes against Gulf states were part of a broader campaign targeting civilian and energy infrastructure across the region. They said the resolution reflected growing international recognition that Tehran’s actions threatened regional stability.

After the vote, Iran’s UN Ambassador Amir-Saeid Iravani addressed the Council, expressing his “profound regret” at the adoption of the resolution, which he described as a “serious setback to the credibility” of the Security Council. He accused the US of using the council to shield what he called its “barbaric war against the Iranian people” and said the text ignored the US-Israeli strikes that precipitated the conflict.

Several Western diplomats, including the United States and European members of the council, argued that the resolution was necessary to reaffirm international law and protect regional security. They said attacks on civilian infrastructure and threats to maritime routes in the Gulf could not be tolerated, particularly given the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz for global energy supplies.

At the same meeting, Pakistan also backed a Russian draft calling for action to halt the wider military escalation in the Middle East.

Russia’s ambassador criticised the Bahrain-led resolution as “biased and one-sided,” arguing that it ignored the wider circumstances surrounding the conflict. He said that reading the resolution “without context would lead one to believe that Tehran decided to strike targets across the region without provocation.”

The Russian draft resolution ultimately failed to pass. It received four votes in favour – Russia, China, Somalia and Pakistan – while nine members abstained, and the United States and Latvia voted against it.

Taken together, the two votes illustrate Islamabad’s attempt to hold two positions at once: solidarity with Gulf partners under attack, and insistence that the broader crisis cannot be addressed through escalation alone.

Journalist Anas Mallick took to X to comment: “Basically, by voting for both draft resolutions at the UNSC(By Russia and Bahrain), Pakistan has stuck to its principled position of Condemning All parties in this conflict, regardless of proximity or relationship.”

Pakistan has also warned that it cannot remain insulated from the consequences of the war. During the Security Council debate, its envoy stressed that Pakistan was “not immune from these attacks” and that instability in the Gulf threatened energy supplies, maritime security and global trade.

The economic stakes are particularly high. The Strait of Hormuz – through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes – remains one of the most critical chokepoints in the global energy system. Any prolonged disruption could have severe consequences for oil markets and energy-importing countries such as Pakistan.

The pressure is already visible at home.

Pakistan raised petrol and diesel prices by a historic increase of Rs55 per litre this week, with officials citing the global surge in petroleum prices linked to the regional conflict.

The warning from oil markets is equally stark as Goldman Sachs has raised its oil-price forecast because of a longer disruption to flows through Hormuz, and said that if low flows persisted through March, daily prices could surpass the 2008 record highs.

For Islamabad, this narrows the room for diplomatic ambiguity. A government already struggling with inflation and external vulnerability cannot afford to treat a Gulf conflict as a purely rhetorical issue. Pakistan has millions of workers in the Gulf, depends heavily on remittances, and faces direct exposure to any shock in shipping, fuel supply or regional aviation.

This helps explain why Pakistan’s diplomacy has taken the shape it has. According to a diplomatic source, the vote for the Bahrain-led resolution signalled that attacks on Gulf states could not be brushed aside, while the vote for the Russian draft was a reminder that Islamabad does not want its support for Arab partners to be read as endorsement of an open-ended regional war.

That balance, however, carries risks of its own. Critics can argue that Pakistan is trying to satisfy all sides while avoiding a clearer position on the wider legality of the conflict. However, according to Siddiq Sajid, a political commentator, this is precisely what middle-power diplomacy looks like in a fragmented international system: oppose attacks on partners, resist further escalation, and keep the case for negotiations alive.

Whether this becomes smart diplomacy or an unstable compromise will depend on what Pakistan does next. If it continues to couple solidarity with Gulf states with a consistent call for de-escalation, dialogue and respect for international law, it may yet preserve credibility on both fronts. If, however, it appears merely reactive – tough in one forum, evasive in another – the balancing act will become harder to sustain.

The writer is OpEd Editor (Daily Times) and can be reached at durenayab786 @gmail.com. She tweets @DureAkram.

© Daily Times