The media in Pakistan, as far as I have seen, is calling Q. Suleimani as a 'martyr'. I think part of that is the knee-jerk Anti-Americanism which started after 9/11 in Pakistan and gained a lot of foothold after the Salala attack on Pakistani soldiers few years ago. The raid on Bin Laden--which was helped by Pakistan-- sealed the Anti-Americanism because Pakistanis rightly felt betrayed: We helped you get Bin Laden and yet you humiliated us (Leon Panetta should be blamed for the rift). But this is a different topic.
Pakistan's policy should be strict neutrality! Iran has placed itself into a strategic dilemma: If Iran doesn't have a means to target Israel and the Gulf Arab countries then Iran will get attacked. But this dilemma was Iran's own choice by design! A B-Grade power poking a superpower and its' rich allies.
However, I don't buy these arguments that it is 'Iran now, and Pakistan next'. United States doesn't have any deep animosity toward Pakistan except to make Pakistan tow the Indian line against China. It's a goal Washington wants but it's not hellbent on getting the goal. There are other theaters and means to contain China.
As for this idea that Suleimani threatened Pakistan, well, the Iranians are apparently another loud-mouth country just like other Middle Eastern country leadership with the exception of Israel. But I don't think Iran ever wanted or needed a war against Pakistan: At most an expectation that Pakistan won't bow down to Washington and Arab countries' demands against Iran--and that's not an unreasonable expectation. So basing anti-Iran strategic posture on a few loudmouth statements and on sporadic border skirmishes is definitely wrong path to take!
Pakistan must provide all humanitarian aid to Iran in case of a war and strive hard for peace, but remains neutral. And that's what Pakistani planners are almost certainly going to do!
