On June 22, 2025, the United States military launched a high-intensity operation dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer”, targeting three of Iran’s most critical nuclear facilities—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. Using precision bunker-buster bombs and long-range cruise missiles, the strikes were aimed at crippling Iran’s uranium enrichment infrastructure.

• thursdaytimes.com
• financialexpress.com
• 11apnews.com
• 11theaustralian.com.au

The U.S. justified this offensive as a pre-emptive action to prevent Iran from reaching weapons-grade enrichment capabilities. However, the scale and intensity of these attacks marked a significant turning point, transforming the already-tense Israel-Iran conflict into a potential multilateral war zone. The destruction of nuclear facilities, particularly those deemed essential for civilian nuclear energy as well as strategic deterrence, violates international norms and has led to immediate and widespread global condemnation.

• The United Nations, European Union, and key global powers like Russia, China, and India have urged restraint and diplomacy, warning that further aggression could ignite a region-wide war.
• The UK and France issued statements criticizing the bypassing of international consensus and the absence of UN Security Council engagement prior to such an act.
• Pakistan, in particular, expressed serious concern through both its Foreign Office and Chief of Army Staff. Islamabad labeled the strikes as a “clear violation of international law” and warned that such unilateral actions would only fuel regional instability and extremism across South Asia and the Middle East.

These reactions reflect a broader fear of unchecked militarism and the erosion of international conflict-resolution frameworks.

In retaliation, Iran launched multiple missile barrages toward Israeli military bases and economic hubs, including areas around Tel Aviv, the Golan Heights, and Haifa. Several rockets were also fired toward U.S. naval positions in the Gulf, although their impact remains under verification.

In response, Israel, backed by U.S. intelligence and logistics, has continued a wave of aggressive aerial and cyber offensives, targeting:

• Iranian military bases in Syria and Iraq
• IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) supply chains
• Alleged nuclear research outposts across southern Iran

This cycle of escalation has turned what was once a cold proxy conflict into a direct, high-risk military engagement, with both sides refusing to step back, and neither showing signs of de-escalation.

With nuclear sites now directly attacked and military alliances visibly taking shape, fears are mounting of a wider, possibly global, military conflict—what many are now labeling as the first genuine steps toward World War III.

Key developments raising alarms:

• Iran’s threats to block the Strait of Hormuz (Abnaey-e-Hormoz), through which nearly 30% of the world’s oil supply transits.
• Rising oil prices—already spiking to $130+/barrel, risking recessionary pressure in vulnerable economies.
• NATO emergency meetings hinting at a possible engagement scenario, especially if Iran targets a NATO member’s territory or assets.
• Global stock markets have seen sharp sell-offs, particularly in energy, shipping, and tech sectors.

The economic impact could be profound, from inflationary shocks to supply chain disruption, particularly in energy, shipping routes, and food supplies dependent on Middle Eastern trade corridors.

Pakistan finds itself in a precarious strategic position, facing immense pressure from all directions:

Security Concerns:

Pakistan shares a volatile border with Iran. With the conflict now spilling into Balochistan, sectarian tensions, and proxy operations, fears of militant spillovers have re-emerged. Intelligence sources have warned of Iranian-backed groups possibly activating sleeper cells in retaliation against U.S. allies.

Diplomatic Tightrope:

Reports confirm:

• U.S. Secretary of State called Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, urging Pakistan to support de-escalation efforts while hinting at logistical cooperation in case of expanded operations.
• Simultaneously, General Asim Munir, Pakistan’s Army Chief, was hosted by former U.S. President Donald Trump at a private lunch, a rare diplomatic gesture that has sparked speculation about America’s evolving expectations from Pakistan in the region.

This dual engagement places Pakistan in a strategic squeeze—expected to mediate peace while managing internal dissent and maintaining sovereignty.

Economic Ramifications:

• Oil imports: Pakistan heavily relies on Middle Eastern oil. Rising prices have already triggered panic in domestic fuel markets, affecting inflation forecasts.
• Closure of the Strait of Hormuz could sever critical trade routes, leading to supply chain bottlenecks for Pakistani exports and imports—especially textiles, machinery, and food products.

Strategic Limbo:

Caught between competing interests:

• Aligning with the U.S. may compromise relations with Iran and China.
• Staying neutral might anger Western allies and impact crucial aid and military cooperation.

Pakistan’s response must be balanced, cautious, and calculated, as any misstep could entangle the nation in a larger war with economic, political, and social fallout.

Conclusion: The Global Order at a Crossroads

This week’s events mark a historical inflection point—a region known for strategic ambiguity is now moving dangerously close to open warfare. The U.S.–Iran–Israel triangle threatens to pull in regional players, provoke widespread instability, and realign the global power dynamic.

For Pakistan and the wider South Asian region, the challenge is not just diplomatic but existential—navigating war without losing peace.