Middle power or hard state?
As the world waited with anticipation, and Islamabad was under siege with heightened security, Pakistan played a crucial role as a mediator. The prime minister and army chief shuttled between capitals, trying to build consensus and bring the parties to the negotiating table.
Although the first round of Islamabad Talks in April 2026 ended without a breakthrough and the second round of talks couldn’t take place as both Iran and the US couldn’t agree to come to a common point — with the US cancelling planned envoy visits and Iran showing reluctance — Islamabad nevertheless stood out as a strong diplomatic player.
Is Pakistan transitioning into a powerful middle power, or is it becoming a hard state? Being a hard state with increased military prowess is now perhaps a necessity of time and circumstances. The world is becoming increasingly hostile and militarised. And the price of not having that hard power might be too high to pay in the form of violation of territorial integrity and sovereignty.
During last year’s conflict with India in May 2025, Pakistan was able to defend itself through the sheer power of its air force, aided by Chinese technology. The Pakistan Air Force deployed Chinese-supplied Chengdu J-10C fighters armed with PL-15 long-range air-to-air missiles, achieving notable successes, including the downing of Indian jets, among them advanced Rafales.
Had it not had this capability, it might have suffered a major blow from its adversary. That episode served as a stark reminder: in moments of crisis, deterrence backed by modern technology can preserve sovereignty when diplomacy alone falls short
This growing military prowess is further evident in Pakistan’s expanding defence deals and weapons exports, which signal its rising influence as an arms supplier. In recent months, Pakistan has pursued major agreements, including a reported $4 billion deal with the Libyan National Army for JF-17 Thunder fighter jets and Super Mushshak trainers.
Negotiations have advanced with countries such as Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Indonesia for the sale of dozens of JF-17 Block III aircraft, drones, and other systems — deals potentially worth billions more.
Building on earlier exports to Azerbaijan, Myanmar and Nigeria, these efforts show how the combat-tested reputation of Pakistani weapons, developed in partnership with China, is opening new markets across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia.
Such defence diplomacy and export push not only help offset the high costs of maintaining a strong military but also enhance Pakistan’s strategic leverage and influence in the Global South.
The current trajectory of the world, with rising authoritarianism and might-is-right, is one where those with power and force overpower the weak and vulnerable. International law is easily overlooked or broken with impunity. There is no regard for rules or principles. The rules-based order, after all, was always selectively applied in the interests of Western powers.
That, too, is now broken. Presidents are abducted from their countries, leaders are assassinated by drone and missile strikes in their own homes, embargos and sanctions are imposed, and entire populations are starved. And then we have fascist regimes committing genocide with the world watching and no one to hold them accountable.
So what happens in a world like that? For countries like Pakistan, the options are limited. Either you adapt and bolster your defences, or be ready to be at the receiving end of force. This is indeed a deplorable state of affairs.
The blind and ruthless quest for military might has few winners and many losers. For a country like Pakistan, keeping up with an arms race is hard to justify economically, but it simultaneously appears to be the only realistic pragmatic solution. And it is deeply unfortunate that the two South Asian neighbours remain locked in a zero-sum game of relentless pursuit.
But pursuing hard power and building a genuine hard state are not the same thing. The hard state model Pakistan is pursuing is incomplete.
A hard state has a resilient economy, strong institutions, rule of law, and effective governance. This is what makes a hard state efficient and internally strong. We have the example of China and Singapore — two hard states with strong, efficient systems and institutions and a robust economy.
This is the model that delivers for its citizens, even though it relies on authoritarianism. Hard states are hardly democratic, and hence I find it tough to be an ardent supporter. Given the lack of democracy and freedom of expression, they do, however, provide for the citizens through good governance and the rule of law.
Unfortunately, Pakistan is far from these traits of a hard state. The economy is under strain, and both the rule of law and governance are weak. And worryingly, there is democratic backsliding and a rollback of civil liberties.
Unless Pakistan consolidates itself internally with strong institutions, a healthy economy, and a system that delivers for the people, it will be a hard state in name — strong externally with military prowess and diplomatic clout but internally weak.
The writer is an independent analyst based in Islamabad.
Disclaimer: The viewpoints expressed in this piece are the writer’s own and don’t necessarily reflect Geo.tv’s editorial policy.
Originally published in The News
