The writer is an economist, an anchor, and a geopolitical analyst
and the President of the All Pakistan Private Schools’ Federation
president@Pakistanprivateschools.com
Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a resolute statement, rejecting US President Donald Trump’s call for “unconditional surrender” in the ongoing conflict with Israel. Khamenei defiantly declared that Iran will “never surrender,” emphasising the nation’s unwavering stance against imposed wars and peace. He warned that any US military intervention would result in “irreparable damage” to the United States, underscoring the severity of the situation, and the nation will not yield to imposed wars or peace, and will maintain its sovereignty in the face of external threats. This statement reflects Iran’s unwavering resolve in the face of escalating tensions with the US and Israel, with potential implications for regional and global stability. Whereas, the ongoing tensions between Israel and Iran have sparked debates about the possibility of a regime change operation in Iran. However, a closer examination of Iran’s history, demographics, and geopolitics reveals that such an operation would be highly unlikely to succeed. The implications of regime change in either Israel or Iran would be far-reaching and profound. A new government in either country could lead to a change in government could lead to a shift in alliances, potentially altering the balance of power in the region. The reports of President Trump’s potential presidential order to join the war have sparked intense debate and speculation. The constitutional implications, judicial perspective, and global ramifications of such a move are complex and multifaceted. As the situation continues to unfold, one thing is certain: the world will be watching with great interest to see how this situation develops. The recent reports suggesting that President Trump is expected to sign a presidential order to join the war in the coming hours have sparked intense debate and speculation. The United States Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, as stated in Article One, Section Eight. However, the Constitution does not specify a particular format for what constitutes a “declaration of war.” This ambiguity has led to varying interpretations over the years. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has weighed in on this issue. In the case of Doe v. Bush, the court noted that an authorisation of war can suffice for a declaration of war, and that a formal congressional “Declaration of War” is not necessarily required by the Constitution. If President Trump were to sign a presidential order to join the war, it could have significant global ramifications. The conflict could escalate, leading to increased polarisation and potentially even wider conflict. The global order is shifting, and this move could be a catalyst for further change. As the situation unfolds, one thing is clear: the world is watching with great interest to see how this complex web of geopolitical implications plays out. The potential consequences of this move are far-reaching and profound, and it remains to be seen how the global community will respond. The relationship between the president and Congress in matters of war declarations is complex and has evolved over time. While the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, the president has significant authority to shape US military actions. The War Powers Resolution has helped to balance these powers, but the dynamics between the executive and legislative branches continue to shape US foreign policy and military engagements. The United States has a complex history when it comes to formally declaring war. The last time the US formally declared war using specific terminology was in 1942, when President Franklin Roosevelt sought to engage in hostilities against Axis-aligned Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. This historical context highlights the significance of formal declarations of war and the role of the president and Congress in shaping US military actions. While the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war, there have been instances where presidential declarations have been met with varying levels of support and opposition from Congress. However, it is worth noting that Congress has not typically overturned a formal declaration of war once it has been made. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted to limit presidential power and ensure congressional oversight of military actions. While the resolution recognises the president’s authority to respond to attacks and other emergencies, it also requires the president to consult with Congress and obtain authorisation for prolonged military engagements. The Israel-Iran conflict has the potential to reshape the global order, leading to a new era of polarisation and conflict. The possibilities of regime change on both sides are real, and the implications of such a change would be far-reaching and profound. As the situation continues to unfold, one thing is certain: the world will be watching with great interest to see how this complex web of geopolitical implications plays out. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran has sparked a complex web of geopolitical implications that extend far beyond the Middle East. This conflict is not merely a bilateral issue between two nations; rather, it represents a broader clash between the West, led by the US, UK, EU, and G-7, and the East, spearheaded by Russia, China, and Iran, with Pakistan potentially being drawn into the fray. The stakes are high, and the potential for regime change on both sides looms large. The conflict could lead to increased polarisation, with nations aligning themselves with either the West or the East. This could lead to a new era of Cold War-style politics, with proxy conflicts and ideological divisions. This could lead to a destabilisation of the region and potentially even wider conflict. A new arms race involving advanced drones, missile systems, and AI-based warfare could emerge, further destabilising the region. The conflict between Israel and Iran raises the possibility of regime change on both sides. A prolonged and intense conflict could weaken both nations, potentially leading to prolonged conflict could lead to internal unrest, protests, and, potentially, even regime change. In Israel, public dissatisfaction with the government’s handling of the conflict could grow, while in Iran, economic hardship and political discontent could fuel anti-regime sentiment. The conflict could also lead to external intervention, with other nations seeking to take advantage of the situation to further their interests. This could include covert or overt support for opposition groups or even direct military intervention. A new government could also lead to changes in policy, potentially altering the trajectory of the conflict. For example, a new government in Israel might be more willing to negotiate with Iran, while a new government in Iran might be more aggressive in its pursuit of nuclear capabilities. The recent statements made by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and US President Trump have sparked a heated debate about the potential consequences of targeting Iran’s Supreme Leader. Netanyahu’s assertion that killing the Supreme Leader would bring about the end of the mullah regime has been met with scepticism by Trump, who has opposed the Israeli plan. It’s essential to understand the intricacies of the Iranian regime and the role of the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader is not only the highest authority in Iran but also a revered figure among millions of Shiites worldwide.
As the conflict unfolds, one thing is clear: the global order is shifting. The question is, what will the new order look like? Will it be characterized by increased polarization, proxy conflicts, and a new arms race, or will diplomacy prevail, leading to a more stable and peaceful region? The world watches with bated breath as these events unfold, knowing that the consequences will be far-reaching and profound.
Iran has a long history of withstanding wars and conflicts, dating back to the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. During this conflict, Iran demonstrated its resilience and ability to mobilise its population in the face of external threats. The country’s experience in asymmetric warfare and its ability to adapt to changing circumstances make it a formidable opponent. Iran’s population is predominantly Shia, which provides a strong foundation for the country’s religious leadership. The Shia clergy plays a significant role in shaping Iranian society and politics, and any attempt to undermine the current regime would face significant resistance from the Shia population. This demographic advantage makes it challenging for external forces to achieve a regime change. Iran’s geography provides it with a significant advantage in terms of defense. The country’s mountainous terrain and vast deserts make it difficult for external forces to launch a successful military campaign. Additionally, Iran’s proximity to the Persian Gulf and its control over the Strait of Hormuz give it significant leverage over global oil supplies. Given Iran’s historical expertise in long wars, its majority Shia population, and its geopolitical advantage, a regime change operation is not feasible. Any attempt to undermine the current regime would face significant resistance and would likely result in a prolonged and bloody conflict. Targeting the Supreme Leader would be a complex and potentially destabilising move, with far-reaching consequences for the region and beyond. It’s essential to consider the intricacies of the Iranian regime and the potential implications of such an action before making any decisions. As the method of electing a new Supreme Leader is well-established, with the Assembly of Experts playing a crucial role in the process. Targeting the Supreme Leader would likely have far-reaching consequences. The Supreme Leader’s followers around the world could react with anger and frustration, potentially leading to widespread unrest and instability. The Iranian regime is designed to withstand the loss of its leader, with the Guardian Council playing a crucial role in maintaining the regime’s stability. The Guardian Council is a powerful institution in Iran, with significant influence over the country’s politics and elections, ensuring that the regime’s interests are protected. The Israel-Iran conflict, particularly as it has intensified in 2025, is not merely a bilateral dispute but a reflection of broader geopolitical tensions between the West (US, UK, EU, G-7) and the East (Russia, China, Iran, and potentially Pakistan). If the potential consequences of the US involvement in an Israel-Iran Conflict to join Israel in attacking Iran, the global implications would be far-reaching and profound, which could embolden North Korea to expand its nuclear program, potentially leading to a destabilisation of the region. The conflict could divert resources from Ukraine to Israel, potentially altering the dynamics of the ongoing conflict in Eastern Europe. Russia could seize the opportunity to reassert its influence in the region, potentially leading to a renewed Cold War-style rivalry with the West. The overthrow of Ayatollah Khamenei could lead to a power vacuum, potentially drawing in Hezbollah and other proxy groups, and escalating the situation. A prolonged conflict could accelerate China’s economic and industrial development, potentially positioning it as a major player in a multipolar world order. US interests, including those in Saudi Arabia, could become vulnerable to retaliation and instability. The conflict could become a long-term war, similar to those in Iraq and Afghanistan, but with potentially more complex and devastating global consequences. India may strengthen its ties with Russia to secure its interests, potentially altering the dynamics of global geopolitics. The conflict could threaten US hegemony, potentially undermining the “America First” policy and efforts towards world peace. A more diplomatic approach may be warranted. Bringing Iran and Israel to the negotiating table, with durable and secure guarantees, could be a wise way to de-escalate tensions and avoid a potentially catastrophic conflict. If regime change occurs in Iran, it could lead to instability, potentially benefiting other powers like US, UK, EU, Israel and India, while affecting Russia, China and now Pakistan with also affecting global oil prices and nuclear proliferation. For Israel, political changes might influence future policies, with broader implications for Western alliances, amid ongoing diplomatic efforts like Iran’s recent ceasefire call. Historically, the regime has demonstrated resilience against external pressures, such as sanctions and internal protests. Prolonged conflict could increase internal unrest, while regime change is not guaranteed that removing the current leadership could lead to a power vacuum, potentially filled by more hardline elements, as seen in historical cases like Iraq and Libya The evidence leans toward a scenario where the regime weakens but survives, with internal factions possibly emerging. Public opinion could shift, especially if the war leads to high casualties or economic strain, influencing future policy directions. As a broader geopolitical implication, the conflict is not isolated; it reflects tensions between the West and the East, with significant implications for regional and global stability. A prolonged conflict risks destabilising the entire Middle East, with countries like Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen potentially drawn in. The escalation could lead to significant casualties for both Hezbollah and the Israeli military, putting civilians at risk. Iran’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas could intensify, leading to a wider regional war. Regime change in Iran could lead to mass displacement, creating a refugee crisis and straining neighbouring countries, particularly in the context of existing regional instability. China as a manner to perceives Western aggression. The US and its allies have already intervened by intercepting Iranian drones, signalling their commitment to Israel’s defence. Deeper involvement could strain Western resources and divert attention from other global challenges, such as competition with China. Both countries have strategic interests in the region. Russia could exploit the chaos to expand its influence, while China might seek to secure energy supplies and trade routes, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict threatens global oil supplies, especially if it disrupts the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for oil shipments. This could lead to higher oil prices, inflation, and economic uncertainty, with Saudi Arabia expressing concerns about oil price spikes. Global markets have shown resilience but remain vulnerable. Investors are currently underpricing the risk of a major conflagration, which could lead to sharp market corrections if the conflict escalates. Disruptions in the Middle East could affect global trade, particularly for countries reliant on Middle Eastern oil and gas, potentially leading to supply chain bottlenecks. Israeli strikes have not seriously damaged Iran’s nuclear facilities. However, if Iran feels existentially threatened, it might accelerate its nuclear program or seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent. While military actions continue, the role of diplomacy in preventing a wider war cannot be overstated. The broader geopolitical context, involving the West and the East, adds complexity, with potential for both escalation and de-escalation. The outcome of this conflict will shape the Middle East’s future and influence global geopolitics for years to come. As the conflict unfolds, one thing is clear: the global order is shifting. The question is, what will the new order look like? Will it be characterised by increased polarisation, proxy conflicts, and a new arms race, or will diplomacy prevail, leading to a more stable and peaceful region? The world watches with bated breath as these events unfold, knowing that the consequences will be far-reaching and profound.
