U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said he does not trust Pakistan to serve as a mediator in negotiations between the U.S. and Iran [1, 2].
The comments signal a potential diplomatic rift and suggest that the U.S. may resist using Islamabad as a neutral bridge to resolve tensions with Tehran. Such opposition from high-ranking lawmakers can influence the strategic direction of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and South Asia.
Graham said his concerns during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing in Washington, D.C. [1, 4]. He specifically targeted the suitability of Pakistan for this diplomatic role, stating that "Pakistan as mediator is problematic" [3].
The senator linked his distrust to Pakistan's geopolitical alignments and its domestic political climate. He said that Pakistan's strong anti-Israel stance makes the prospect of mediation more than problematic [2]. Graham also cited alleged cooperation between Pakistan and Iran as a reason for his skepticism [2].
"I don't trust Pakistan," Graham said [1].
These statements were further discussed in Pakistan on Geo News' Capital Talk studio, reflecting the international attention on the senator's critique [4]. The pushback centers on whether a country with a firm anti-Israel position can effectively facilitate a deal that typically requires the alignment of U.S. interests regarding regional security, and the Abraham Accords [3].
Graham's criticism highlights a fundamental tension in how the U.S. views its partners in South Asia. While the U.S. often engages with Pakistan for regional stability, the senator's remarks suggest that this relationship does not extend to high-stakes mediation where ideological alignment on Israel is a prerequisite [2, 3].
“"I don't trust Pakistan."”
The opposition from a key member of the Senate Appropriations Committee indicates that any attempt to use Pakistan as a diplomatic conduit to Iran may face significant legislative hurdles in the U.S. By tying the issue to Pakistan's stance on Israel, Graham is framing the mediation not as a logistical question, but as a matter of strategic trust and ideological compatibility.
