By Aamir Latif

KARACHI, Pakistan

 Pakistan’s decision to allow its former army chief Gen. Raheel Sharif to lead a 39-nation alliance of Muslim states, led by Saudi Arabia, is a calculated move to not only protect the country’s strategic and financial interests, but also exploit an opportunity to play a mediatory role to quell escalating tensions between the longtime rivals -- Riyadh and Tehran -- Pakistani analysts observed.

The move, they opined, would affect “to an extent” Pakistan’s relations with Iran, which already expressed its “dissatisfaction” over Gen. Sharif’s appointment, but an opposite move would have resulted in “much heavier” economic and diplomatic losses.

"We are concerned about this issue... that it may impact the unity of Islamic countries," Iran's Ambassador to Pakistan Mehdi Honardoost was quoted as saying by Iran's state-run IRNA News Agency on Monday.

He confirmed that Islamabad had contacted Tehran before allowing Sharif to lead the alliance, also dubbed as “Muslim NATO” by the western media.

"But that does not indicate that Iran is satisfied with this decision or it has accepted the same," the envoy said.

He said Tehran had informed Islamabad that Iran would not become part of such a military alliance, adding that neither had Iran been extended an offer to join a coalition of this sort.

Downplaying Tehran’s concerns, Pakistan’s foreign secretary Tehmina Janjua said that neither the 39-nation alliance has been formed against Iran nor will Islamabad take part in any anti-Tehran move.

Briefing the senate’s committee on foreign relations, on Wednesday, Janjua, who is Pakistan’s first woman foreign secretary, said that her country would maintain a “balance” in its relations with Iran and Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi Arabia-led alliance that includes countries like Turkey, Pakistan, Egypt, Malaysia, UAE, and other Gulf and African countries, has been formed “to protect the Islamic nation from the evils of all terrorist groups and organizations,” mainly Daesh.

Iran, however, the Saudi Arabia’s arch rival, has not been made part of the alliance as the two sides differ far deep on regional conflicts from Iraq to Syria, and to Yemen.

The formation of the alliance, which has its headquarters in Riyadh, was announced by Saudi defense minister and deputy crown prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud at a press conference in 2015.

Credited by many for improving law and order in the country by launching a relentless military operation against militants in the isolated northwestern tribal belt, Sharif retired in September last year after completing a 3-year tenure. He had reportedly refused to accept an extension of his tenure.

He is likely to assume command of the anti-terrorism alliance in a month or two, according to media reports.

- Choice -

Abdul Khalique Ali, a Karachi-based political analyst thinks that Pakistan had no choice but to either pick Tehran or Riyadh.

“When there is a matter of choice, you always go for something more beneficial and less harmful. This is exactly the case here. Iran’s displeasure is, of course, not good (for Pakistan), but ire from those upon which we heavily rely -- economically, diplomatically and militarily -- would be worse,” Ali told Anadolu Agency referring to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and other Arab states.

Millions of Pakistanis, he said, had been working in Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and other Arab states who contributed “immensely” to the national economy. In addition, he added, Pakistan’s oil requirements were met through the Gulf world, mainly Saudi Arabia, which at several occasions were for free.

“On the contrary, Pakistan does not really rely on Iran in terms of meeting its economic or military needs”, he observed.

Ali thought that Islamabad had already “displeased” Riyadh and its allies by refusing to join a Saudi Arabia-led military alliance to fight Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Retired Maj. Gen. Ijaz Awan, an Islamabad-based security analyst shares similar views.

“Islamabad could not afford to lose its strategic and economic partners just because Iran is not happy with that,” he told Anadolu Agency.

“Pakistan, like any other sovereign country has the right to join or leave any alliance in its national interest. Islamabad has rightly chosen the alliance of the countries, where 2.5 million Pakistanis earn $10 billion annually to the national exchequer. It should not be taken as at the cost of relations with Iran, which is and will remain our friendly country,” Awan, a close friend of Sharif, contended.

“What if these states start replacing Pakistanis with Indian and Bangladeshi labor force, will Iran accommodate them?” he asked and went on to say: "Iran has recently struck a $500 million agreement with India for development of its strategic Chabahar Port. Did Tehran ask Islamabad before signing the agreement or did Pakistan object to that?”

- Non-sectarian -

Awan, who served in Pakistan army at several positions from 1974 to 2012, dispelled the popular impression that the alliance had been formed against Iran.

“This (alliance) is not at all against Tehran. Neither Iran nor Pakistani Shias should be worried about that,” he said referring to an ongoing sectarian-based debate in Pakistan on its decision to lead the alliance.

He recalled that in 1982 Pakistan sent 15,000 army troops to Saudi Arabia on its request, which consisted of 2,000 Shia personnel, who had lived there and earned in Riyals (Saudi currency).

“Pakistan army has no place for ethnicity or sectarianism. If Pakistani troops are again sent to Saudi Arabia, Shias will be part of that,” Awan, who led 2009 army operation against Taliban militants in the country’s famous tourist valley of Swat, said.

Mazhar Abbas, a Karachi-based political analyst sees “confusion” within Pakistan vis-à-vis terms and objectives of the alliance.

“Not only Iran but many Pakistanis have apprehensions about the terms and objectives of this alliance. Pakistan should not have accepted the offer hurriedly as if there is any clash between the country's interests and the objectives of the alliance, it would be difficult for Pakistan to withdraw,” Abbas told Anadolu Agency.

He suggested that the prime minister or the foreign adviser should come up with a clear statement in the parliament on Pakistan’s stance on the issue.

Abbas, however, admitted that it was “very difficult” for Islamabad to adopt a neutral stand that it did in case of Yemen, saying Pakistan could not afford to displease 39 countries.