The Middle East is once again edging towards a dangerous precipice. Recent statements from Saudi Arabia and the UAE, making it clear that neither will allow its territory to be used for attacks on Iran, show just how serious the moment has become. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s assurance to Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian that Riyadh supports resolving disputes through dialogue is also indicative that there is a growing regional unease over escalating US threats against Tehran. And those concerns are hardly misplaced. Iran’s issuance of a Notice to Airmen (Notam) announcing live-fire military activity near the Strait of Hormuz, coupled with the arrival of US military assets and readiness exercises across the region, all points to rising tensions that could easily spiral out of control. Washington’s insistence that ‘all options remain on the table’, including military action, has revived fears of yet another ill-conceived intervention under the familiar pretext of stability and deterrence.
Any possible justification for such pressure – and there wasn’t any to begin with – appears increasingly hollow. Protests in Iran, driven largely by economic grievances, have subsided. Even US officials have acknowledged a reduction in violence and an absence of imminent executions. Yet a US aircraft carrier group has arrived in the region, expanding the US president’s ability to strike Iran should he choose to do so. Regional observers warn that this posture aligns less with crisis management and more with the long-standing ambition of regime change, pursued with the backing and input of Israel. Such a move would pose a grave threat to regional stability. Countries like Pakistan, which share a border with Iran, would find themselves in the eye of the storm. Islamabad has already played a quiet but important mediatory role during previous Iran-Israel tensions, when Washington eventually stepped back and allowed matters to cool. The hypocrisy of the Western world is difficult to ignore. Israel, a nuclear power enabled by Western support, faces no pressure, while Iran is repeatedly warned against even pursuing nuclear capability. The moral inconsistency is further exposed by the stark contrast between Western outrage over Russia’s actions in Ukraine and its silence, or outright complicity, when Israel carries out a devastating genocide in Palestine or launches unprovoked attacks beyond its borders.
The situation is made even more troubling by speculation that any attack on Iran could be justified under the banner of the newly proposed Board of Peace. This would not only be an attack on Iran but also undermine the very member states that have joined this platform in good faith. A forced regime change in Iran would almost certainly result in an externally backed government aligned with Israeli interests. For Pakistan, this would mean the nightmare scenario of yet another hostile neighbour, at a time when it already faces pressure on its eastern and western borders. An Israel-aligned Iran would reshape regional alliances in ways that benefit only Washington, Tel Aviv and New Delhi, while destabilising an already fragile neighbourhood. It is telling that Saudi Arabia and the UAE, despite historical differences with Tehran, have taken a firm stand against any military adventurism. Their message is clear: an Iran destabilised or controlled by outside forces serves no one in the region. The lesson for Washington should be equally clear. Another reckless intervention would not bring peace. It would just ignite a wider fire that the world can ill afford.
