by Junaid Qaiser
Iran is currently facing a tumultuous period that poses serious risks not just for itself, but for the entire region. What started as widespread protests against economic struggles in late December has spiraled into one of the most intense clashes between citizens and government forces we’ve seen in decades. Reports indicate that the death toll could be over 2,500, and the U.S. has dismissed claims that executions have come to a halt, even after President Donald Trump hinted at a pause in potential military strikes based on unverified information from Iranian officials.
In light of this grim situation, U.S. policymakers found themselves in a tough spot: should they take military action against Iran for its harsh crackdown on protesters, or should they hold back? A CNN report revealed that during a late-night meeting, senior national security officials discussed the possibility of limited military strikes after Trump was shown disturbing footage of past executions and informed about the impending execution of a young protester named Erfan Soltani. The thought of such an execution heightened Trump’s worries about how the regime might react. However, the following day, the administration claimed that executions had supposedly stopped—a statement that hasn’t been independently verified but seemed to ease the immediate threat of intervention. Trump referred to this as “good news,” even as U.S. military assets were already being moved closer to the region.
This situation underscores the complex moral and strategic challenges surrounding Iran’s crisis. From a humanitarian perspective, no government should ignore state violence against its own citizens. Yet, the potential for external military intervention—especially in a region already fraught with instability—is a concern that Pakistan and its neighbors are acutely aware of. Islamabad has consistently urged for restraint and for all conflicts to be resolved through dialogue in line with international law, stressing its opposition to any outside interference in Iran’s internal matters.
Regional powers have been watching this developing situation with concern and, in some cases, active engagement. Reports suggest that Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman, have pushed diplomatic de-escalation, wary of the wider consequences of open conflict.
For Pakistan, the implications are particularly sensitive. Islamabad shares a long border with Iran and deep cultural, historical, and economic ties, and it has made clear that its territory and airspace will not be used for hostile action against Tehran. The Foreign Office reiterated this stance. Pakistan’s diplomatic posture underscores a broader principle: regional disputes should be settled without military intervention. This is not a neutral refusal to acknowledge suffering within Iran; rather, it reflects a conviction that external use of force often multiplies suffering and destabilisation. At the United Nations, Pakistan’s representative stressed that threats of force would only push all parties further from negotiated solutions and greater humanitarian harm.
What is at stake in Iran today is both moral and geopolitical. Citizens are risking their lives for economic dignity, civil liberties and political freedom. At the same time, the international community is being tested on its willingness to defend human rights without triggering broader conflict. For Pakistan, the preference for diplomacy and peace resonates with national interests in regional stability. Any spillover—whether through conflict, refugee flows, or economic shockwaves—would have profound effects.
The events unfolding across Iran are a reminder that in a deeply interconnected world, internal crises have external consequences. Regional actors must tread carefully, balancing support for human rights with a commitment to de-escalation. In the current climate, Pakistan’s call for restraint, dialogue, and respect for international obligations is not only principled but pragmatic. While Iran’s internal situation remains fragile and uncertain, any slide toward regional confrontation would carry costs that no neighbouring country is in a position to bear.
Leave a Reply