Between Peace and Peril: Pakistan’s Calculus in the UN Endorsement of Trump’s Gaza Blueprint

Introduction

On 17 November 2025, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted a resolution that formally endorses the Gaza peace framework proposed by Donald Trump. The vote tallied 13 in favour, with China and Russia abstaining. The Express Tribune+4The Washington Post+4TRT World+4

That plan envisions a multinational “International Stabilisation Force” (ISF), a “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump himself, transitional governance structures in Gaza, and conditional references to a future Palestinian state. The Washington Post+1

However, the resolution raises pressing questions for Pakistan: What role does Islamabad play? What are the potential gains and risks — especially considering the country’s strategic posture, its army’s interests and its regional diplomacy? And is this perhaps more of a trap than an opportunity?

Pakistan’s Role in the Resolution

Formal Endorsement

In the lead-up to the vote, Pakistan was a clear part of a joint statement alongside the US, Gulf states and Turkey, urging swift adoption of the US-drafted resolution. The statement read in part that “the United States, Qatar, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Türkiye express our joint support for the Security Council Resolution currently under consideration.” Arab News+1

Thus, Pakistan signalled diplomatic alignment with this US-led initiative.

Ambivalence and Distancing

Yet shortly afterwards Pakistan’s Foreign Minister clarified that the 20-point Gaza peace plan publicly advanced by Trump did not reflect the original draft proposed by Muslim-majority countries to which Pakistan had contributed. He stated: “These 20 points … are not ours. Some changes have been made in it, in the draft we had.” Reuters+1

This reveals ambivalence: outward diplomatic support for the UNSC resolution, while formally distancing from the exact plan’s content.

Pakistan’s Strategic Interests

From Islamabad’s perspective, several motives appear relevant:

• Pakistan historically supports the Palestinian cause and sustains pro-Palestinian public and diplomatic sentiment. Endorsing the resolution allows Islamabad to be seen as working with the Muslim and Arab world.

• Alignment with the US and Gulf states can yield economic or security dividends for Pakistan, which often seeks external partnerships.

• The Pakistani military institution (the Pakistan Army) has long-standing ties with regional and global powers; such diplomatic gestures may support its strategic posture.

Advantages for Pakistan

1. Diplomatic credential-building: As part of the endorsing bloc, Pakistan bolsters its image as a constructive actor in Muslim-Arab diplomacy, which may enhance its influence.

2. Leverage with the US and Gulf-Arab partners: By aligning with US/Gulf diplomatic initiatives, Pakistan might gain greater access to security cooperation, financial investment or favourable terms.

3. Support for Palestinian state-hood narrative: The resolution’s conditional reference to a Palestinian state allows Pakistan to claim it stood for the principle of self-determination for Palestinians. TRT World+1

4. Regional strategic positioning: Pakistan may leverage its endorsement to reaffirm its role in broader Middle East diplomacy, beyond its traditional South Asia focus.

1. 

Disadvantages and Possible Traps for Pakistan

1. Limited clarity and risk of being sidelined: The resolution features vague wording — for example, on how the ISF will be staffed, who sits on the “Board of Peace”, what the Palestinian Authority’s role will be. Crisis Group+1
   That vagueness could leave Pakistan in a token role, with little real influence.

2. Reputational risk vis-à-vis the Palestinian public: If the plan fails to deliver genuine Palestinian statehood or is perceived as Western / Israeli-led imposition, Pakistan’s early endorsement may reflect poorly on its pro-Palestinian credentials.

3. Being drawn into US geopolitical agendas: The US may be using this resolution as a broader tool to reset regional alignments. Pakistan could be drawn into commitments or expectations (political, military, financial) not aligned with its interests.

4. Military-institution risks: The Pakistani Army may find itself implicated indirectly in a US-led Middle East stabilisation architecture, which might complicate its regional posture (e.g., with Iran, China, etc.).

5. Is it a trap?: The key question: is Pakistan being used as a diplomatic foot-soldier to lend Muslim-Arab legitimacy to a plan that primarily advances US/Israeli strategic aims, rather than Palestinian liberation? If the plan fails, then Pakistan bears the reputational cost.

Why Trump Appeases the Pakistan Army (and Pakistan)

• Strategic reach-out: The US under Trump may be seeking deeper engagement in South and Central Asia. Pakistan is strategically located and has long US-military links; appeasing Pakistan helps US broader agendas (Afghanistan, China, India, regional logistics).

• Muslim-majority legitimacy: US efforts to frame its Gaza peace framework as backed by major Muslim states require sign-ons from countries such as Pakistan. That support lends the plan religious and diplomatic legitimacy that the US/Israel alone lack.

• Military-to-military channels: Pakistan’s Army has long-standing institutional ties with US military/diplomatic bodies; cultivating goodwill may unlock logistic or strategic cooperation.

• Economic leverage: The US may promise or extend favourable economic/aid packages to Pakistan if Islamabad plays along diplomatically.

• For Pakistan Army leadership, being in the “good books” of the US may translate into enhanced legitimacy, access to technology, or bilateral strategic assurances.

Is It a Trap for Pakistan?

There is a strong argument that Pakistan could be stepping into a strategic trap:

• Front-man risk: By being an early endorsing country, Pakistan may end up as a public sponsor of a plan that fails or disappoints — thereby damaging its own credibility.

• Mission-creep risk: The resolution authorises an ISF, unclear governance mechanisms and possibly new obligations. Pakistan may find itself drawn into commitments (peacekeeping, reconstruction, oversight) that are costly with ambiguous benefits.

• Geopolitical backlash: If the plan is perceived as favouring Israel or undermining genuine Palestinian self-determination, Pakistan could face backlash from within the Muslim world or from domestic constituencies.

• Expectation gap: Pakistan may expect reciprocal benefits (economic aid, US strategic attention) which may not materialise fully — leaving Islamabad exposed.

• Bridge to US/India axis?: Pakistan’s endorsement might be interpreted in New Delhi or Washington as a softening of Pakistan’s independent posture — creating internal frictions.

In short: while the endorsement may offer short-term diplomatic wins, the long-term pay-offs are uncertain — and the costs (reputational, strategic, financial) may outweigh them, especially if the plan falters.

Conclusion: Pakistan’s Strategic Crossroads

Pakistan’s decision to join the joint statement endorsing the UN resolution on Trump’s Gaza plan reflects a conscious diplomatic choice: to align with a US-led vision of Middle East stabilisation, while attempting to preserve its credentials on the Palestinian cause.

The advantages are clear — enhanced diplomatic relevance, stronger ties with the US and Gulf, potential strategic benefits. But the disadvantages could be equally significant — vague commitments, reputational risks, strategic overreach and being used as a legitimising token in a broader foreign-policy game.

Ultimately, whether this is a smart strategic move or a trap depends on Pakistan’s ability to manage expectations, insist on clarity and reciprocity, and avoid being subsumed into someone else’s agenda. For Pakistan’s Army and policymakers, the key will be: what tangible returns follow this endorsement — and what obligations they must bear.

If Islamabad plays carefully, this could serve as a stepping-stone; if not, it may find itself channelled into a scheme that advances others’ interests more than its own.