*Editorial by Asian Burg*
Rising tensions around Iran and talk of a possible US military strike should not be seen as just another breaking-news event. It is a layered crisis involving global power politics, Middle East stability and the internal security of nearby states. Pakistan’s clear position is that dialogue not war is the only workable path which needs to be understood in this wider context.
US–Iran relations have long been shaped by mistrust, sanctions and proxy confrontations. If a direct attack happens, the fallout will not remain limited to two countries. Iran has both direct and indirect response options — regional allied groups, influence over key sea routes, energy corridors and missile capability. That is why the idea of a “short and limited operation” is often unrealistic. Conflicts in this region tend to expand which will not stay contained.
The regional security environment is already under strain. Ongoing crises in Gaza, the Red Sea, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon have created a tense chain of flashpoints. If Iran becomes a direct war theatre, much of West Asia could turn into a connected conflict zone. The likely consequences would include sharp rises in oil prices, disruption of global trade, higher shipping & insurance costs and fresh economic pressure on developing countries.
For Pakistan, this situation is especially sensitive. First, geography: Iran is a direct neighbor. Any instability can affect border security, smuggling routes, refugee flows and cross-border militancy risks. Second, economics: energy cooperation plans, border trade and regional connectivity projects could suffer. Third, internal stability: external conflicts in the region often inflame sectarian and political tensions inside neighboring states.
This is why Pakistan’s leadership including Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and the Foreign Office openly opposed military action and emphasized diplomacy. This is not just formal language rather it reflects strategic necessity. Pakistan’s position appears to rest on three principles: respect for sovereignty, opposition to the use of force and support for negotiated solutions.
An important regional trend supports this view. Major Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE have also signaled that they want to avoid open war because their energy infrastructure and investment climates are highly exposed to retaliation risks. Türkiye has stepped up diplomatic engagement to cool the tensions. In simple terms, most regional stakeholders prefer de-escalation even if global power politics pulls in another direction.
For the United States too, the decision is complex. A new war would mean heavy military spending, market shocks, pressure on allies and domestic political division. That is why policy circles in Washington are usually split between hard-power advocates and diplomatic strategists. Military pressure and negotiation tracks often run in parallel.
Another critical point is often overlooked that external attacks rarely produce internal reform in targeted states. More often, they harden security structures and reduce space for gradual change. If political or economic reforms are needed inside Iran, they are more likely to come through internal processes than through foreign military force.
For Pakistan, the prudent course is multi-track like:
• Continue opposing open war
• Quietly support diplomatic channels
• Strengthen border and internal security preparedness
• And plan for possible energy and import price shocks.