Great-power rivalry is intensifying from the Middle East to East Asia. For Pakistan, survival is no longer enough—economic strength must anchor its foreign policy.

Pakistan has rarely had the luxury of sitting out great-power rivalries. From the Cold War to the War on Terror, and now amid rising competition between major powers, it has often found itself at the intersection of global struggles. Geography put it there. Nuclear weapons cemented their relevance. Economic fragility has kept it exposed to pressure.

The escalation of conflict in the Middle East between the United States, Israel, and Iran has once again underscored how quickly regional crises can reshape the global strategic landscape. For countries like Pakistan situated at the crossroads of South Asia, the Middle East, and Central Asia, such upheavals are not distant events. They shape the strategic environment directly.

The question today is not whether Pakistan knows how to balance great powers. History shows that it does. The real question is whether that balancing act still works in a world increasingly divided into rival camps.

Inside Pakistan’s policy circles, survival is often treated as success. Despite sanctions and international pressure, the country preserved its nuclear deterrent. It avoided full-scale war with India after the 1999 Kargil conflict. It deepened ties with China without completely severing links with Washington. It tapped financial support from Gulf states when needed.

In a volatile region, mere survival can look like achievement.

But survival is not a strategy. It is the starting line.

For decades, Pakistan’s foreign policy has been defined primarily by security concerns. Hard power mattered—and still does. Nuclear weapons reshaped the balance with India and ensured that no major power could ignore Pakistan’s role in South Asia. Even amid domestic instability, the state maintained a relatively consistent external posture.

In narrow security terms, Pakistan has acted with discipline and realism. The problem is that the world no longer rewards countries simply for staying afloat. It rewards those who convert geopolitical relevance into economic strength and technological capacity.

That is where Pakistan’s balancing act faces its real test.

In a fragmented multipolar world—where American dominance is contested, but no clear successor has emerged—nimble middle powers are carving out strategic space.

Turkey has used its NATO membership as cover while building a growing domestic defence industry and pursuing a more independent foreign policy. Indonesia has taken a quieter route, avoiding formal alignment while strengthening domestic manufacturing and adding value to its natural resources.

Pakistan’s challenge is generational: to move from being strategically important to being structurally resilient

Pakistan’s challenge is generational: to move from being strategically important to being structurally resilient

Different approaches, same lesson: countries that invest in their own economic and industrial strength gain far more room to manoeuvre when great powers collide.

Pakistan’s enduring strengths remain geography and nuclear deterrence. Its greatest vulnerability remains the economy.

The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor was meant to address that weakness. More than a network of roads and power plants, it was envisioned as a strategic economic transformation—linking Pakistan to China’s western regions while easing the country’s chronic energy shortages.

Yet infrastructure alone does not produce export industries. Ports do not automatically generate manufacturing ecosystems. Without governance reform, industrial policy, and sustained export growth, connectivity becomes unrealised potential.

Pakistan’s repeated reliance on international financial institutions underscores another truth: strategic importance does not eliminate economic reality. When foreign reserves shrink, autonomy shrinks with them. Creditors gain leverage precisely when strategic space is most needed.

The current Middle Eastern conflict illustrates how rapidly geopolitical shocks can ripple outward. Pakistan imports much of its energy through Gulf shipping routes that pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Any sustained disruption could drive up energy prices, strain foreign reserves, and deepen fiscal pressure.

Geopolitically, the crisis also highlights Pakistan’s delicate position. Iran is its immediate neighbour. China remains its closest strategic partner. The United States continues to wield influence through global financial institutions and international diplomacy. In an increasingly polarised environment, maintaining workable relations with all three becomes more complex.

For years, analysts debated whether the international system would fragment into competing blocs. The emerging pattern—from the Middle East to East Asia—suggests that fragmentation is already underway.

If major-power rivalry remains primarily economic and technological, Pakistan may still find room to hedge. It can deepen ties with China while maintaining pragmatic relations with Washington. It can attract Gulf investment seeking diversification. It can leverage its location as a potential trade bridge linking Central Asia to the Arabian Sea.

But if rivalry hardens into binary confrontation—whether over Taiwan in East Asia or escalating crises in the Middle East—the pressure to choose sides will intensify. Pakistan’s tilt towards China would face sharper scrutiny. India’s growing alignment with Washington would deepen regional polarisation. Financial leverage from Western institutions could bite precisely when economic stability is most fragile.

In that environment, economic weakness quickly becomes a strategic vulnerability.

This reality also calls for introspection at home. For much of its history, Pakistan’s strategic thinking has revolved around keeping pace with India—militarily, diplomatically, and often psychologically. Deterrence stability remains essential. Credible nuclear deterrence has prevented major war between the two countries for more than two decades.

But full-spectrum parity—economic, diplomatic, or symbolic—is neither realistic nor necessary.

When strategy is measured solely against India, policymaking becomes reactive. The real challenge for Pakistan is not matching India’s scale. It is strengthening its own foundations.

The central debate, then, is not East versus West, nor parity versus imbalance. It is resilience versus dependency.

Pakistan has often monetised its geography. During the Soviet-Afghan war, the War on Terror, and now amid shifting regional alignments, it has extracted strategic rents from its location. Sometimes this was clever diplomacy; sometimes it was unavoidable.

But rents are temporary. Structural transformation lasts.

For Pakistan’s balancing strategy to remain viable in the decades ahead, three shifts are essential.

First, economic reform must be treated as a national security priority. Fiscal discipline, tax reform, energy restructuring, and export competitiveness are not secondary policy debates. They determine how much diplomatic autonomy Pakistan actually possesses.

Second, the country must invest more seriously in technological and industrial capacity—linking defence production, civilian manufacturing, and digital infrastructure. Partnerships with major powers should focus not only on financing projects but also on transferring skills and building domestic capability.

Third, political stability and policy continuity are vital. Strategic balancing is difficult enough in a turbulent international system. States that repeatedly reverse policies at home struggle to maintain credibility abroad.

None of this diminishes Pakistan’s achievements. The country has preserved its core security interests in an exceptionally difficult neighbourhood. It has avoided formal client status and maintained room for manoeuvre between competing powers.

But the world ahead will be less forgiving.

Fragmentation may reward diplomatic flexibility, but it punishes economic weakness. A fully polarised international system could eliminate the middle ground.

Pakistan’s challenge is generational: to move from being strategically important to being structurally resilient.

If it succeeds, balancing becomes deliberate statecraft rather than episodic improvisation.

If it fails, geography will remain both an advantage and a trap.

Great powers shape the environment. But whether Pakistan merely survives in it—or builds the strength to shape its own future—will ultimately be decided at home.

© The Friday Times