Pakistan calls for Iran-Israel ceasefire as deputy PM heads to OIC talks
ISLAMABAD: Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Wednesday urged global powers to broker a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, as Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar prepares to attend a meeting of foreign ministers of member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
The meeting in Turkiye from June 21-22 is expected to focus on coordinated diplomatic steps to de-escalate the Iran-Israel standoff and address the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Thousands of people were fleeing Tehran on Wednesday after Israeli warplanes bombed the city overnight and the air fight between the two Middle Eastern powers entered the sixth day amid media reports US President Donald Trump was considering options that include joining Israel in attacking Iranian nuclear sites.
'I feel that ... global countries should try hard for a ceasefire,' Sharif told a federal cabinet meeting, calling the escalation 'regrettable' and condemning what he described as Israel's aggression against Pakistan's neighboring 'brotherly' country of Iran.
Iran launched retaliatory strikes last week after Israeli forces attacked sites linked to Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure on June 13. Iranian officials say at least 224 people, mostly civilians, have been killed, while Israel has reported over 20 deaths.
The latest escalation follows months of hostilities between Israel and Iranian-backed groups in Lebanon, Syria and Yemen, which intensified after the war in Gaza was launched late in 2023. Regional powers fear a direct confrontation could spiral into a broader conflict involving major oil shipping lanes and global energy supplies.
For Pakistan, a close Iranian neighbor and a longtime opponent of Israel, a prolonged conflict risks disrupting border security, inflaming sectarian tensions at home, and possibly putting it in a tight spot with other Arab allies and the West.
Pakistan does not recognize Israel and has historically aligned itself with the Palestinian cause of an independent state.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
UAE president, Russia's Putin discuss Iran-Israel conflict
LONDON: Russian President Vladimir Putin held a phone call with UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al-Nahyan to discuss the latest developments in the Iran-Israel conflict, which entered its sixth day as of Wednesday. The leaders addressed the grave implications of the conflict — which began on Friday — on regional and global security, according to the Emirates News Agency. They discussed efforts to contain the war and halt the spiraling escalation, and highlighted the importance of exercising restraint and pursuing dialogue to avoid further threats to security. Putin and Sheikh Mohamed voiced their support for all efforts aimed at achieving a solution through diplomatic means, WAM reported.
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
A Brand Bargain or a Major Conflict
For at least a year now, Iran and Israel have been fighting a direct conflict, after having waged a shadow war for decades. This is more than a regional power struggle; what we are witnessing is an existential war between two regimes as traditional pillars of deterrence erode, creating trajectories that are difficult to foresee. 1. Controlled Escalation The confrontation has yet to escalate into a full-scale war. Israel continues to target nuclear and military facilities, as well as supply chains. For its part, Tehran has retaliated with strikes intended to hurt Israeli society to the greatest extent possible, as it assumes that the Israelis cannot endure protracted conflict. Iran is betting that Israel cannot withstand attrition, while Israel is betting that Iran's limited missile stockpile (estimates put the number between 2,000 and 5,000 missiles) means that it will face a problem of diminishing returns as time goes on. 2. Total War Total war would be the most damaging scenario: strikes on oil facilities, infrastructure, and cities- a conflict between two rivals, separated by thousands of miles, that both have a vast arsenal. This level of escalation would almost certainly draw US intervention, igniting a regional war with catastrophic consequences for oil markets and the global economy. While there are no concrete indications that either side is seeking such a war, "fatal miscalculation" remains a serious and ever-present risk. 3. Diplomatic De-escalation This scenario remains on the table, but it requires political will and prudent use of leverage. However, recent developments have made this outcome less likely. Indeed, the prerequisites for de-escalation have been undermined, and no potential settlement can be limited to Iran's nuclear program any longer; its missile program and regional proxy network would now also have to be addressed. Pursuing this path would require a triangular consensus, at a minimum, between Washington, Tehran, and Tel Aviv, with a regional mediator facilitating the process. The goal, here, would be to lower tensions and lay the groundwork for a comprehensive political settlement. Nonetheless, this outcome remains far-fetched. The total lack of trust among the parties and stakeholders, the collapse of previous nuclear negotiations, and each side's determination to exploit what it perceives as its rival's domestic vulnerabilities have left them all locked into a high-stakes game of brinkmanship. The most likely outcome is continued clashes, interrupted by temporary pauses, that do not lead to a full-scale war. Israel understands that taking its offensive on Iran's oil facilities too far would provoke unprecedented retaliation and the ire of its allies- particularly the United States- because of the global economic repercussions of such action. Israeli military officials acknowledge the limits of their country's munitions, and they have admitted that they cannot destroy Iran's nuclear program on their own. As for inciting regime change instead of destroying Iran's nuclear program, that remains a step Israel cannot take unilaterally, at least for now. It is worth noting that US President Donald Trump refused to greenlight the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei- a decision that underscores Trump's preference to turn escalation into leverage that pulls Iran back to the negotiating table. Israel, meanwhile, has a broad array of tools with which it can gradually dismantle Iran's nuclear program: from targeted assassinations to cyberattacks and precision airstrikes. This sort of warfare is believed to be effective in achieving its strategic objectives while also allowing Israel to avoid a conventional war. Iran, for its part, cannot afford total war under the current circumstances: its economy is in decline, it has lost much of its senior military and security leadership, its missile stockpile has been depleted, and its proxy network has been degraded. Iran is likely to focus on maximizing the social, political, and economic toll of this war on Israel. It may seek to pace its attacks and avoid depleting its missile stockpile, or it could use capabilities that have yet to be revealed. Given the complexity of the situation, thinking outside of the box is crucial. The conflict between Iran and Israel is not a conventional war between two states. This conflict is a struggle rooted in revolutionary ideology. Deterrence is achieved through fear, and the two sides have fought several proxy wars. Accordingly, shifting the framework of the conflict should be the priority. The sides' existential enmity should be turned into a political rivalry, and the dynamics between them should be shaped by interests rather than ideology. The region needs a grand bargain that redefines Iran's position in the international order. Such a deal would entail Iran ending its role in the Palestine conflict, as well as abandoning its pursuit of exporting the revolution, in exchange for regional and international integration. Iran would be offered gradual sanctions relief and recognition of its regional power status in return for ending its military support to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and the Iraqi militias, as well as freezing its sensitive nuclear enrichment. Regional powers would guarantee the implementation of this agreement. The time has come for Iran to remove the notion of "resistance" from its political imaginary, endorsing the logic of statehood within a global system instead. Iran is unlikely to mirror post–World War II Japan any time soon. But it could become a regional China if it stops anchoring its domestic and foreign policy in ideological hostility, embracing strategic realism in its place. This would mean integrating Iran into the regional architecture and encouraging the technocratic wing of the regime to pursue a strategy that prioritizes survival through adaptation rather than escalation. This is an opportune moment to build a coalition that blends power and pragmatism. This coalition could include regional powers, India, the Trump administration, and pragmatic and patriotic factions within Iran's political system. The latter are becoming increasingly aware that the revolution is no longer a vehicle for survival, and that it has become an existential threat to the state.
Asharq Al-Awsat
an hour ago
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Iran and Israel: A War Unlike Any Other
The war that erupted at dawn last Friday, triggered by a series of painful Israeli strikes on Iran, is unlike any of the region's modern conflicts. It is not a repeat of the Gaza wars, nor of the Lebanon front. It bears little resemblance to the US invasion of Iraq or the grinding Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Strategically and militarily, this is a different kind of war — one that is already reshaping Iran's position and will likely reverberate across the Middle East, with consequences that vary in scale and duration. Mistakes and damage are inevitable, but the implications run deeper than the immediate toll. At the heart of the offensive lie two objectives. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking a decisive blow to Iran's military and economic infrastructure. Washington, meanwhile, is hoping that pressure will force Tehran back to the negotiating table. Netanyahu may succeed militarily, but the move risks provoking Iran into greater intransigence — a 'me or my enemies' posture. While Tehran could eventually return to talks, such a move would likely resemble capitulation more than a genuine agreement. And with that, Iran's strategic options continue to shrink. This raises urgent questions for both Israel and the United States: What is the endgame? Is there a plan? How long is this war expected to last? These are not rhetorical queries. A war without clear objectives risks becoming an exercise in futility. For Iran, the challenge is existential. Unlike Israel, it does not share a border with its foe, nor does it match Israel's military capabilities. The scale of the initial Israeli attack — reportedly killing 20 Iranian military, diplomatic and scientific figures within minutes — was a severe blow to the country's decision-making core. Iran's airspace has also become increasingly vulnerable. Israeli aircraft now appear to reach targets deep inside Iranian territory via former and current zones of influence, turning decades of regional positioning into a liability. Should the conflict escalate further, Iran may strike at US interests in the Gulf — a move that would likely draw Washington into direct confrontation. That would force Gulf Arab states to navigate a treacherous geopolitical crossroads: Do they stay on the sidelines, or take a side? Historically, major wars in the region have led to renewed interest in peace efforts. Will that pattern repeat? Countries long affected by Iranian influence — including Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen, and Syria — are watching closely, bracing for what comes next. Inside Iran, the impact is already profound. This war is systematically targeting Iranian leadership — military and political — effectively draining its strategic brain trust. The scale and precision of Israeli strikes, underpinned by deep intelligence penetration, has left the Iranian regime exposed in ways rarely seen before. Ultimately, this is no conventional conflict. It raises more questions than it answers, and demands a cool-headed reassessment of regional dynamics. The Middle East that emerges from this war may look drastically different from the one that preceded it. And while the outbreak may have shocked many, it was far from unforeseen. Analysts have warned of this trajectory for more than two decades. Now, that long-anticipated confrontation is no longer a hypothetical — it's here.
