ISLAMABAD: The possibility of the Pakistan Army being considered for a GazaInternational Force has quietly emerged as a subject of serious strategicdebate in Washington, despite clear Israeli objections. Though no formalproposal has been announced, diplomatic signaling and policy discussionssuggest that former US president Donald Trump and his strategic circle viewPakistan as a uniquely positioned actor for post-war Gaza stabilization.The rationale combines military professionalism, political symbolism, andWashington’s long-standing preference to outsource regional securitywithout deploying American troops.
At the core of this thinking lies the search for a force that can operatein Gaza without being perceived as an extension of Israeli or Westernmilitary control. Gaza’s post-conflict governance presents an extraordinarylegitimacy challenge, where optics may matter as much as operationalcapability. Pakistan’s army, drawn from a Muslim-majority country with nodirect territorial or political stake in the conflict, offers an unusualbalance of credibility and distance. For American planners, thisdistinction reduces the risk of immediate rejection by the local population.
Donald Trump’s foreign policy instincts historically favored strong,disciplined militaries over diplomatic coalitions heavy on consensus butlight on enforcement. The Pakistan Army fits this preference profile. It isamong the world’s largest standing armies, battle-hardened through decadesof counterinsurgency and urban warfare operations. Its command structure iscentralized, its operational doctrine is clear, and its forces haveexperience operating under restrictive rules of engagement, all traits thatappeal to a transactional, results-driven strategic worldview.
Israeli opposition to any Pakistani military presence in Gaza is rooted inboth political and security concerns. Pakistan does not recognize Israeland has consistently supported Palestinian self-determination ininternational forums. Israeli policymakers fear that Pakistani troops wouldlimit Israel’s operational freedom, resist intelligence-sharingarrangements, or act as a buffer against future Israeli incursions. FromIsrael’s perspective, a force lacking diplomatic relations undermines trustin crisis scenarios.
However, US strategic planning does not always mirror Israeli preferences,particularly when regional backlash risks broader instability. Washingtonremains acutely aware that any Gaza security architecture perceived asIsraeli-controlled would likely collapse under regional pressure. Trump’sadvisers have often argued that Israel’s tactical security concerns must bebalanced against long-term regional acceptance. In this framework, Pakistanbecomes a compromise actor, strong enough to enforce order yet politicallydistant enough to maintain neutrality claims.
Pakistan’s extensive history in United Nations peacekeeping missionsstrengthens its candidacy. Pakistani forces have served in some of theworld’s most volatile environments, including Bosnia, Somalia, Congo, andDarfur. These deployments built an institutional reputation for discipline,restraint, and civilian engagement under international mandates. For Gaza,such experience is invaluable, as the mission would likely require managingcivilian populations, preventing militant resurgence, and coordinating withhumanitarian agencies simultaneously.
Another layer of calculation involves the broader Muslim world. IncludingPakistan in a Gaza force sends a powerful symbolic message that governanceis not being imposed solely by Western or Israeli authority. This symbolismdirectly challenges narratives promoted by Iran-backed groups that portrayresistance as the only protection for Palestinians. A respectedSunni-majority military from South Asia complicates ideological framing andreduces space for regional actors seeking to exploit post-war grievances.
Trump’s Middle East strategy has consistently centered on containing Iranwhile avoiding large-scale US military commitments. A Pakistani role inGaza aligns with this objective. Pakistan maintains complex but cautiousrelations with Iran and has historically resisted becoming part ofsectarian regional blocs. Its presence could limit Iranian influence inGaza without provoking the immediate backlash that Gulf or Western forcesmight trigger. This indirect containment fits Trump’s preference forstrategic burden-sharing.
Read Top Stories
The Pakistan Army’s inclusion also offers Washington additional leverage inSouth and Central Asia. Military cooperation in Gaza could strengthen USinfluence in Islamabad at a time when Pakistan’s strategic alignment withChina continues to deepen. Trump’s transactional diplomacy often sought tolink cooperation across theaters, using one arena to gain leverage inanother. Gaza, in this sense, becomes not only a Middle Eastern issue butpart of a broader geopolitical chessboard.
Yet, significant obstacles remain. Domestic opinion in Pakistan hashistorically been sensitive to Middle East deployments, particularly whereIsrael is indirectly involved. Any participation would require carefulframing as a humanitarian or UN-mandated mission rather than a securityarrangement favoring one side. Without broad international cover, Islamabadwould likely hesitate, wary of internal political fallout and regionaldiplomatic consequences.
Operational risks further complicate the equation. Gaza’s dense urbanterrain, fragmented militant landscape, and unresolved political futuremake stabilization exceptionally difficult. Even the most professionalforces risk being drawn into prolonged engagements with unclear end states.For Pakistan, whose military is already stretched across internal securityand border management duties, the cost-benefit calculation would requirestrong international guarantees and a clearly defined mandate.
Despite these challenges, the persistence of Pakistan’s name in strategicdiscussions reflects a deeper reality: Gaza’s future cannot be stabilizedthrough force alone, nor through actors lacking legitimacy. Trump’sapparent interest in Pakistan underscores a recognition that militarycapability must be paired with political acceptability. In a conflictdefined by perception, symbolism becomes a strategic asset, and Pakistanrepresents a rare convergence of both.
Ultimately, whether such a proposal materializes will depend on evolvingregional dynamics, Israeli-US negotiations, and Pakistan’s own strategicpriorities. What is clear is that the conversation itself signals a shiftin how Washington views post-conflict governance in Gaza. Rather thandefaulting to traditional allies, policymakers appear increasingly open tounconventional partners capable of reshaping regional narratives whilemaintaining hard security control.
ogimageimage-name