Pakistani analyst sees prolonged war as Iran conflict reshapes regional calculations

By Akhtar Pathan

KARACHI, Pakistan (MNTV) — As fighting between Iran and combined forces of the United States and Israel reverberates across the Middle East, Pakistani political analyst Muhammad Osama Shafiq sees more than a distant conflict. He sees a potential turning point for Pakistan itself.

Shafiq, a Ph.D. scholar and director of the Institute for Media & Social Dynamics in the United Kingdom, argues that anxiety is growing in Pakistan that once the United States and Israel are finished confronting Iran, Islamabad could come under sharper pressure.

He points to remarks he attributes to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during the first June 2025 12-day war with Iran, in which Netanyahu described Pakistan as a greater long-term threat to Israel than Iran. In Shafiq’s assessment, Iran’s geographic proximity made it the immediate target, but Pakistan remains strategically significant in the broader calculus.

That perception, he says, has shaped Islamabad’s response.

‘If Iranian regime falls, Pakistan will bear brunt’

Two years before the first U.S.-Israel-Iran confrontation, Pakistan and Iran reached a quiet understanding after cross-border strikes during a tense border episode. Through backchannel contacts, both sides agreed to avoid direct military escalation, Shafiq said. Since then, despite regional turbulence, neither has sought open confrontation with the other.

When the June 2025 war erupted, Shafiq said Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan aligned diplomatically with Iran. Pakistan’s support, he argues, is rooted less in ideology than in hard security concerns.

“If the Iranian regime falls, Pakistan will bear the brunt,” he said, describing fears of instability spilling across borders and fueling separatist tensions.

Among those concerns are long-circulating discussions in strategic circles about redrawing regional borders. Shafiq referred to claims by former intelligence officials and investigative journalists about proposals to create an independent Kurdistan from Kurdish-majority areas in Türkiye, Iraq and Syria, and to carve out a separate Balochistan from Pakistan’s Balochistan province and Iran’s Sistan-Balochistan region.

Whether realistic or not, he said, such scenarios are taken seriously in Islamabad. Pakistan is “vigilantly monitoring” developments and may be offering Iran quiet support, he added, while avoiding a direct clash with Washington.

Islamabad’s caution, he said, also reflects competing pressures. Pakistan remains entangled in Afghanistan and is reluctant to risk confrontation on multiple fronts at once.

‘Pakistan cannot depend on Washington’

Shafiq was sharply critical of U.S. President Donald Trump, describing him as unpredictable and driven by personal legacy. Pakistan, he said, cannot depend on Washington in a crisis with India and would instead look to China.

That strategic hedge underscores what he views as a shifting global balance. Russia, preoccupied with Ukraine, is unlikely to open another direct front, he said. China, meanwhile, prefers indirect engagement — leveraging trade, technology and diplomatic tools at the United Nations.

But if Iran appeared close to collapse, Shafiq said, Beijing might reassess. “If China wants to emerge as a superpower, it will have to get involved — directly or indirectly,” he said.

For now, he sees a drawn-out struggle.

Tehran emerges better prepared after 12-day war

Iran, he argues, has already demonstrated resilience. After more than four decades of sanctions and the experience of the 12-day war, Tehran is better prepared for sustained confrontation. He cited reported missile penetration rates into Israel that he said exceed those seen in earlier clashes.

At the same time, he warned of global consequences. Any prolonged disruption of the Strait of Hormuz — a critical artery for global oil shipments — could send shockwaves through energy markets. In previous episodes of tension, oil prices jumped sharply within days. Sustained instability could hit Gulf economies, including the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

Shafiq also rejects claims circulated by some Sunni political actors in the Middle East that Iran and Israel are covertly aligned. He notes that Hamas has long maintained relations with Tehran and that leaders on both sides have been killed in the conflict, underscoring open hostility rather than collusion.

Khamenei’s assassination proved counterproductive

Internally, he argues, Iran’s majority Shiite identity acts as a powerful binding force. A natural leadership transition following the eventual death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei might have emboldened domestic dissent, he said. But an externally driven conflict, in his view, strengthens national cohesion — even among groups critical of the government.

Shafiq acknowledges Pakistan’s own complicated legacy in the region. Islamabad supported Afghan mujahideen during the Soviet occupation, later shifted alliances and became entangled in the fallout of Afghanistan’s civil wars. The consequences, he said, continue to reverberate.

“This is not a quagmire that will simply fade,” he said. “It is a war that has started across the region. It may pause, but it will not stop.”

Alignments shift in the West

He also sees shifting alignments in the West. He said Netanyahu made repeated visits to Washington to encourage deeper U.S. involvement and that Britain initially remained distant before adjusting its position as domestic political dynamics evolved.

In his view, the United States may have once sought to consolidate its position on both sides of the Atlantic. But a widening Middle East war could complicate that strategy, drawing Washington deeper into a prolonged confrontation.

For Pakistan, the path forward is cautious balancing

For Pakistan, the path forward is cautious balancing — supporting Iran enough to prevent destabilization, avoiding open rupture with the United States, and leaning on China as a long-term strategic partner.

The stakes, Shafiq believes, extend far beyond Tehran.

“This war is not small, and it will not end quickly,” he said. “The question is not whether it will spread, but how far — and who will ultimately be pulled in.”