Arshad Mahmood Awan
As the United States weighs the possibility of launching fresh attacks against Iran, Pakistan’s leadership has taken a clear and principled public stance against any military aggression targeting its western neighbor. This position, voiced by the highest levels of the Pakistani state, is not only in line with regional consensus but also rooted in Pakistan’s own national interests and historical ties with Iran.
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, in a recent phone conversation with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, underscored the urgency for “sustained dialogue and diplomatic engagement” amid escalating tensions. The message was echoed by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, who, during a call with his Iranian counterpart, stressed that “diplomacy is the only viable way forward.” The Pakistani Foreign Office further clarified the country’s stance, warning that “this region cannot afford war” and firmly opposing both the use of force against Iran and interference in its internal affairs.
Pakistan’s position mirrors that of several other key regional players. Both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have publicly declared that their territories and facilities will not be used as staging grounds for attacks against Iran. Turkey, too, has stepped up diplomatic efforts, with its foreign minister hosting Iran’s top diplomat for talks aimed at de-escalating the situation and averting the outbreak of a wider regional conflict.
This united regional front is underpinned by a collective understanding that war in the Middle East would have catastrophic consequences for all. For Pakistan, the stakes are particularly high. The country shares a long and porous border with Iran, making it especially vulnerable to any spillover of instability. Historically, the relationship between Pakistan and Iran has been marked by periods of both tension and cooperation; however, the two countries are bound by deep historical, cultural, and spiritual connections. At a time of crisis, Pakistan’s clarity in opposing foreign intervention against a sovereign neighbor demonstrates both moral and strategic foresight.
The apprehensions of the Gulf monarchies are also significant. Senior Iranian officials have warned that if Iran is attacked, US military bases in the Gulf region would become targets for retaliation. This prospect is alarming for Saudi Arabia and the UAE, which have much to lose from a destabilized Persian Gulf – both in terms of security and economic stability. The recent visit of the Saudi defense minister to Washington, amid reports of US pressure on Riyadh to quietly support a possible attack, further illustrates the complexity of regional diplomacy. Despite external pressure, the Gulf states have maintained their resistance to being drawn into another catastrophic conflict.
The United States, for its part, must recognize the limits and risks inherent in its current approach. The assumption that a military campaign against Iran could be quick or contained is deeply flawed. The reverberations of such a conflict would not only devastate the region but also severely disrupt the global economy, particularly energy markets. Lessons from previous interventions in the Middle East suggest that wars rarely go as planned, and the human and economic costs are often far greater than anticipated.
At the same time, Iran faces its own internal challenges. There is widespread international concern about the country’s human rights record and the treatment of dissent. While these issues are legitimate and merit attention, the path to reform should be led by the Iranian people themselves, free from external coercion or intervention. History shows that foreign-imposed regime change or pressure often leads to greater instability and hardship for ordinary citizens, rather than genuine progress.
In light of these realities, Pakistan’s advocacy for dialogue and non-intervention is not just a diplomatic formality but a vital call for sanity amid the rising drumbeats of war. It reflects a broader regional sentiment that peace and stability can only be achieved through sustained engagement and respect for sovereignty—not through military might or external interference. The risk of a wider conflict remains worryingly real, but the possibility of diplomacy still exists if all sides choose engagement over escalation.
Ultimately, the unfolding crisis is a test for regional and global actors alike. Pakistan’s position, shared by several of its neighbors, underscores the urgent need for wisdom, restraint, and renewed commitment to peaceful solutions in a region already scarred by too many wars.
