The 6th Workshop on Leadership & Stability of the Pakistan National Defence University reveals a reality little known in the West: Pakistan has ceased to be a peripheral player to become a leading player in the struggle for the new world order, combining soft power and concrete power capabilities.
Islamabad is simultaneously managing tensions with India, Iran and Afghanistan while seeking to establish itself as a reliable partner of Washington–a complex equation illustrated by its participation in Trump's Board of Peace on Gaza, despite its shared borders with China, India and Iran.
The Pakistani case demonstrates that in the new world order, influence does not depend solely on the size of the economy: geography, the capacity for dialogue and strategic intelligence can make a regional actor indispensable to the great powers vying for power.
The 6th Workshop on Leadership & Stability, organised by the National Defence University of Pakistan, raises awareness of a reality that often goes unnoticed in the West: this country has ceased to be a peripheral player to become a leading player in the struggle for the new world order.
In Islamabad, this ambition for international influence is evident both in institutional language and in the way the country organises its relations with foreign delegations: Pakistan seeks to combine the tools of soft power with concrete power capabilities.
This combination is similar to the concept of “smart power” developed by Joseph Nye: the ability to articulate attractiveness, institutional ties, and concrete resources of power.
Pakistan is now seeking to establish itself as a reliable partner for the United States. This close relationship is not new, but it has gained renewed importance with the new political cycle under Trump. As early as 2020, the then-US president stated that we have never had a closer relationship than we do today, referring to the bilateral ties during his meeting with Imran Khan in Davos. In international politics, this kind of statement is not mere diplomatic courtesy: it is a signal. It reflects Washington's need for an ally that guarantees direct access to a region plagued by persistent conflicts and rising tensions, at a time when global competition is redefining alliances, priorities, and room for manoeuvre.
Pakistan's decision to join the Trump-launched Board of Peace for the Gaza process, despite sharing borders and interests with powers such as China, India, and Iran, clearly illustrates the delicate balance it is attempting to maintain. It also reflects an effort to move beyond historical interpretations associated with the complexities of the Afghan-Pakistani region. However, this process is gradual. More than two decades after the 9/11 attacks, building international trust remains a challenge that cannot be met through mere gestures but requires consistent behaviour over time.
At the same time, Pakistan is managing multiple open fronts. Tensions with India over territorial issues, relations with Iran regarding regional stability, and ties with Afghanistan, marked by the terrorist threat, force its authorities to make highly complex decisions. In this context, the country seeks to reconcile two central objectives: improving the living conditions of its population and maintaining its nuclear capability as a tool for deterrence and negotiation on the international stage.
The geopolitical dimension is also expressed in its position vis-à-vis the Middle East. Pakistan does not officially recognise the State of Israel and maintains its historical position in favour of Palestine. He is, however, aware that Israel's allies wield significant influence in the international system. This results in a constant tension between its identity, its traditional alliances, and the need to project itself pragmatically into a context where foreign policy demands flexibility, strategic vision, and adaptability.
Even in this context, Pakistan's progress is significant. It is no coincidence that the American president himself praised his army chief, calling him his “favourite quarterback”. This statement may seem anecdotal, but it reveals something deeper: Washington recognises Pakistan as a key partner, particularly in matters of security and the fight against terrorism.
This assessment reflects not only a notable shift in the attitude of this Asian country but also its growing strategic importance. In a world where trade, energy, and military routes are constantly being redefined, Pakistan is positioning itself as a transit zone and a point of intersection between conflicting interests. This is where much of its value in international relations lies: not in the absence of tensions, but in its ability to manage them.
This dynamic also offers two relevant lessons for understanding international politics from the perspective of countries like Argentina. The first is that, faced with a public debate often reduced to the rivalry between great powers, it is important to remember that regional or medium-sized actors can also have concrete effects on daily life, both strategically and tactically. While everything seems to revolve around superpowers, it is necessary to emphasise that none of them is self-sufficient in all the factors that determine international reality.
For various governments, observing these movements does not imply altering alliances or changing strategic definitions, but rather gaining a better understanding of how power is being reshaped in regions that will have an increasing influence on security, energy, and global trade. Anticipating these changes is also a way to better defend their own interests.
The Pakistani case demonstrates that, in the new world order, influence does not depend solely on the size of the economy or the extent of the public voice. It also depends on geography, the ability to engage in dialogue, and the intelligence needed to sit at the right table at the right time.
On the new international stage, knowing where to position oneself can be as important as knowing what to say. Pakistan seems to have understood that, often, power is not about occupying centre stage, but about becoming indispensable to those vying for it. In this game, influencing those in power can also be an effective way to participate.