The writer is an economist, an anchor, geopolitical analyst
and the President of the All Pakistan Private Schools’ Federation
president@Pakistanprivateschools.com
In a remarkable display of courage, resilience and strategic acumen, Iran has emerged victorious from the recent 12-day war with the US and Israel, with a notable advantage, having successfully thwarted the objectives of its adversaries. The recent 12-day conflict between Iran and the US-Israel alliance has sent shockwaves across the globe, with Iran emerging as a notable victor. Despite being subjected to intense aerial bombardments and military might, Iran demonstrated remarkable resilience and strategic acumen, successfully thwarting the objectives of its adversaries. Iran showcased its military capabilities, including its new weaponry, by launching retaliatory barrages of missiles and drones that targeted critical Israeli infrastructure in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Iran’s ability to withstand simultaneous pressure from two formidable adversaries, the US and Israel, has significant implications for the regional balance of power. Although Israel claimed to have set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few months, Iran insists that its nuclear program remains largely unharmed. The ceasefire brokered by US President Donald Trump has brought a temporary halt to hostilities, but tensions remain high, and future conflicts seem probable. The conflict has altered regional power dynamics, with Israel showcasing its offensive capabilities but underscoring its economic fragility. Iran, on the other hand, demonstrated its unwavering resolve and military advancements. The US intervention, particularly its bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, raised questions about its failure in goals and in diplomatic consistency. The need for sustained diplomatic efforts to prevent further escalation and forge a more durable peace is evident, given the unresolved issues and significant challenges that led to the conflict. The region remains fraught with uncertainty, and the potential for escalation from Israel and US forces continues to loom large. The conflict’s outcome will have significant implications for the future trajectory of international relations, particularly in the Middle East. The subsequent ceasefire, while a welcome respite, is likely to be a temporary pause rather than a lasting resolution, given the unresolved issues and significant challenges that led to the conflict. With tensions still simmering, particularly over Iran’s nuclear program, and the potential for escalation from Israel and US forces, the region remains fraught with uncertainty. As experts and recent reports suggest, future conflicts seem probable, underscoring the need for sustained diplomatic efforts to prevent further escalation and forge a more durable peace. Iran’s ability to withstand the military might of its opponents has significant implications for the regional balance of power and the future trajectory of international relations. Israel, joined by the United States, has carried out attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities, after alleging Tehran was getting close to obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran denies ever having a nuclear weapons program, but Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has said that if it wanted to, world leaders “wouldn’t be able to stop us”. Israel, which is not a party to the international Non-Proliferation Treaty, is the only country in the Middle East believed to have nuclear weapons. Israel does not deny that. This is the great irony: the disparity between Iran and Israel’s stances on nuclear non-proliferation is striking. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) since 1970, Iran has consistently acknowledged the treaty’s authority, allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to monitor its nuclear facilities. Conversely, Israel has refrained from signing the NPT, maintaining a policy of nuclear opacity regarding its arsenal. An Israeli minister’s threat to drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza is particularly alarming, especially when compared to Iran’s relatively restrained rhetoric. Considering Israel’s refusal to sign the NPT and permit IAEA inspections, coupled with its provocative statements, it’s reasonable to argue that Israel should face scrutiny and potential action from the international community. Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei promises to punish “the Zionist enemy” in his first comments after the US joined Israel’s attacks on his country at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan by struck three key nuclear sites in Iran. Whereas, US President Donald Trump has now changed his stance and declined the possible any regime change attempt by the US in Tehran. Russian President Vladimir Putin held a significant meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Moscow, reaffirming Russia’s clear position on the Iran-Israel conflict. Despite the recent US attack, Iran’s uranium enrichment process is expected to continue, according to the Russian Security Council’s deputy chairman. In a notable move, Iran has officially suspended all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). In this 12-day war, Pakistan’s role and foreign policy were undergoing a significant transformation, driven by the complex geopolitical landscape of the region and the emerging multipolar world order. As the country navigates the intricate dynamics of regional conflicts, including the Indo-Pakistan and Israel-Iran tensions, national security considerations are paramount. The shifting sands of regional turmoil necessitate an adaptive foreign policy stance, where Pakistan must carefully calibrate its approach to ensure national security and stability. In this context, Pakistan’s foreign policy choices are critical, with a shift in approach potentially having far-reaching implications for regional stability and national security. As the global order continues to evolve, Pakistan is seeking to realign its foreign policy to prioritise national security and survival, navigating the complexities of the new global order with a quest for greater autonomy in its decision-making. By doing so, Pakistan aims to effectively navigate the changing regional and global landscape, ensuring its national security and stability in an increasingly uncertain world. The US airstrikes had significant implications for global geopolitics, particularly in the Middle East. Iran’s hardline decision-makers were expected to focus on restoring deterrence to avoid being targeted themselves. The US strikes had strained relations between Washington and Tehran, with Iran’s withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Meanwhile, Trump’s presidency will face intense scrutiny, with potential repercussions for US foreign policy and global stability. Even if Iran’s nuclear sites were destroyed, the real challenge would only just be beginning, with “surprises” yet to come. This defiant stance underscores Iran’s determination to continue its nuclear program, with enriched materials remaining intact and the potential to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Despite the strikes, Iran’s enriched nuclear materials remain secure, allowing the country to potentially continue its nuclear program. A US official also tells the New York Times that they don’t know where Iran’s 400kg of 60% enriched uranium is. Shamkhani’s comments suggest Iran is preparing for further action, warning the US of “regrettable responses” and emphasising the country’s resolve. Iran’s next move could be even more momentous. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s next moves will be the most consequential not just for his own survival but for how he will go down in history. The Iranian regime has not only survived but likely emerged stronger, with citizens rallying around spiritual leaders. Iran says the United States will be “solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences” of its attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, adding that US President Donald Trump has “betrayed” American voters by submitting to Israel’s wishes. Whereas Iran’s parliament has approved closing the Strait of Hormuz, the IRGC vows to respond to US aggression in ways beyond enemy calculations. While an Iranian official claims Tehran now has a “legal right” to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran’s government asserts that its nuclear program remains intact, with all strategic materials securely relocated. The U.S. strikes had targeted facilities that were under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These attacks constituted a serious violation of international law and the IAEA Statute. It is also a grave and unprecedented violation of the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law. While noting Iran’s right to self-defence, as enshrined under Article 51 of the UN Charter, there is a need to immediately return to dialogue and diplomacy as the only viable path forward for collective efforts to de-escalate the situation.
The US intervention, particularly its bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities, raised questions about its failure in goals achievements and in diplomatic consistency. The region remains fraught with uncertainty, and the potential for escalation from Israel and US forces continues to loom large. The current crisis will only be resolved when a balance of military power is restored in the region. This may involve a shift away from Israel’s nuclear monopoly and towards a more balanced nuclear dynamic.
For decades, the United States and Iran had carefully avoided crossing a dangerous red line into a direct military confrontation. One American president after another held back from deploying their military might against the Islamic Republic for fear of sinking the US into potentially the most perilous Middle East war of all. Now, US President Trump, who promised to be a president of peace, has crossed this Rubicon with direct military strikes on Tehran’s nuclear sites – the most consequential move yet in the second term of a president who has prided himself on breaking all the old rules. The US entered the war two days after President Trump said he wanted to allow a two-week window to give diplomacy a chance. Now, it’s clear that Iran won’t return to the negotiating table while Israeli and American bombs are still falling. Indeed, it was not Iran, but the US that betrayed diplomacy. The US leader is also coming under pressure at home from lawmakers who say he acted without congressional authorisation, and supporters who believe he has broken his promise to keep America out of lengthy wars. Trump was elected on a platform of putting an end to “America’s costly involvement in ‘forever wars’. And this moment is widely expected to concentrate the minds of Iran’s hardline decision-makers on how to restore deterrence as they try to avoid being targeted themselves. The media news that the US used Indian airspace for strikes on Iran, potentially straining India’s relations with Tehran. The US military attack on the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of a UN member state carried out in collusion with the genocidal Israeli regime has once again revealed the extent of the United States’ hostility towards Iran. The world must not forget that it was the United States that, in the midst of a process to forge a diplomatic outcome, betrayed diplomacy by supporting the genocidal Israeli regime’s launch of an illegal war of aggression on the Iranian nation. The move carried substantial risks, potentially inflaming the Middle East and jeopardising regional security. Iran may retaliate by closing the critical Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global oil supplies and triggering a broader conflict. Iran’s regional proxies may launch attacks on US military bases and allies, further escalating tensions. The strikes might push Iran to seek nuclear weapons as a deterrent, undermining regional stability. The US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. President Donald Trump declared the sites “completely and fully obliterated,” yet the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported no increase in radiation levels, and Iran claimed minimal impact, asserting that the facilities had been evacuated beforehand. The recent airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities have sparked intense debate, with critical infrastructure seemingly unaffected or sustaining only minor damage. Iran’s nuclear program, including enrichment and potential future production of nuclear weapons, appears poised to continue unabated. In fact, some countries are reportedly willing to supply Iran with nuclear warheads. Global protests erupted, with tens of thousands demonstrating in London, Buenos Aires and Sweden against Israel’s attacks on Palestinians and Iran. Although the US launched airstrikes using seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers and 30 BGM-109 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles, claiming “spectacular military success.” However, questions have been raised about the efficacy of these strikes. As the situation unfolds, Trump’s presidency will face intense scrutiny, with potential repercussions for US foreign policy, regional stability, and global security. In these circumstances, it’s logical to question who should be the target of international action. But Trump has sought to eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran; he has now made it far more likely that Iran becomes a nuclear state. Israel faces relentless attacks, with explosions rocking the nation and citizens succumbing to panic. The US now finds itself entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming ominously. The vast majority of countries worldwide oppose Israel and the US’s actions, denouncing them as unjustified aggression. Iran has insisted that its nuclear program has survived these unprecedented attacks. It’s an unprecedented moment provoking alarm in capitals the world over. This decisive action marks a significant departure from Trump’s previously stated non-interventionist stance, as he seeks to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat, a longstanding objective of US foreign policy. Donald Trump, once hailed as a “president of peace,” has now led the US into another war. His chances of winning the Nobel Peace Prize seem remote, with many condemning his actions as reckless. So the questions are: How difficult will regime change be in Iran? How will the closure of the Strait of Hormuz affect global politics and trade? How will America’s entry into the war affect the region and Pakistan? Why did Donald Trump, who calls himself anti-war, join the war? Will the US and Israel achieve their goals? Is the entire region about to be engulfed in war? The crisis surrounding Iran’s nuclear program may unfold in three possible ways, each with profound implications for global security and diplomacy. One potential path forward involves a combination of diplomatic efforts and stringent sanctions aimed at persuading Iran to relinquish its nuclear ambitions. However, historical precedent suggests that nations resolute in their pursuit of nuclear capabilities are seldom deterred. Regime change was achieved by attacking Iraq, Libya, and Syria only out of fear that these countries would acquire atomic bombs, but this was not done in Israel, India, Pakistan, and Korea. Is it because of their atomic bombs? Apparently, it seems that the atomic bomb is a guarantee of security, and Iran is probably trying to do the same. The cases of Pakistan and North Korea, which have successfully developed their nuclear program despite numerous sanctions and UN resolutions, serve as a poignant example. If Iran’s leadership believes its security hinges on possessing nuclear weapons, sanctions alone may prove insufficient to alter their stance. Another possibility is that Iran chooses to halt short of actual nuclear testing but develops a sophisticated nuclear program, granting it the capacity to rapidly assemble and test a nuclear weapon if needed. This approach would allow Iran to reap the benefits of enhanced security while avoiding the drawbacks of international condemnation and isolation. Japan’s extensive civilian nuclear infrastructure, which could be leveraged to produce nuclear weapons on short notice, illustrates a similar scenario. The third potential outcome involves Iran’s continued pursuit of nuclear capabilities, culminating in a public demonstration of its nuclear prowess through a weapon test. US and Israeli officials have vehemently opposed this scenario, citing the existential threat posed by a nuclear-armed Iran. While major powers have historically expressed alarm at the prospect of new nuclear states, experience suggests that once a nation joins the nuclear club, others often adapt to this new reality. In reality, the emergence of additional nuclear powers may foster a more stable equilibrium, as the balance of military power is restored. Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Middle East, which has endured for over four decades, has been a significant contributor to the region’s instability. Israel’s nuclear capabilities, rather than Iran’s aspirations for nuclear development, have been the primary driver of the current crisis. The country’s proven ability to strike potential nuclear rivals with impunity has created an imbalance that is unsustainable in the long term. Iran’s nuclear program is a response to the perceived threat posed by Israel’s nuclear arsenal. The current tensions are not a recent development but rather the culmination of a decades-long nuclear crisis in the Middle East. The Middle East is unique in that it is the only region with a lone, unchecked nuclear state. This imbalance has fueled instability and prompted other nations to pursue nuclear capabilities. The current crisis will only be resolved when a balance of military power is restored in the region. This may involve a shift away from Israel’s nuclear monopoly and towards a more balanced nuclear dynamic. History shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action. There has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states. Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply, even if the Iranian arsenal is relatively small. No other country in the region will have an incentive to acquire its own nuclear capability, and the current crisis will finally dissipate, leading to a Middle East that is more stable than it is today. Otherwise, silence in the face of such blatant aggression will plunge the world into an unprecedented level of danger and chaos. Humanity has come too far as a species to allow a lawless bully to take us back to the law of the jungle.
