Asif Haroon Raja
Iran: Most Sanctioned Country
Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran has lived under the shadow of confrontation. Few States in modern history have endured such a prolonged period of sanctions, isolation, covert warfare, and periodic military crises.
What began as a regional rivalry has, over the decades, evolved into one of the world’s most dangerous strategic contests.
From Proxy War to Direct Confrontation
For years, Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly urged successive American Presidents—George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden—to launch direct military action against Iran. All resisted. Donald Trump did not.
Trump first joined Israel’s twelve-day war against Iran in June 2025. Then, on 28 February 2026, he ordered a second and far larger military campaign in concert with Israel.
The stated objective was to compel Tehran into submission, dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. None of these goals has yet been fully achieved.
Iran’s Defiance
During six weeks of intense aerial warfare, the United States and Israel employed overwhelming air power, precision-guided munitions, cyber capabilities, and naval assets.
Yet Iran proved far more resilient than many Western planners had anticipated.
Rather than collapsing, Tehran absorbed the blows and retaliated with determination. In the final two weeks, missile and drone exchanges reached unprecedented levels.
American strikes targeted Iran’s energy infrastructure and Kharg Island, while Iran struck Israeli military facilities with increasing accuracy. It also attacked American bases across the Middle East and, more controversially, energy installations in several Gulf states.
Quiet military, intelligence, and technical assistance from China and Russia materially strengthened Iran’s defensive posture and altered the strategic balance.
Pakistan’s Diplomatic Breakthrough
At a moment when war seemed inevitable, Pakistan stepped forward as a credible mediator. Through persistent and skilful diplomacy, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir succeeded in brokering a two-week ceasefire on 8 April.
Pakistan’s unique advantage lies in the trust it enjoys simultaneously in Washington, Tehran, Riyadh, Beijing, and Moscow—an increasingly rare diplomatic asset in today’s fractured world.
This was not about imposing solutions. It was about creating a space where bitter adversaries could engage without losing face.
The Conditions for Peace
Iran agreed to negotiations subject to two initial conditions:
*A ceasefire in Lebanon.
*The release of $6 billion in frozen Iranian assets held in Qatar.
*Although these demands were partially accommodated, deeper disputes remained unresolved.
A Fragile Ceasefire
Technically, a ceasefire has existed since 8 April. In reality, it has been extraordinarily fragile.
Two principal issues continue to obstruct a permanent settlement:
*The status of the Strait of Hormuz.
*The disposition of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile.
Meanwhile, the Lebanon front remains unstable, with repeated violations by both Israel and Hezbollah.
Trump’s Legal and Political Dilemma
Under the War Powers Resolution, the White House requires Congressional authorization for prolonged military action. That approval was never obtained before the 28 February offensive.
A bipartisan resolution in the House, led by Representative Josh Gottheimer, threatens to force a formal vote.
Approval appears unlikely. The war has proven enormously costly:
*Approximately $25 billion in direct expenditure.
*Significant aircraft losses.
*American casualties.
*Failure to reopen Hormuz.
*Growing domestic opposition.
*Reluctance among NATO allies to participate.
*Growing Divisions in Washington.
*Opposition now extends beyond Democrats. Many Republicans are increasingly uneasy.
*The abrupt dismissal of nearly twenty senior military officers has fuelled tensions between the White House, the Pentagon, and parts of the national security establishment.
*Strategic disagreements are becoming increasingly public.
Strains Within NATO
Trump’s handling of the conflict has widened existing cracks within the Atlantic alliance.
Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Hungary have all expressed deep reservations.
Trump’s criticism of NATO, demands for sharply increased defence spending, and threats to withdraw American troops from Europe have further strained the alliance.
The transatlantic relationship, while far from collapse, is undergoing its most severe stress in decades.
Hormuz: The Strategic Lever
Facing mounting military pressure, Iran weaponised the Strait of Hormuz.
By restricting maritime traffic through the world’s most important energy choke point, Tehran transformed geography into strategy. Roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas flows through these waters.
The consequences were immediate:
*Oil prices surged.
*Inflation accelerated worldwide.
*Airlines reduced operations.
*Shipping costs soared.
*Asian economies, particularly China, India, Japan, and South Korea, felt acute pressure.
America’s Countermove
Washington responded with a naval interdiction campaign in the northern Indian Ocean, designed to choke Iranian commercial and military shipping.
The objective was twofold:
*Deny Iran the economic benefits of Hormuz disruption.
*Restrict Chinese access to Iranian energy supplies.
The result has been a dangerous maritime standoff.
Renewed Pakistani Mediation
Pakistan again intervened, persuading Tehran to consider reopening Hormuz and return to negotiations in Islamabad.
However, talks faltered when Washington refused to lift the naval blockade. Iran responded by re-closing the Strait, and tensions escalated once more.
Competing Peace Proposals
Iran transmitted a comprehensive fourteen-point peace framework through Pakistani channels. Its central demand was straightforward: lift the blockade, end hostilities, and Tehran would reopen Hormuz.
Additional demands included:
*Security guarantees.
*Release of frozen assets.
*Compensation.
*Sanctions relief.
*Withdrawal of threatening military deployments.
Washington, however, prioritised the nuclear issue. Trump demanded:
*A twenty-year shutdown of Iran’s nuclear programme.
*Transfer of its enriched uranium stockpile.
Strict verification mechanisms.
*This sequencing dispute remains the central obstacle.
The Military Shadow
Even while diplomacy continues, both sides are preparing for renewed war.
CENTCOM has reportedly developed multiple contingency plans, ranging from infrastructure strikes to seizure operations in Hormuz.
Iran, for its part, has warned that any new attack would trigger large-scale missile barrages against Israel, American bases, and potentially Gulf infrastructure.
The risk of regional escalation remains extremely high.
Iran’s Strategic Signalling
Tehran’s recent behaviour has been revealing.
Its public threats have focused less on Israel than on Gulf Arab energy infrastructure and regional shipping lanes.
This suggests that Iran sees economic coercion—not conventional battlefield victory—as its strongest card.
The Houthis’ potential disruption of the Bab-el-Mandeb and threats to undersea communications cables further underscore this strategy.
The Emerging Regional Order
*This conflict is accelerating profound geopolitical shifts.
*Gulf States are reassessing reliance on American security guarantees.
*China and Russia are expanding their influence.
*A new strategic triangle involving Israel, India, and the UAE is taking shape.
*Regional middle powers—including Pakistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar—are assuming greater importance.
*The age of uncontested American primacy in the Middle East is visibly fading.
Pakistan’s Strategic Opportunity
Pakistan has emerged as one of the few States trusted by all principal actors.
Its mediation has enhanced its diplomatic stature, while new transit corridors with Iran could significantly expand regional trade and connectivity.
At a time of extraordinary turbulence, Islamabad has demonstrated maturity, restraint, and strategic relevance.
Conclusion
The United States and Iran now stand suspended between war and peace.
Neither side can easily escalate without enormous cost. Neither can retreat without political damage.
That is the essence of the present crisis: military superiority has not translated into strategic victory, while Iranian resilience has not yet produced political success.
The next round of negotiations may determine whether this confrontation gradually de-escalates—or erupts into a far wider regional war, the consequences of which would extend far beyond the Middle East.
End Notes
The Iran-US confrontation is one of those crises where events move faster than analysis, and separating signals from noise is half the battle.
What makes the situation particularly dangerous is that neither Washington nor Tehran can afford to appear weak.
Yet both understand that a full-scale war would be catastrophic—not only for themselves, but for the entire region and the global economy.
That is why coercion and negotiation are proceeding simultaneously.
The ultimate question remains whether the parties seek a genuine settlement or merely a tactical pause before the next round. History suggests caution.
The Middle East has often mistaken intermissions for endings.
Ceasefires in the Middle East often resemble commas rather than full stops.
The present standoff is particularly volatile because both sides believe time favours them.
Washington hopes economic strangulation and military pressure will force Iranian concessions.
Tehran, on the other hand, believes American domestic politics, alliance fatigue, and global economic pressures will eventually compel Washington to compromise.
That mutual miscalculation is what makes the crisis so perilous.
For Iran, the Strait of Hormuz remains its most potent strategic lever. For the United States, naval supremacy and economic sanctions remain its principal instruments.
Neither tool can deliver a decisive victory, but both can inflict enormous pain.
Pakistan’s role has consequently become exceptionally important. Few countries today possess the diplomatic access, military credibility, and strategic neutrality required to engage all sides at once.
Islamabad has leveraged these advantages prudently.
Pakistan’s diplomatic intervention has therefore provided an essential safety valve. It has bought time, created channels of communication, and reduced the risk of accidental escalation.
In such crises, buying time is often the difference between war and peace.
The coming weeks will likely determine whether this evolves into a negotiated settlement, a prolonged cold conflict, or a dangerous second round of direct hostilities.
In geopolitics, unresolved disputes rarely remain dormant for long.
About the Author
Brigadier (Retd) Asif Haroon Raja, SI (M) is a war veteran. He is Command and Staff Course and War Course qualified, holds an MSc in War Studies, and served as Defence Attaché in Egypt and Sudan, as well as Dean of the Corps of Military Attachés in Cairo.
He is a defence, security, and geopolitical analyst, international columnist, author of five books, former Chairman of Thinkers Forum Pakistan, Patron-in-Chief of Centre for Development Studies Think Tank, Director of Meesakh Research Centre; he regularly appears on media platforms.
Â
