In a world already strained by mounting geopolitical tensions, the specter of a direct military clash involving Iran, the United States, and Israel looms as perhaps the most consequential crisis of our time. What began as a cycle of hostile rhetoric, proxy confrontations, and strategic brinkmanship threatens to spill over into open warfare with devastating consequences — not just for the Middle East, but for the global economy, regional stability, and the very fabric of the international order.
The warnings from Tehran have been stark: any foreign intervention or attack on Iranian territory could trigger “all-out war” across the region. Iran’s leadership repeatedly underscores that it will not capitulate under pressure and views external coercion as a direct threat to its sovereignty. Meanwhile, diplomatic channels have deteriorated, and hawkish voices in Washington and Jerusalem have periodically floated the prospect of military strikes intended to reset the strategic balance — a notion that carries profound risks.
Yet the consequences of such a course have been clearly demonstrated in recent history and must inform how the world responds now.
Why a Military Strike on Iran Would Be Catastrophic
Iran is not a peripheral player in today’s geopolitical landscape. It is a populous, strategically positioned nation, with deep cultural, economic, and military ties throughout West Asia. More importantly, any significant conflict involving Iran has the potential to draw in multiple regional powers, expand into a broader war, and disrupt the world’s energy supplies.
An attack on Iran’s infrastructure, nuclear facilities, or military bases would not remain contained. Such an escalation would almost certainly trigger an asymmetric Iranian response targeting assets beyond its own borders — potentially including American and Israeli military installations scattered across the Middle East. It would likely prompt missile salvos, proxy attacks from allied militias, and serious fears of additional intervention by larger powers currently invested in the region’s security architecture.
These dynamics are not hypothetical. Earlier rounds of conflict between Iran and Israel — including reported strikes on Iranian nuclear and energy infrastructure — quickly spiked regional tensions. In June 2025, for example, a major round of direct attacks between the two states sent global markets into a tailspin, with Brent crude prices surging more than 7%, stock indices falling, and gold rallying as investors priced in geopolitical risk.
The reason is simple: global oil and gas markets remain deeply interconnected with Middle Eastern stability. Roughly 20–40% of the world’s crude oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint along Iran’s coastline that is vital to global energy flows. Should Tehran block a major shipping route in retaliation, as has been threatened in past crises, international supplies could tighten rapidly — and prices could spike even higher.
In a world still recovering from pandemic-era supply chain disruptions and inflationary shocks, such a supply shock could be devastating. Import-dependent countries — especially those in Asia, Africa, and Europe — could face deep economic pain, rising inflation, and cascading fiscal stresses that undermine recovery and growth. It is no exaggeration to say that any serious disruption to energy supplies from the Middle East threatens not just regional stability, but global economic wellbeing.
The Wider Geopolitical Stakes
The implications of a broader war extend far beyond oil markets. If regional nations are pulled into hostilities, the conflict could spill over into neighboring states and destabilize a much larger swathe of territory. The last decade has already shown how a localized conflict can metastasize into regional upheaval, as seen in Syria, Yemen, and parts of Iraq — each driven by competing geopolitical agendas among global powers.
In such a scenario, the risk of a wider confrontation — potentially the most dangerous since the Cold War — cannot be dismissed out of hand. The term “World War III” may sound hyperbolic, but the strategic interdependencies that bind nuclear powers, regional allies, and global supply chains together mean that a conflagration could rapidly transcend borders. The specter of nuclear escalation, while fortunately unlikely, remains one of the gravest dangers of any major Middle East crisis.
For this reason, global powers such as Russia and China have repeatedly called for de-escalation, urging restraint and dialogue rather than force. Beijing, for example, has emphasized that instability in the Middle East would undermine peace not only regionally but worldwide, and has supported diplomatic efforts to calm tensions rather than advocating military solutions.
The recent statement by Russia’s foreign ministry condemning threats of U.S. strikes against Iran underscores how dangerous military adventurism is perceived by major powers invested in maintaining a semblance of stability. Moscow labeled such actions “categorically unacceptable,” warning of dire consequences for both regional and global security.
The world has seen before how external powers attempt to reshape regimes with the promise of stability, only to unleash chaos. Syria’s civil war, which saw U.S. support for regime change efforts fail to topple Bashar al-Assad, devolved into years of violence and destruction. Likewise, in Venezuela, sanctions and political pressure failed to produce a transition, instead deepening humanitarian hardship and polarization. The lesson is unmistakable: coercive external pressure rarely brings the intended outcomes and often creates long-term instability.
Pakistan’s Stakes in the Balance
For Pakistan, the risks of conflict next door are especially acute.
Sharing a long border with Iran, Pakistan would be on the front line of any region-wide crisis. Beyond geographic proximity, Islamabad’s social fabric includes a significant Shia population — roughly 25% of the country — deeply connected culturally and religiously to events unfolding in Iran. Any major upheaval there could reverberate back into Pakistan, inflaming domestic tensions and undermining internal stability.
Pakistan’s economy, already grappling with structural challenges, would be vulnerable to spillover effects — from refugee flows to trade disruptions and energy price volatility. These pressures would arrive at a moment when the country is striving to consolidate growth, strengthen infrastructure, and attract investment.
Yet Pakistan has been consistent in its advocacy for peace and negotiated settlements. Islamabad’s official statements — including emergency security council deliberations in response to Israeli-Iran hostilities — have emphasized diplomacy and dialogue, reaffirming Tehran’s right to self-defense while urging all parties to seek de-escalation.
This reflects not only Pakistan’s stated foreign policy principles under the United Nations Charter, but also its pragmatic understanding of the risks of escalation. Pakistan stands in a unique position — enjoying varying degrees of trust with both Western capitals and Iran — that could make it a credible facilitator of dialogue in moments of tension. Its role need not be militarized; rather, Pakistan could help convene or support talks that build confidence and reduce misunderstandings.
Diplomacy Must Take Precedence
The path forward must prioritize diplomacy — not because peace is easy, but because war would be catastrophic.
History has shown that military intervention seldom resolves deep-rooted political disputes. Instead, it sows the seeds of prolonged conflict, humanitarian crises, and fractured societies. A negotiated solution that addresses legitimate security concerns while protecting sovereignty and regional order offers the best chance for lasting stability.
Global institutions such as the United Nations must play a central role. This is not a call for empty rhetoric, but for genuine engagement backed by a willingness to accommodate the concerns of all stakeholders. The alternative — an incompetent or absent international response — risks creating vacuums that are filled by extremism and chaos.
The world cannot afford a repeat of past mistakes. As tensions rise, policymakers must heed the lessons of history, economics, and human cost. Regional connectivity, trade routes, and global supply chains all depend on a stable Middle East. The people of Iran, Israel, and neighboring states deserve peace, prosperity, and security — not the devastation of war.
A Call for Strategic Wisdom
In an era marked by rising conflicts and global fractures, the Iran crisis represents a defining test of collective judgment. Will the international community double down on strategies that have repeatedly failed? Or will it choose the more difficult but ultimately more rewarding path of diplomacy?
The stakes are nothing less than global peace. An escalation into full-blown war would not only devastate the Middle East, but could set off ripple effects that plunge economies into crisis, inflame sectarian tensions across borders, and threaten the very foundations of the international system.
Pakistan’s advocacy for dialogue, its emphasis on negotiated solutions, and its commitment to the principles of the United Nations Charter offer a model of responsible statecraft. In a world where diplomacy is too often sidelined in favor of force, such leadership is not merely admirable — it is essential.
The message is clear: peace is not imposed with bombs or sanctions. It is negotiated at the table, with respect for sovereignty, law, and the shared interests of humankind. The alternative is too dire to contemplate.
