By Uzma Ehtasham
An international survey by Ipsos has offered a revealing snapshot of how Pakistanis are interpreting their country’s perceived diplomatic engagement in the latest phase of tensions between the United States and Iran. At a time when global crises are increasingly mediated not only through official diplomacy but also through public perception, the findings point to something important: foreign policy is no longer confined to closed rooms in ministries, but is being actively read, judged and reframed by domestic audiences in real time. The headline figure is striking in its simplicity. Seventy-four per cent of respondents say they are aware of Pakistan’s attempts to act as a mediator in the US–Iran tensions.
That is not a marginal awareness level; it suggests that nearly three out of every four people surveyed are following, at least at a basic level, a foreign policy narrative that would once have remained the preserve of diplomats, strategic circles, and specialized media reporting. In the previous wave of tensions, that figure stood at 65 per cent. The nine-point increase is not dramatic in statistical terms, but in political communication it signals something more meaningful: visibility has grown, and with it, public engagement with Pakistan’s external role. The second layer of the Ipsos findings moves from awareness to judgement, and here the picture becomes more textured.
Forty-five per cent of respondents describe Pakistan’s mediation efforts as a major win for the country. This is the single largest response category, suggesting that nearly half the public sees tangible diplomatic gain in Pakistan’s positioning between Washington and Tehran. Yet it is also worth noting that this is not an overwhelming majority. It is a plurality rather than a consensus, indicating that while the narrative of diplomatic success is strong, it is not uncontested. A further 37 per cent of respondents believe that the episode has improved Pakistan’s global image. This is a softer but still significant measure of perceived benefit. Image, unlike strategic gain, is inherently subjective; it reflects how a country believes it is being seen rather than what it has concretely achieved.
When combined with the 45 per cent who call the outcome a “major win”, the data suggests that a substantial portion of the population associates Pakistan’s role in the crisis with reputational uplift on the world stage. However, the survey also introduces a more cautious register. Only 33 per cent say Pakistan’s diplomacy has been strengthened. This is notably lower than the figures for awareness and perceived win, suggesting a gap between symbolic success and institutional confidence. In other words, while many respondents recognize Pakistan’s visibility in the crisis, fewer are convinced that this translates into durable diplomatic capability. A similar pattern appears in the 31 per cent who believe the country’s international standing has improved.
These lower figures hint at an underlying scepticism: visibility is not automatically being equated with structural diplomatic advancement. Perhaps the most politically sensitive dimension of the survey lies in attribution. Here, the narrative becomes sharply concentrated. A majority of 55 per cent of respondents credit Field Marshal Asim Munir for Pakistan’s diplomatic role in the crisis. This is a significant figure, not only because of its size but because of what it suggests about public understanding of who drives foreign policy outcomes in Pakistan. The military leadership is seen by more than half of respondents as the primary actor in shaping the country’s external engagement during this episode.
By contrast, 38 per cent attribute the role to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, a substantial but clearly secondary figure in the public imagination. Only six per cent credit Ishaq Dar, the deputy prime minister and foreign minister, for the outcome. This distribution of attribution is perhaps the most revealing aspect of the entire dataset. It reflects a familiar pattern in Pakistan’s political perception: a tendency to view strategic diplomacy through the prism of civil-military balance, where the military is often seen as the decisive actor in moments of geopolitical tension. What emerges, therefore, is a layered and somewhat uneven public narrative. On one level, there is strong awareness and a broadly positive assessment of Pakistan’s involvement in a sensitive international issue.
On another, there is a clear hierarchy of credit that places military leadership at the center, with civilian leadership following and the formal foreign ministry trailing far behind. There is also a broader global context that should not be overlooked. Pakistan’s perceived mediation between two adversarial powers is being read domestically at a time when middle powers are increasingly attempting to position themselves as brokers in fragmented geopolitical landscapes. From a public perspective, this creates both opportunity and ambiguity. It allows for a narrative of relevance and influence, but it also raises expectations that may be difficult to sustain. Ipsos’ findings, taken together, do not offer a simple verdict on success or failure. Instead, they map a public consciousness that is engaged, partially optimistic, but also structurally divided in its understanding of agency and impact.
Pakistan, in this reading, is seen as diplomatically active and increasingly visible, but the question of who drives that activity—and how much it translates into durable international leverage—remains contested. In many ways, the survey captures a country negotiating its own narrative in real time. Foreign policy is not just being made in Islamabad’s corridors of power; it is being interpreted, assigned meaning, and redistributed across a public that is increasingly attentive to Pakistan’s role in global affairs. Whether that attention evolves into sustained confidence in institutions, or remains tied to episodic moments of perceived diplomatic relevance, will depend on how consistently the country can translate visibility into credibility.
(The writer is a public health professional, journalist, and possesses expertise in health communication, having keen interest in national and international affairs, can be reached at uzma@metro-morning.com)
