Perhaps the most significant question posed by a journalist during a meeting between Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington, D.C., was related to Pakistan’s mediation efforts regarding the Iranian crisis and Islamabad’s prominent diplomatic role as a key mediator in the US-Iran peace talks. The journalist asked Prime Minister Dar a sensitive question about the possibility of Pakistan normalizing relations with Israel and whether Islamabad would recognize Israel. This led to the Pakistani Foreign Minister and his US counterpart abruptly leaving the meeting and refusing to make any press statements on the matter. The two ministers withdrew together amidst intensive US efforts, particularly by President Trump, to normalize relations between Muslim countries and Tel Aviv, aiming to expand the Abraham Accords to include all Middle Eastern and Gulf states, as Trump stated. These efforts were met with firm Pakistani rejection.
This Pakistani diplomatic stance, refusing to answer the question of the possibility of normalization with Israel, comes within the context of extensive American pressure and broader international political moves to expand the circle of Abraham Accords with Israel. This is in light of Pakistan’s principled rejection of such normalization, with the Pakistani government affirming that its position is firm and unchanged, linking any attempts to normalize relations with Israel to the necessity of establishing an independent Palestinian state. This comes amidst mounting American pressure on Pakistan and other countries in the region. This particular incident coincides with Washington and President Trump’s demands for several Islamic countries to join the Abraham Accords with Israel, a move that Pakistan strongly rejects, considering it contrary to its fundamental ideology. The Egyptian researcher can analyze the overall political landscape, especially in the future, as follows:
– First: Could China sponsor Trump’s idea of ​​integrating Iran and then Pakistan into the Abraham Accords as part of a grand bargain with Washington and Tel Aviv? And could Pakistan be elevated to the forefront of the political scene in the Asian region under China’s sponsorship if it joins the Abraham Accords, in exchange for a decline in the role of India, a close ally of Washington and Tel Aviv?
What particularly caught the attention of the Egyptian researcher, and which she analyzed at length, especially in light of her political analysis of the future, was this: Could China sponsor Trump’s idea of ​​integrating Iran and then Pakistan into the Abraham Accords as part of a grand bargain with Washington and Tel Aviv? More importantly, could Tel Aviv sacrifice its interests with India to normalize relations with its adversary, Pakistan, through Chinese mediation, thus making Pakistan the dominant power in Asia at the expense of India, a rival of both China and Pakistan? This is all within the context of the complex regional axes between the Pakistani, Indian, and Chinese trio, where alliances in Asia form a delicate balance. While Israel and the United States support India to counterbalance China’s influence, Pakistan receives significant military and diplomatic support from China. However, the pivotal question for the future, in my view, and one open to discussion in the long term, remains: Could Tel Aviv sacrifice its interests and its distinguished and strategic relationship with New Delhi in exchange for rapprochement with Pakistan and its regional escalation after accepting the principle of joining the Abraham Accords with Washington and Tel Aviv? This could only happen with the sponsorship and planning of China, which seeks to distance India, a major regional power, from its direct spheres of influence in South Asia, particularly Pakistan. What I will present today is a public and analytical discussion of how China might exploit this Israeli-Indian alliance against its Pakistani ally, using it as a bargaining chip in the future. This is especially relevant given that the partnership between New Delhi and Tel Aviv relies on military, intelligence, and security cooperation, potentially even against Pakistan and China themselves. Israel considers India a major market for its weapons, making any Israeli agreement with Pakistan (India’s traditional rival) a blow to its strategic interests and complicating the entire Asian landscape and network of regional and international alliances. This is further complicated by Pakistan’s rise to prominence in Asian politics, sponsored by China, should it join the Abraham Accords, at a time when India, a close ally of Washington and Tel Aviv, is experiencing a decline in influence.
Here, Pakistan officially affirms its categorical rejection of any normalization of relations with Israel without the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders. Islamabad is currently resisting pressure from the US administration and President Donald Trump to join the Abraham Accords, considering such a move contrary to its diplomatic principles and core ideology. The steadfastness of the Pakistani position is evident in its adherence to the Palestinian condition, as declared by Pakistani Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar in Washington. He stated that Pakistan’s policy is unwavering: there will be no recognition of Israel until the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Furthermore, Pakistan categorically rejects the Abraham Accords, a stance reiterated by Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif, who affirmed that his country refuses to join the Abraham Accords, explaining that Islamabad does not trust the Israeli side. With Pakistan officially adopting a position of absolute boycott of Israel, it remains the only country in the world whose passport explicitly states “not valid for travel to Israel.” This firm stance came in response to mounting US pressure on Pakistan, particularly following President Trump’s call for several Muslim-majority countries to join the Abraham Accords as part of regional stability efforts. This call was also met with rejection, mirroring Pakistan’s position among major regional powers. Pakistani diplomacy reflects a popular and political consensus against rapprochement with Tel Aviv, as Pakistan bases its international relations on its historical and unwavering support for the Palestinian cause.
– Second: Information Prior to the Start of a Joint US-Pakistani Dialogue Addressing the Possibility of Pakistani Normalization with Israel
In my attempt to find any prior information or background to the start of a joint US-Pakistani dialogue addressing the possibility of Pakistani normalization with Israel, the Egyptian researcher came across some information already published and circulated by several Israeli media outlets, specifically on Wednesday, December 16, 2020. These outlets asserted that they were revealing aspects of secret communications that had already taken place between Pakistan and Israel, at the behest and planning of US President Trump during his first term, which might ultimately lead to the announcement of an agreement to normalize relations with Israel.
Citing Israeli political sources, including the Hebrew website Nziv reported at the time, it was stated that a British Airways passenger plane landed on the morning of November 20, 2020, at Ben Gurion International Airport, arriving from Heathrow Airport in London, carrying Syed Bukhari, then advisor to the Pakistani Prime Minister. The Israeli sources on the Nziv website noted that then-Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan chose this particular individual, Syed Bukhari, who is very close to him, due to his constant presence in London and his strong ties to the administration of US President Donald Trump. The sources added that he stayed in Israel for a few days, during which he met with the acting head of the Mossad, Yossi Cohen, and delivered to him a message from Imran Khan, which the Israeli website described as a secret. The Hebrew website also claimed that: Islamabad is keen to open a dialogue with Israel on normalizing relations in order to obtain positive stances on the Indian issue, on the one hand, and to exploit the atmosphere created by the normalization of relations between Israel and the UAE, and talk of the possibility of Saudi Arabia taking a similar step. The same point was noted by the Hebrew newspaper Israel Hayom at the same time, claiming that senior officials from a large Islamic country that does not have diplomatic relations with Israel – referring to Pakistan – had arrived in Tel Aviv. The Hebrew newspaper Israel Hayom claimed that: senior officials from a large Asian Islamic country that does not have relations with Tel Aviv, headed by the senior advisor to the president or leader of that country, visited Israel during the past two weeks and met with Israeli representatives.
This prompted a response from the then Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, who stated, “I have no other ideas regarding recognizing Israel unless there is a just settlement that satisfies the Palestinians.” He added, “Friendly countries are pressuring us to normalize relations with Israel.” Imran Khan asserted that this pressure stems from Israel’s deep influence in the United States and that this influence was extraordinary during the presidency of Donald Trump. This came during an interview with a local Pakistani radio station on Thursday, November 12, 2020, in which Imran Khan refused to name the countries that had pressured him to recognize Israel. When asked whether these countries were Muslim or not, Imran Khan replied, “Leave that question out of it; there are some things we cannot say.” He then added during the same interview that We have good relations with these countries, in a veiled reference at the time to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Bahrain, which had established diplomatic and economic relations with Tel Aviv months earlier. Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan had stated in September 2020 that there is no point in recognizing or normalizing relations with the Israeli occupation because it will not change anything on the ground, adding that the Palestinians are a people with a just cause; they have been wronged, deprived of their rights, and their land has been usurped.
– Third: Exploring the possibility of reaching a ceasefire agreement and ending the American war on Tehran, following a deal between Iran, the United States, and Israel, brokered by China, to establish a peace agreement and normalize relations between Iran and Israel, opening an Israeli embassy in Tehran and, similarly, opening an Iranian embassy in Tel Aviv, both under Chinese auspices
Regarding the possibility of reaching a ceasefire agreement and ending the American war on Tehran and the feasibility of a deal between Iran, the United States, and Israel, brokered by China, to establish a peace agreement and normalize relations between Iran and Israel, opening an Israeli embassy in Tehran and, similarly, opening an Iranian embassy in Tel Aviv, both under Chinese auspices, this reminds me of a personal experience I had, which I mentioned and published at the time for the entire international community, entitled “A Peace Agreement and Official Normalization of Relations Between Iran and Israel, Sponsored by China, in Exchange for Maintaining the Security of the Egyptian Suez Canal and Halting the Displacement of the Gaza Strip’s Population.” I published my aforementioned analysis immediately after the Gaza war on December 18, 2023, on the Modern Diplomacy website for political analyses, and it was translated and widely published on Egyptian and Arab websites. In my aforementioned article, I analyzed that the reason for the Gaza war was purely economic reasons to prevent Israel and the United States of America from establishing the Israeli Ben Gurion Canal and the Indian-Israeli-European Economic Corridor project passing through the Middle East region, with the aim of limiting the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and creating an Israeli branch parallel to the Egyptian Suez Canal, and thus striking the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and harming the Egyptian Suez Canal. This proposal was addressed by the American diplomat Michael Manzo in an official email to me from the US Consulate General in Guangdong Province, southern China, dated December 28, 2023. He stated that considering this alternative project to the Egyptian Suez Canal was due to Houthi and Iranian attacks on the Suez Canal and their negative impact on global maritime traffic, thus necessitating, in his view, the exploration of alternative shipping routes. Given the seriousness of the American diplomat Michael Manzo’s proposal, I publicly published his email to me. I then republished the same analysis in February 2025, arguing that the reason behind this firm American and Israeli determination to pressure Egypt and Jordan regarding the forced displacement of Gaza’s population was to seize the Gaza port entirely and incorporate it into Israel’s Ben Gurion Port project, thereby giving Israel control over all global maritime shipping and transport.
However, like everyone else, I was surprised to find a response addressed to me by an Iranian researcher residing within Iran itself, on the same Modern Diplomacy political analysis website. The response stated that: Iran and China do not oppose the Israeli Ben Gurion Port canal project. This greatly surprised me, given my understanding that an Iranian researcher residing within Iran would not have published such a claim publicly unless he had already received the green light from Tehran to respond to my analysis and the content of my article on the Modern Diplomacy website. This could be interpreted as perhaps indicating an Iranian desire for normalization with Israel in exchange for compromises, understandings, and negotiations sponsored by China. This interpretation was based on my complete and accurate understanding at the time of the general trend within China, Russia, and even Iran itself, which was not opposed to this Iranian-Israeli rapprochement, provided it was under carefully considered conditions and sponsored by China. However, the outbreak of the American-Israeli war against Iran undermined this proposal and surprised everyone, given the existence of a bargaining chip and the possibility of presenting a normalization project for negotiation between Israel and Tehran.
– Fourth: Understanding the extent to which China might support a comprehensive reconciliation and negotiations between Iran, Pakistan, and the United States to include them in a peace agreement and normalize relations with Israel and play a pivotal role in it, given its strategic and economic interests in the region and its close relations with Tehran and Islamabad
Accordingly, analyzing this and understanding the extent to which China might support the idea of ​​sponsoring a comprehensive reconciliation and negotiations between Iran, Pakistan, and the United States—including a peace agreement and normalization of relations with Israel—and play a pivotal role in it, given its strategic and economic interests in the region and its close ties with Tehran and Islamabad, the success of this grand bargain faces complex geopolitical challenges. The details of this scenario can be summarized, deconstructed, and analyzed by understanding China’s role as a guarantor and facilitator. This is due to its economic interests and energy security within the framework of its Belt and Road Initiative, as China relies heavily on Gulf oil. Therefore, any grand settlement ending the war with Iran, ensuring the stability of the Strait of Hormuz and shipping lanes, aligns perfectly with the objectives of (China’s global security initiative). Furthermore, China’s strategic partnerships—a 25-year strategic partnership agreement between Beijing and Iran and a historical and strategic friendship with Pakistan—give Beijing considerable leverage to exert pressure or offer guarantees to ensure the success of any agreement. Here, Beijing could indeed support diplomatic mediation efforts (such as Pakistan’s efforts) to end the war and reach a comprehensive regional settlement.
Regarding the possibility of integrating Iran into the Abraham Accords, the American vision, as articulated by US President Donald Trump, links the course of negotiations to end the war with Iran to its accession to the Abraham Accords. He has directly called upon countries in the region (including Pakistan) to join and sign memoranda of understanding for peace. Herein lies the Iranian position: from a political and ideological standpoint, this change would be radical and would require major shifts in Tehran’s foreign policy. However, normalization could be linked to a joint Iranian-Chinese agreement with Washington and Tel Aviv, with the aim of making it conditional on creating a new regional order that breaks Iran’s isolation.
As for the Pakistani position and the regional reality regarding the issue of normalization with Tel Aviv, Pakistan rejects this proposal, despite Trump’s suggestion of Islamabad and Iran joining as a possible condition. To secure a major deal with Iran that would end the war and break its international and regional isolation, Pakistan quickly rejected the American proposal. Pakistan has historically refused to recognize Israel due to the Palestinian issue and other internal religious and political considerations. Pakistan prioritizes its role in the current mediation efforts with Iran, supported and guided by China. Pakistan is acting as a mediator (in coordination with China) to de-escalate tensions and end military conflict with Iran. However, Pakistan’s actual accession to a normalization agreement with Tel Aviv remains a red line that is difficult to cross at present.
– Fifth: Obstacles to the grand bargain between Pakistan, Iran, and Israel and the provision of American and Israeli concessions to them regarding guaranteeing Pakistan’s superiority over its rival and arch-enemy, India, in its regional sphere and ensuring Chinese dominance in global and regional supply chains at the expense of India, which is supported by the US, Israel, and the West in its regional sphere.
Herein lie the remaining obstacles to the grand bargain between Pakistan, Iran, and Israel, and the provision of American and Israeli concessions to them, regarding guaranteeing Pakistan’s superiority over its rival and arch-enemy, India, in its regional sphere, and ensuring Chinese dominance in global and regional supply chains at the expense of India, which is supported by the US, Israel, and the West. This is a condition for China’s sponsorship of a normalization agreement between Pakistan and Israel, or for halting the Iranian war and breaking Tehran’s isolation according to carefully considered terms sponsored by China. It should be noted that Washington uses India as a counterweight to China. Therefore, offering American-Israeli concessions to ensure Pakistan’s superiority over India in the event that Pakistan agrees to join the Abraham Accords with Washington and Tel Aviv could radically change the situation and completely alter Washington’s strategy in the (Indo-Pacific) region, which has always relied on India to balance its relations and influence against China and Pakistan in the Asian region. This could greatly benefit China in order to protect its interests and investments in the Belt and Road Initiative, considering India as a key part of the Israeli-American-Western economic corridor that is opposed to China and its Belt and Road Initiative. This makes any American-Israeli-Western concession in favor of Beijing and Islamabad in the event of normalization with Israel extremely dangerous and complex, and could overturn the entire political landscape in the Asian region and the world.
– Sixth: Could the United States offer a number of security guarantees and other political and military deals, under Chinese auspices, such as providing advanced American military equipment to countries in the region and the Gulf, particularly the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, and halting its unconditional military support for Israel, support designed to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge over all other countries in the region, as a condition for joining the Abraham Accords under Chinese auspices?
Before discussing this, it’s important to consider that, even for China, achieving all of this requires addressing several fundamental issues as a prerequisite. These include resolving the Palestinian issue and its outstanding problems. The vast majority of people in countries targeted for normalization with Israel, such as Pakistan, the Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey, reject the principle of full normalization without a clear settlement establishing an independent Palestinian state. Furthermore, a number of security guarantees and other political and military agreements are necessary. These include providing the Gulf states, particularly the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, with advanced American military equipment and halting the unconditional US military support for Israel. This support is crucial to ensuring Israel’s qualitative military edge over all other countries in the region. Washington consistently rejects requests from the UAE and Saudi Arabia for arms deals and (F-35 fighter jets) to guarantee Israel’s qualitative military superiority. Here, Washington and Israel will need to provide firm security and military guarantees and arms deals to all countries in the region, the Gulf, and other Islamic states that will come under the umbrella of the Abraham Accords with Washington. These guarantees will be irrevocable, which, as the Egyptian researcher mentioned, will undoubtedly require unprecedented regional concessions and compromises.
Considering the extent of the United States’ legal and political commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME), it is unlikely that Washington will agree to halt or restrict its military support to Israel as a condition for Arab and Gulf states to sign normalization agreements with Tel Aviv. Furthermore, Washington’s granting of a number of security guarantees to the Gulf states, contingent upon their signing the Abraham Accords with Israel, remains a subject of ongoing doubt and questioning, especially given Washington’s efforts to strengthen alliances with the Gulf states independently of China. In late 2025, the Trump administration concluded the Strategic Defense Agreement (SDA) with Saudi Arabia, which enhanced cooperation in the fields of technology, artificial intelligence, and defense capabilities, without Chinese involvement. With Washington’s approval of transferring advanced American military equipment to countries in the region and the Gulf, such as the (F-35 fighter jet deals) for the UAE and the memoranda of understanding on this matter with Saudi Arabia, although some of these deals with the United States have not been finalized, due to the American political conditionality aimed at limiting these Gulf states’ relations with China to prevent the theft of (F-35 engine secrets), according to the American justification, while the United States continues to provide security assistance to Egypt and several other countries in the region. However, these American military deals with all of them are managed according to the balance of American power to primarily secure Israeli interests and not as a result of a major political deal that includes conditions for canceling American commitments to Tel Aviv.
Accordingly, we understand the extent of the American endeavor under the administration of US President Donald Trump and his continuous calls for all Middle Eastern and Gulf countries, without exception, to join the Abraham Accords for peace with Israel. Here, China can sponsor these ideas as an international guarantor of the economic, political, military, security, and developmental interests of the Gulf states, the region, and its close allies Iran and Pakistan. However, integrating Iran and Pakistan into the Abraham Accords requires comprehensive settlements and addressing the root causes of the conflicts, especially given the current popular and political opposition, particularly after the Gaza War and the war on Iran.
