Pakistan accused of sheltering Iranian planes

The fight here is over aircraft, but the real issue is diplomacy. A CBS News report said Pakistan quietly let Iranian military planes shelter at Pakistani airbases after the April ceasefire between Washington and Tehran. Pakistan then pushed back hard, saying the planes in question were tied to talks logistics, not a covert military favor. That matters because Islamabad has been trying to sell itself as the go-between in a very fragile U.S.-Iran channel. ### What is Pakistan accused of doing? The core allegation is simple — that after President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire in early April, Iran moved several aircraft into Pakistan, including to Nur Khan Airbase near Rawalpindi, to keep them out of harm’s way in case U.S. strikes resumed. The reporting tied the move to Iran’s effort to preserve what remained of its aviation assets after the war that began on February 28. One aircraft repeatedly mentioned was a surveillance variant of the Lockheed C-130. (cbsnews.com) ### What does Pakistan say instead? Islamabad is not denying that Iranian aircraft were present. The narrower denial is about why they were there. Pakistan’s Foreign Office said the CBS account was “misleading and sensationalised” and said Iranian and U.S. aircraft arrived during the ceasefire and the first round of the Islamabad talks to move diplomatic personnel, security teams, and administrative staff. It also said some aircraft stayed on temporarily while later rounds were being planned. (indianexpress.com) ### Why does Nur Khan matter? Because Nur Khan is not some remote strip in the desert. It is a major Pakistani airbase beside Rawalpindi and close to Islamabad — basically in a dense, visible area. That is why Pakistani officials have leaned on a practical argument: if a large hidden fleet were really parked there, people would have noticed. That does not prove the planes were not there. It does show why the dispute has narrowed into motive and mission, not just presence. (dawn.com) ### Why is the mediator role the real story? Pakistan has spent weeks trying to host or facilitate indirect U.S.-Iran contacts. Trump’s team had planned talks in Islamabad, then canceled one envoy trip in late April after deciding Iran’s proposal was not good enough. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi also traveled to Pakistan as Islamabad tried to keep the ceasefire track alive. If Pakistan was simultaneously helping Iran shield military assets, the mediator pitch gets a lot harder to sustain. (indianexpress.com) ### Who is pushing back in Washington? Senator Lindsey Graham is the loudest public critic so far. He said that if the reporting is accurate, Washington should completely reevaluate Pakistan’s role and maybe find another mediator. In a Senate hearing, he pressed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on whether this would be consistent with fair mediation. Hegseth did not endorse the allegation, but he also did not close the door on the concern. (indianexpress.com) ### So what is actually confirmed? Confirmed: Pakistani officials acknowledge Iranian aircraft were in Pakistan during the ceasefire period. Confirmed: Pakistan says the reason was diplomatic support for talks. Not independently confirmed in the material now public: that the aircraft were sheltered as a military preservation arrangement. That distinction is the whole case. One side says covert protection. The other says airport-style staging for negotiations. (indianexpress.com) ### Why is this blowing up now? Because the ceasefire is holding only loosely, the Strait of Hormuz crisis is still hanging over everything, and every intermediary now gets judged for bias. In that environment, even a few aircraft on the ground can become a test of alignment. Basically, this is less about parking planes than about whether anyone still believes Pakistan can sit in the middle without leaning. (cbsnews.com) ### Bottom line? Pakistan is trying to draw a line between hosting talks and helping Iran militarily. But once Iranian aircraft and a sensitive airbase enter the same sentence, that line gets blurry fast. Unless harder evidence emerges either way, the immediate damage is political — Islamabad’s neutrality is now under open challenge. (dawn.com) (indianexpress.com)