Foreign policy of a country is raised on the foundations of not theories but interests.
A lot of stress is being given by most analysts and theoreticians in the context of Iran-Saudi conflict that an unflinching neutral stance be maintained in this context and an effort be made to facilitate the ‘diffusing’ of the rapidly deteriorating situation. Theoretically it is a correct stance. But it has no relevance with the ground realities. Howsoever strong may our desire and need be not to annoy Iran because of some frequently stated reasons, the fundamental truth in this context is that we cannot afford to win the displeasure of Saudi Arab which is among Pakistan’s three most reliable friends in the world. Failure to stay in the good books of Saudi Arab will mean winning the displeasure of many Arab countries— UAE being among them.
The frequently stated reasons for staying on the sidelines or for sitting on the ‘neutrality wall’ are: (a) Iran is our nerghbouring brother country and (b) Pakistan has a sizable Shia minority (By realistic assessment 12 to 13 percent and by Shia claims 20 to 25 percent).
The neighbourhood argument has no realistic value. India is our reighbour too. Agreed that Iran is a brother country as well, but our brotherhood is not based on solid foundations of commonality of beliefs. There are some areas of deviatory interests too!
As for Shias of Pakistan, their loyalties should not but be with Pakistan. They should not regard themselves as custodians of the interests of Iran in Pakistan or an extension of Tehran.
In that case the Suni majority of Pakistan will regard itself as the custodian of the interests of Saudi Arabia.
Our assessment of the nature of the conflict should be correct. We should know correctly how much we stand to lose or gain by observing neutrality among a potential friend and a tested and confirmed friend.
As for trying to diffuse the conflict, do we matter in the historical issues involved?
It is a matter of controlling the Middle East. Not an easy matter to resolve.