ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – When the United Nations Security Council on Monday adopted a U.S.-authored resolution paving the way for an interim government and the International Stabilization Force (ISF) in Gaza, Pakistan, which presided over the council, gave a seemingly contradictory response.
Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Asim Iftikhar Ahmed thanked the United States for introducing the resolution and voted in favor of it. But he also said Pakistan was not completely satisfied with the outcome and warned that “some critical suggestions” from Pakistan were not included in the final document.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
The resolution promises a “credible path” to a Palestinian state, but Ahmed said in comments to the council that it does not specify that path, nor does it clarify the role of the United Nations, the proposed Board of Peace (BoP) to oversee governance of Gaza, or the mandate of the ISF.
“These are all important aspects of the success of this initiative, and I very much hope that further details will be announced in the coming weeks, providing much-needed clarity on these issues.”
But the country had already supported US President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza ceasefire plan, which formed the basis of a September UN resolution. And while several other Arab and Islamic countries have cautiously supported the resolution, Pakistan, which has the largest military, is widely expected to play a key role in the ISF.
The vote in favor of the resolution, combined with the suggestion that Pakistan still has questions that need answers, represents a careful tightrope that Islamabad must walk as it faces domestic questions over a possible military deployment to Gaza, analysts say.
Former Pakistani Foreign Minister Salman Bashir told Al Jazeera: “The US strategy is clear and has a pro-Israel slant. But we need to recognize that this is the best option we have.” “After the suffering we caused the people of Gaza, we had no choice but to accompany them.”
Pakistan’s growing geopolitical value
In recent weeks, Pakistani leaders have been busy engaging in diplomacy with key partners in the Middle East.
Last weekend, Jordan’s King Abdullah II visited Islamabad and met with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Army Commander Asim Munir. Munir previously visited Amman in October and also visited Cairo, Egypt.
Pakistan has traditionally had close ties with the Gulf states, but those ties became even more strained during Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza. Pakistan has long called for “self-determination for the Palestinian people and the establishment of a sovereign, independent and contiguous Palestinian state based on its pre-1967 borders with al-Quds al-Sharif (Jerusalem) as its capital.”
But in recent weeks, Pakistan, the only Islamic state with nuclear weapons, has also emerged as a key actor in the region’s security calculations, following lobbying from both the United States and key Arab allies.
Pakistan signed the Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement (SMDA) with Saudi Arabia in September, days after Israel attacked Qatar’s capital Doha. And in October, Prime Minister Sharif and Field Marshal Munir joined President Trump and other world leaders in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, to attend the formal signing of the Gaza ceasefire agreement. Sharif lavished praise on Trump on the occasion.
By then, President Trump had already described Munir as his “favorite marshal.” After a brief escalation in relations with India in May, when Pakistan announced it had shot down an Indian fighter jet, Munir met with Trump in the Oval Office in June, an unprecedented visit by an active Pakistani military commander who is not a head of state.
In late September, Munir returned to Washington, this time with Sharif. The prime minister and the army chief met with President Trump to promote potential investment opportunities including rare earth minerals in Pakistan.
The Pakistani government is currently considering joining the ISF. The government has not yet made a decision, but senior officials have publicly commented favorably on the idea. Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said on October 28: “If Pakistan has to participate in it, I think it will be a matter of pride for us. We will participate with pride.”
Some analysts warn that this is easier said than done.
The Palestinian issue is an emotional one for Pakistan, which does not recognize Israel. National passports clearly state that they cannot be used for travel to Israel, and any suggestion of military cooperation with the Israeli military or de facto recognition of Israel remains politically problematic.
The prospect of sending troops to Gaza is therefore a highly sensitive topic for politicians and the military alike.
The government keeps its cards close to its chest.
Officially, the government is unclear about its position on participation in the ISF.
Defense Minister Asif said joining the military was a cause for pride, but said the government would consult parliament and other institutions before making a decision.
“The government will go through the process and make a decision. I don’t want to pre-empt anything,” he said.
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Tahir Andrabi said at a weekly press briefing earlier this month that the question of Pakistan’s contribution would be decided “after consultations at the highest levels.”
“Decisions will be taken as appropriate. Leaders at some levels have said decisions will be taken with government advice,” he said.
Al Jazeera contacted Asif, the Defense Minister, Information Minister Attaullah Talal, and the military’s media arm, Inter-Services Public Affairs, but did not receive a response.
Legal and operational ambiguity
Some retired senior officials say Pakistan will not decide the issue behind closed doors.
Muhammad Saeed, a three-star general who served as chief of staff until retiring in 2023, said he expected the terms of reference and rules of engagement for the ISF deployment to be discussed publicly, including at Pakistan’s National Security Council and parliament.
“This is a very sensitive topic. It needs to be discussed publicly and it is impossible for any government to keep it a secret. Therefore, once the structure of the ISF is revealed, I am confident that Pakistan’s decision-making will be very comprehensive and the public will know the details,” he told Al Jazeera.
Kamran Bokhari, senior director at the New Line Strategic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., said Pakistan’s military in Gaza would likely be representative of both countries due to a mutual defense agreement with Saudi Arabia. But he added that Pakistan likely would have joined the ISF even without the Saudi deal.
Still, experts say the lack of details on ISF and Gaza’s governance in UN resolutions remains an obstacle.
Several Council countries said the draft resolution left vague key elements such as the composition, structure, and terms of reference of both the BoP and ISF. China, which abstained, also said the document was “vague and unclear” on key elements.
The resolution calls for the “demilitarization” of the Gaza Strip and the “permanent destruction of weapons of non-state armed groups,” a demand Hamas rejects.
Hamas said the resolution does not meet Palestinian rights and seeks to impose an international trusteeship on Gaza, which is opposed by Palestinians and resistance groups.
The United States has so far dispatched about 200 people, including generals, to establish a Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) near Gaza, an Israeli territory. The center will monitor humanitarian assistance and serve as a base for ISF operations.
US-based media outlet Politico reported last month that Muslim-majority Pakistan, Azerbaijan and Indonesia were among the top candidates to supply troops to the ISF.
Meanwhile, the United Arab Emirates, which joined the Abraham Accords in 2020 and recognized Israel during President Trump’s first administration, has said it will not join until the legal framework is clear.
Jordan’s King Abdullah also warned that without a clear mandate for the ISF, it would be difficult for the plan to succeed.
Costs, incentives, and Pakistan’s historical role
Bokhari argued that Pakistan’s options are limited, adding that many of its close allies are “deeply committed” to the initiative and are seeking Islamabad’s participation.
“Pakistan’s economic and financial problems mean it needs to reciprocate militarily to ensure the goodwill of the United States and its Gulf allies in Islamabad,” he said. “We must assume that the current military and civilian leadership is aware of the domestic political risks.”
Some point to Pakistan’s long experience in UN peacekeeping operations. As of September 2025, Pakistan has contributed more than 2,600 personnel to UN missions, just below Indonesia’s 2,700, ranking Pakistan 6th overall, according to UN statistics.
Kamal Cheema, executive director of the Islamabad-based Sanobar Institute, said Pakistan has emerged as a security and stable power in the Middle East and has “rich experience in providing assistance in conflict zones in the past.”
Pakistan currently faces security challenges on both its borders, with India to the east and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan to the west. But Cheema told Al Jazeera: “The number of troops[needed in Gaza]may not be that large because other countries are also sending troops, so there may not be a need to draw down troops from the eastern or western borders.”
Retired General Saeed said Pakistan’s historical position towards Palestine remains intact and with previous peacekeeping experience, Pakistan’s military is well-equipped to support the ISF.
“Pakistan is one of the countries with the richest experience in both peacekeeping and peace enforcement through the United Nations. We have a sizeable force with diverse experience in maintaining peace and order,” he said.
“There is hope that we may be able to provide support that can eliminate violence, bring peace, bring humanitarian aid to Gaza and implement UN resolutions,” the former general said.
Domestic political risks and Israeli factors
Despite these debates, many in Pakistan question the feasibility and political acceptability of working with or collaborating with the Israeli military.
Former Foreign Minister Bashir acknowledged the risks and said Hamas’ demands for demilitarization made the ISF a “difficult task.”
Still, he said, “realism requires us to follow solutions that are less than perfect.”
New Lines Institute’s Bokhari said officials often iron out details “on the go” in the early stages of such missions.
“Of course, Pakistan and other participating countries cannot avoid working with Israel,” he said.
However, Mr Said disagreed. He said the ISF would likely be a coalition in which either partner would coordinate any dealings with the Israeli military, meaning the Pakistani military might not have direct contact with Israel.
“Other countries that could potentially join the ISF also have relations with Israel. They will probably take on the role of commander of the ISF, so it will be them, not Pakistan, that will engage with them,” he said. He added that Pakistan’s involvement, if it were to occur, would be limited to maintaining a ceasefire and protecting Palestinian lives.
But Omar Mahmoud Hayat, another retired three-star general, warned that operational ties with Israel would “invite a domestic backlash and undermine public trust.”
Hayat said Pakistan does not have diplomatic relations with Israel “for principled reasons” and blurring the line even on humanitarian grounds would lead to domestic confusion and controversy.
“This is not only a moral dilemma, but also a strategic contradiction,” he said. “It weakens our diplomatic posture.”
