The evil coalition’s war against Iran has entered its fourth week. The epic fury has been demonstrated by the combined military firepower of the Israel Defence Forces and the USA’s air and naval might, targeting every strategically important place, person, and any moving object. The air war against Iran has far surpassed the bombardment by the USA and its allies on North Korea in extent, intensity, ferocity, and devastation. No province, city, or town in Iran has escaped their reckless and barbarous air campaign.

The senior political and military hierarchy—both central and provincial—arms and ammunition stores, suspected defence industrial units, and uranium enrichment locations have been targeted. The decapitation of the civil and military leadership, along with extensive devastation and displacement, has apparently failed to lower the morale of the people of Iran or weaken the resolve of their new civil and military leadership to accept any degrading ceasefire.

The collective funeral of Ali Hashim Larijani and the sailors attracted tens of thousands of mourners under the shadow of the air war. The Kurds and the Baloch, who have historically sought self-autonomy, have refused to rebel against the besieged clerical regime at the behest of the evil coalition.

The country remains territorially intact. Its governing and defence systems, though severely battered, are far from collapse. It has so far retained control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, effectively strangling the global economy, and is negotiating with individual countries for the safe passage of their cargo.

As a pragmatic balancing act, President Masoud Pezeshkian has once again assured the neighbouring Gulf States that there will be no further attacks on them. This was prompted by the rapidly evolving situation following the recent conference of the Foreign Ministers of Arab and Muslim countries in Riyadh, and President Donald Trump’s intervention with Israel to abstain from attacking Iran’s oil and gas fields.

However, the moot of Foreign Ministers, with a strong delegation from Pakistan present, witnessed a stormy reaction from Gulf State delegations against Iran’s missile and drone attacks on their countries after Israel targeted the Pars Gas Field.

Only time will tell whether this was a tactical move to defuse Arab anger or a pragmatic decision by the Iranian leadership. Nevertheless, the direction of the war cannot be gauged with precision. It is difficult to say whether the Iranians will adhere to their assurances to the neighbouring Gulf States.

The Arab states may align themselves with a new security framework overseen by Israel, which could closely monitor their political, economic, and strategic policies

The Arab states may align themselves with a new security framework overseen by Israel, which could closely monitor their political, economic, and strategic policies

The war has widened the gulf between the Trump administration and its Western allies. Given Donald Trump's anger, NATO may face one of the hardest tests of its existence. The wealthy Gulf States did not have a pleasant experience during this war, exposing the USA’s apparent prioritisation of Israel’s security at the expense of their own. Though the sense of American desertion is palpable, the Gulf States have limited options to reassess their existing security arrangements.

The war is already having grave consequences, shaping both regional and global orders. The North Korean leadership has been anxiously waiting for the USA to show signs of war fatigue, internal political turmoil, or the political collapse of President Donald Trump, while weighing its options regarding the southern part of the Korean Peninsula. The Chinese leadership, though exercising restraint, remains alert to the evolving course of the war, particularly regarding Taiwan.

An important question that agitates observers of global power politics is whether China and Russia would allow the USA to emerge victorious from this war, witnessing the collapse and disintegration of Iran without intervention. Many believe these two powers are too cautious to take overt sides.

However, they may have covert plans to assist Iran militarily to survive the onslaught, while allowing the USA to become bogged down—expending its resources and weakening in the process—thereby creating an opportunity to reshape the international order based on respect for the UN Charter, international law, and conventions.

The potential collapse of Iran would render the USA the undisputed dominant power in the region, if not the world, leaving China and Russia at the periphery of global power politics, dependent on American goodwill for their global trade, particularly in oil, gas exports, and energy imports.

Israel, as the USA’s satrap, would act as a rogue overlord in the region, posing an existential threat to major Muslim countries such as Turkey and Pakistan. The latter, being a nuclear state and a bulwark against the ‘Akhund Bharat’ of India, would find itself in the eye of the storm—sandwiched between its archrival India, a newly empowered Israel, and the Afghan Taliban to the north-west. This would be a nightmarish scenario.

The Arab states may align themselves with a new security framework overseen by Israel, which could closely monitor their political, economic, and strategic policies. With potentially curtailed sovereignty and reduced economic autonomy, the flow of Arab financial assistance to Pakistan may slow and eventually cease. Pakistan is already viewed as a security concern by Israel and the USA, as indicated by testimonies from officials of several national institutions before the Senate Committee.

Recent developments suggest that Pakistan, in consonance with its defence pact with Saudi Arabia, may side with the Kingdom in a potential conflict with Iran. This speculation has been reinforced by the presence of Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister at the recent Riyadh conference, and the Chief of Defence Staff’s advisory to the Shia ulema to avoid straining the state’s patience.

There are, however, indications that Pakistan would not participate in any offensive operations against Iranian territory. Its role would likely remain defensive—protecting Saudi territory, strategic and economic installations, and the holy sites from hostile incursions.

Whether this constitutes the correct interpretation of the security pact with Saudi Arabia in the context of broader regional tensions remains an important question. Such a stance would mark a departure from Pakistan’s longstanding policy of neutrality in intra-Arab and intra-Muslim conflicts.

Pakistan remained neutral during the Iran–Iraq War, which lasted over eight years. Many scholars believe that conflict was imposed on Iran to undermine its revolution. Despite his ideological leanings, General Zia-ul-Haq maintained a careful balance, preserving Pakistan’s neutrality throughout the war.

Today, Pakistan’s chronic economic dependence on international financial institutions and wealthy Arab states is increasingly constraining its sovereign autonomy in making independent policy decisions.

© The Friday Times