Written by: Nuzhat Nazar
In the early hours of June 22, 2025, a pivotal escalation gripped the Middle East as the United States launched targeted airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities claiming to be a “strategic response” to Iran’s increasing nuclear activities and missile volleys toward Israel. These developments represent a significant turning point—not just in the Iran-Israel conflict, but also in America’s foreign policy trajectory under President Donald J. Trump, and in the geopolitical calculus of the broader region, particularly for neighboring Pakistan.
The Strike and Its Symbolism
According to Iranian sources and international observers, the strikes targeted high-profile nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Yet, Iranian officials have declared that key nuclear material had been evacuated months earlier, rendering the assault largely symbolic. Experts suggest that the attack, carried out by U.S. B-2 bombers flying non-stop from Missouri, was militarily limited but politically loud—a statement of force, rather than a crippling blow.
The use of strategic bombers, mid-air refueling, and coordination across international airspace, including allegations of Indian cooperation in allowing U.S. overflights, further indicate the premeditated and multinational nature of the operation.
Iran’s response has been swift and defiant. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz—through which nearly 20% of global oil trade passes—threatens to spiral the conflict into an economic crisis. With coastal cities reportedly hit in Iranian retaliatory strikes and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard vowing vengeance, the Middle East teeters on the brink of a prolonged regional war.
President Trump’s Contradiction
This intervention marks a dramatic deviation from the doctrine President Donald J. Trump championed during his electoral campaign and previous term. Trump, who secured the presidency on pledges to avoid costly foreign entanglements, withdraw from endless wars, and prioritize American economic revival, now finds his administration entangled in a high-risk conflict in the Middle East.
His rhetoric in past years emphasized trade over turmoil, diplomacy over intervention. Yet, with these strikes, the U.S. has re-entered the volatile politics of regime confrontation—something Trump once fiercely criticized. While Washington insists the operation is a one-off measure to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, history suggests that such escalations rarely remain contained.
Regional Repercussions and Pakistan’s Delicate Position
The ripple effects of the U.S.-Iran escalation are deeply felt in South Asia, especially in Pakistan, which shares a 900-kilometer border with Iran. Islamabad has categorically condemned the U.S. strikes on Iranian soil. The Foreign Office released a strong statement affirming that Pakistan will not allow its land, sea, or airspace to be used for aggression against any neighboring country, emphasizing its commitment to regional peace and neutrality.
Pakistan’s principled stance rests on multiple considerations. First, any conflict involving Iran could destabilize Balochistan, a sensitive province already vulnerable to cross-border militant activities. Second, heightened tensions threaten the security of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which runs adjacent to Iran’s border. Third, a broader war could exacerbate sectarian tensions within Pakistan, home to both Sunni and Shia populations.
Moreover, Pakistan’s condemnation of the attacks aligns with its longstanding belief in resolving disputes through dialogue, not aggression. It has consistently supported Iran’s right to self-defensce while urging all parties to avoid actions that could escalate into full-scale war.
The India Factor and Regional Trust Deficit
The crisis has also exposed the duplicity of regional actors. Reports indicate that India allowed U.S. B-2 bombers to use its airspace en route to Iran—marking yet another chapter in New Delhi’s growing strategic alignment with Washington and Tel Aviv. If confirmed, this represents a grave betrayal of regional solidarity, particularly given Iran’s historic ties with India.
Such actions erode trust within the region and push countries like Iran and Pakistan further into alternative strategic alliances, possibly with China and Russia. Indeed, the announcement that Iran’s foreign minister will meet President Vladimir Putin in Moscow signals a deepening axis opposed to Western interventions.
The Path Forward: Diplomacy or Disaster?
The international community, led by the United Nations, has expressed grave concern over the escalation. Yet, concrete steps toward de-escalation remain elusive. Iran appears unlikely to capitulate, and the U.S.—having taken the first kinetic step—may find it difficult to disengage without appearing weak.
The only viable exit from this confrontation lies in a renewed diplomatic push. The reactivation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), regional security dialogues, and international guarantees on non-aggression must be urgently explored.
Conclusion
The current situation is a powder keg. What began as a bilateral tit-for-tat has now become a trilateral standoff with global implications. The United States’ entry into the conflict, under a president who once vowed to avoid such wars, marks a moment of profound contradiction and danger.
For Pakistan, the imperative is clear: stay neutral, safeguard sovereignty, and advocate for diplomacy. For the world, the time is now—to pull the region back from the edge and avoid a war whose consequences would be catastrophic not only for the Middle East but for global stability.
