Israeli Minister Sounds Alarm Over Pakistan's Central Role in US-Iran Peace
By Sayed Abdullah | June 20, 2026
The ink on the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding was barely dry when the reaction from Tel Aviv arrived — and it was as fierce as anyone expected. Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli, a man not known for diplomatic subtlety, branded the coalition of Pakistan, Türkiye, and Qatar a "new Axis of Evil," directly targeting the three Muslim-majority nations that played central roles in mediating the peace framework between Washington and Tehran. Hardline Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich went further, calling the agreement "bad for Israel and the entire free world" and warning that Israel would eventually have to pursue unilateral military campaigns to eliminate threats it believes the deal leaves untouched. The statements were not just angry. They were panicked. And the source of that panic was not Iran. It was Islamabad.
For Pakistan, the attack is a backhanded compliment. The country that Israeli officials once ignored is now being described as the architect of a "dangerous geopolitical shift." That is what success looks like when your enemies are writing the headlines.
What Actually Happened
The diplomatic breakthrough that Chikli and Smotrich were responding to was the culmination of months of Pakistani mediation. Washington and Tehran initially reached a temporary truce on April 8 through Islamabad's back-channel efforts. That truce held, expanded, and eventually became the Islamabad MoU, signed electronically on Thursday. The agreement activated an immediate ceasefire, lifted the maritime blockade on Iran, and initiated a 60-day phase of complex technical negotiations that will now move toward formal discussions in Geneva. Pakistan was not a bystander to this process. It was the central node through which messages, proposals, and concessions flowed. And that is precisely what has alarmed the Israeli cabinet.
Chikli's "Axis of Evil" remark was not a spontaneous outburst. It was a deliberate attempt to reframe the diplomatic success of three Muslim-majority nations as a threat to global security. By invoking the language of the early 2000s — when the phrase was used to justify the invasion of Iraq — Chikli was signalling that Israel views the new regional alignment as an existential challenge. Smotrich's warning that Israel would eventually have to "pursue unilateral campaigns" was even more direct. It was a threat, dressed in the language of concern, aimed at reminding Washington that Israel's military options remain on the table even if American diplomacy has moved on. The Israeli government, it seems, is watching its most important ally make peace with its most feared adversary, and it is watching that peace be brokered by countries it has spent decades trying to marginalise. The frustration is not hidden. It is being broadcast live.
Domestic pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also intensifying. His administration has been accused of being completely excluded from the negotiations and "humiliated" by Trump. The Israeli leader, who once boasted of his unparalleled influence in Washington, now finds himself on the outside of the most significant Middle Eastern diplomatic development in a generation. The joint defence fund established with the UAE, the wartime visit that was supposed to cement the alliance — all of it now looks like preparation for a conflict that is being settled at the negotiating table rather than on the battlefield. The architects of that table include Pakistan, a country that does not even have diplomatic relations with Israel. The irony is sharp enough to cut.
The Bigger Picture
The Israeli response to the MoU is not just about Iran. It is about the shifting architecture of power in the Middle East, and Pakistan's unexpected rise as a diplomatic player is a central feature of that shift. For decades, Israel's security strategy has been built on the assumption that it could count on unconditional American support and that its regional adversaries would remain isolated from each other. The MoU has shattered both assumptions. Washington has demonstrated that its commitment to Israel is not absolute — that an American president, at least this one, is willing to make a deal with Tehran even if it infuriates Tel Aviv. And the coalition of Pakistan, Türkiye, and Qatar — countries that Israel has historically viewed with suspicion — has demonstrated that it can function as a coherent diplomatic bloc, capable of delivering outcomes that the old alignments could not.
Chikli's "Axis of Evil" language is a recognition of that new reality, even if it is wrapped in the rhetoric of condemnation. By naming Pakistan first — and by linking it to Türkiye and Qatar — he was acknowledging that the geography of influence has shifted. Islamabad is no longer just a nuclear-armed state on the margins of Middle Eastern affairs. It is now a power broker whose mediation is sought by both Washington and Tehran. And that role has been earned through a patient, persistent diplomacy that has operated beneath the radar of most international coverage. The Pakistani diplomats who worked on this deal did so quietly, without fanfare, and they delivered. The Israeli anger is, in a strange way, the loudest confirmation of that success.
The broader strategic implications are significant. If the MoU holds — if the ceasefire endures, if the nuclear negotiations produce a durable framework — Israel will face a region in which its military options are constrained not just by Iranian capabilities, but by a diplomatic environment that no longer tolerates unilateral aggression. The "unilateral campaigns" that Smotrich threatened will be harder to execute when the United States, the Gulf states, and key Muslim-majority nations are all invested in the success of a peace framework that explicitly rejects military escalation. That is the box Israel now finds itself in. And it is a box that Pakistan, in part, helped to build.
What This Means for Pakistanis
For Pakistan, the Israeli attacks are a signal that the country's diplomatic strategy is working — and working well enough to alarm those who benefit from the old order. For the ordinary Pakistani, yaar, this might feel distant. The price of roti does not change because an Israeli minister calls Pakistan an axis of evil. But the long-term implications are real. A stable Middle East, free from the threat of a regional war that could send oil prices soaring past Rs. 350 per litre, is in Pakistan's direct economic interest. The diplomatic capital that Islamabad has earned through this mediation — the trust of Washington and Tehran simultaneously — is the kind of asset that can be converted into trade deals, investment opportunities, and geopolitical leverage. It does not put food on the table tomorrow. But it creates the conditions in which food might be more affordable next year.
The attacks also clarify who Pakistan's friends and adversaries are in this process. Israel's opposition to the MoU was predictable, but the intensity of the language — "Axis of Evil," "bad for the free world" — reveals a deeper anxiety. Israel is not just unhappy with the deal. It is unnerved by the role Pakistan played in making it happen. That is a position Pakistan should be comfortable occupying. The country has spent decades being lectured by Western powers about its international standing. Now, it is being attacked by a nuclear-armed state because its diplomacy succeeded. That is a far better problem to have. And the diplomats in Islamabad who made it happen — the ones who worked through the nights, who navigated the competing demands, who absorbed the criticism from regional rivals — they deserve to know that their work is being noticed. Not just in Washington and Tehran. In Tel Aviv, too. The anger is the proof.
My Take
I'll be honest — when I first heard Chikli's "Axis of Evil" remark, I laughed. Not because it was funny, but because it was so transparently an attempt to use the language of the past to contain the diplomacy of the present. The original Axis of Evil was a rhetorical device used to justify a war that destabilised an entire region. Applying it to three countries that just brokered a peace deal is not analysis. It is frustration dressed up as grand strategy. The Israeli government is watching its influence over American policy shrink in real time, and it is lashing out. That is understandable. It is also a sign that the MoU is working.
Of course, the Israeli concerns are not entirely baseless. Iran remains a threat, and a temporary ceasefire is not a permanent peace. The nuclear file has been deferred, not resolved. The hardliners in Tehran are still there. But the alternative to the MoU was not a world in which Iran was magically contained. It was a world in which the bombing continued, the Strait of Hormuz stayed blocked, and the region slid toward a war that would have engulfed everyone. Pakistan's mediation did not create a perfect outcome. It created a better one. And the fury it has provoked in Tel Aviv suggests that it is better by a larger margin than anyone expected. That is not a reason to celebrate. But it is a reason to keep going. The Geneva talks will be harder than the MoU. The spoilers — Israeli, Iranian, and otherwise — will try to sabotage the process. Pakistan's role in this story is not over. It is just beginning.
What does Pakistan's central role in the US-Iran peace deal mean for the country's future — and can it navigate the backlash? Share your view.
Sayed Abdullah is the founder and editor of Prime Pakistan. Based in Karachi, he writes about diplomacy and the stories that shape Pakistan's place in the world. Read more.
Related Articles
- US, Iran Electronically Sign 'Islamabad MoU' to End Hostilities
- US-Iran Peace Deal Reached, Trump Orders Lifting of Naval Blockade
- Trump Says Israel Doesn't Need to 'Knock Down an Apartment House'
Sources
- Israeli ministerial statements — Public remarks by Amichai Chikli and Bezalel Smotrich.
- Reuters and AP — Reporting on the Israeli reaction to the MoU.
0 Comments