Geopolitical Shockwaves Across the Middle East and South Asia: Post Israeli Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

After a decades long conflict in the region, Israel launched an unprovoked attack on the nuclear facilities of Iran, an act that has already threatened to usher the Middle East into a full-scale war and rippled throughout South Asia. Even though, the military showdown between the two states had heightened before in the form of indirect confrontations. However, this most recent one was especially worrying when considering the combative stance that Israel had adopted over the matter without offering substantive proofs about Iran. Nevertheless, now the weakest ceasefire regime has been established between the two countries with the assistance of the USA and Qatar, temporarily halting the fight and providing the possibility of diplomatic interaction.

Even though active hostilities seem to have been withdrawn, the attack has produced significant resonance throughout the region, awakening old resentments in the Persian Gulf, and ruining a slew of international law issues. The Strait of Hormuz is an unreliable place and such nations as Pakistan, armed with nukes and strategically located right to the east of Iran struggling to improve their diplomatic situation in the fast-changing security paradigm.

Historical Context: A Conflict Decades in the Making

The hostility between Israel and Iran has been brewing since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, which saw Tehran cease recognition of Israel and support proxy groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Israel, in turn, has consistently viewed Iran’s nuclear ambitions as existential threats. The 1981 Israeli strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor and the 2007 raid-cum-attack on Syria’s reactor reflect a longstanding Israeli strategy of preempting regional nuclear threats.

This doctrine is in line with the recent attack. At the point where the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) failed, uranium enrichment processes in Iran were elevated up to a maximum of 60 percent, and it was then that Israel felt imminent weaponization in Iran. Although such ceasefire will stop the imminent escalation, it does not resolve the distrust which has become deep rooted.

The Geopolitical Motive: Why Now?

The decision of Israel focused on timing. The intelligence that Iran was close to the stage of producing nuclear weapons and the Tehran’s influence in the region was on Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen may have motivated Israel to have a believe that a preemptive strike has a small window of opportunity. On the domestic side, Israeli political turmoil and the fact it was increasing connections with other countries in the Middle East with the Abrahm Accords probably gave the government the confidence to move forward. In the view of Israel, the elimination of a future existential threat was a priority above diplomatic consequences, but the ceasefire is perhaps an indicator that the price of prolonged confrontation is beginning to sink in.

Pakistan’s Strategic Crossroads

This cease fire has given to Pakistan a rare opportunity and mandate to pursue the regional diplomacy. Despite not being a direct party to the conflict, its proximity to Iran, ties with the Gulf states, and strategic partnership with the U.S. place it at a critical intersection.

The initial strike raised concerns about potential Iranian retaliatory activity near Balochistan region, Pakistan which is already vulnerable to insurgency. The current lull in hostilities presents Islamabad with a diplomatic opening to mediate or at least support multilateral de-escalation frameworks.

To maintain neutrality and avoid entanglement in sectarian divides, Pakistan should engage regional and global partners, particularly Turkey, China, Qatar, and the OIC while reinforcing its own strategic autonomy.

Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf: Global Energy Still at Risk

While the ceasefire has cooled tensions for now, the Strait of Hormuz remains a flashpoint. Iran had previously hinted at disrupting this vital maritime corridor, through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil flows. Although such actions have not materialized, the potential remains.

The U.S. Fifth Fleet and allied navies remain on alert, emphasizing the fragility of peace and the ease with which hostilities could resume.

International Law Perspective: Was the Strike Legal?

Legally, Israel’s strike remains deeply controversial. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the sovereignty of other states. With no armed attack initiated by Iran, the legitimacy of Israel’s action under international law is highly questionable.

While Israel may invoke Article 51 (self-defense), however, this justification remains weak. The anticipatory self-defense argument fails to meet the standards of necessity, imminence, and proportionality criteria set by the Caroline test. Iran’s NPT membership and IAEA oversight further erode the credibility of Israeli claims, especially given that Israel itself is not a party to the NPT.

If civilian infrastructure was damaged or non-combatants were killed, the attack could also breach international humanitarian law and constitute a war crime under the Rome Statute. While Iran may pursue international legal avenues, meaningful action is unlikely given entrenched UN Security Council dynamics.

Implications for Global Security and Diplomacy

The temporary ceasefire offers a critical, if narrow, window for restoring some balance to the global security framework:

• The UN and multilateral diplomacy have been tested by unilateral military action.
• The authority of the IAEA and the NPT remains challenged by perceived double standards.
• The normalization of preemptive doctrines risks spillovers, whether in South Asia, the Korean Peninsula, or the Taiwan Strait.

This event has thus highlighted systemic vulnerabilities in the current international security order.

What Can Be Done: Seizing the Ceasefire Moment

The current pause must be used to reinforce long-term peace:

1. The UN General Assembly should issue a formal statement reinforcing the prohibition of unilateral military actions.
2. Turkey, Oman, Pakistan, and Qatar can offer neutral platforms for negotiations. In particular, Qatar’s proven track record of mediating in complex regional conflicts including Taliban-U.S. talks and its facilitation of Gaza-related negotiations positions it as a credible and experienced diplomatic actor.
3. Qatari diplomacy is geared towards ensuring that it has a balanced relationship with the Western and regional powers, hence, it can find the middle ground where there is a possibility of finding a working solution to this issue in the sense that it has hosted backchannel talks in relation to this issue that may make the difference when seeking long term results.
4. U.S. and EU diplomacy must return to the table, potentially revisiting or reformulating the JCPOA.
5. A Gulf-wide security mechanism, inspired by the Helsinki Process, could help institutionalize de-escalation norms.

The attack of nuclear plants by the Israeli State on the Iranian soil has brought the region of Middle East to the breaking point, but the temporary ceasefire has stopped the open war so far. Although it might be argued Israel did what it thought it had to do, the strike has raised some serious questions concerning validity, legality and precedence. This is not the time to be quiet, but it is time to take strategic actions by regional players such as Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Qatar. With their diplomatic missions being re-established, these nations can make sure that things do not scale further and can ensure that they reestablish their positions of balancing and mediating forces in a region that is deeply divided. The viability of the future depends on how this ceasefire will lead to lasting peace or just a short break in the chase to nowhere.

References

Hussain, A. (2025). Sino-US rivalry in indo pacific: Implications for Pakistan. ASSAJ, 3(01), 355-372.

Bernstein, A. (2025). Israel’s divine mission against Iran: How meticulously Israel plans to break Iran’s Ayatollah’s neck. Eigenverlag.

Vázquez, G., Sánchez, A., & Ródenas, F. J. (2023). Between good neighborhood and the bomb. Center for Global Affairs & Strategic Studies.

Hamdi, W. (2023). The Abraham Accords: Reasons, Contexts, and Implications (Master’s thesis), Webster University.