Pakistan’s Approach to the Israeli Military Operation Against Iran

The Pakistani rhetoric in support of Iran and its escalatory tone against Israeli military attacks on Iranian capabilities came as a surprise to observers and analysts. It signaled Islamabad’s potential to offer an unconditional support to Iran that goes beyond diplomatic and moral backing to include military support.

This shift comes within the context of a fluctuating relationship between Pakistan and Iran. Their relationship that has not reached the level of strategic or joint defense partnership, and it has often been marked by tension and escalation. This indicates that Pakistan’s approach to the current escalation goes beyond the bilateral scope with Iran and is instead tied to the overlapping dynamics of the Middle East and the Far East, particularly due to the repercussions of the war in Gaza. As such, any approach Pakistan adopts in this context carries a high degree of security sensitivity and political complexity.

Pakistan’s Position on Israeli Attacks

Pakistan has taken a supportive stance toward Iran in its confrontation with the Israeli military operation targeting its capabilities, which has been ongoing since June 13, 2025. This support has come from various political, legislative, and military institutions in the country. On the diplomatic front, the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the “Israeli assaults on Iran” on June 13 and called for an emergency meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. The supportive stance expanded to include the Senate, which unanimously passed a resolution aimed at providing support to Iran. Furthermore, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif expressed his solidarity with Iran and made two phone calls—one with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian and another with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.

Moreover, Pakistan has signaled the possibility of military cooperation with Iran. Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif recently issued a powerful declaration that Pakistan strongly supports Iran in protecting its interests, describing the Israeli operation as an affront to the unity of the Islamic world—especially given that it was preceded by similar actions in Gaza, Lebanon, and against the Houthis in Yemen.

Meanwhile, India’s CNN-NEWS 18 reported evidence suggesting that Pakistan may be working to supply Iran with Shaheen-3 missiles, which have a range of 2,750 kilometers (1`708 miles), in order to bolster Iran’s offensive capabilities. Iran appeared to capitalize on this stance when IRGC General Mohsen Rezaei, a senior member of the Iranian National Security Council, announced that Pakistan had informed Iran it would retaliate with nuclear weapons against Israel if Israel were to use them against Iran, a claim Pakistan later denied.

In fact, Pakistan’s concerns regarding the Israeli military operation are evident in its stance, and it has taken proactive field and operational measures. These include activating air defense systems and deploying fighter jets to protect its nuclear facilities, ballistic missile factories, and military commanders. Additionally, on June 16, Pakistan closed the Taftan crossing in the Chagai region and the Gabd-Rimdan crossing in the Gwadar area of Balochistan—both bordering Iran—particularly restricting trade exchanges and passenger movement (except for citizens stranded in Iran). This reflects serious Pakistani security concerns about the developments in Iran, especially since several areas in the Balochistan province rely heavily on trade and supplies passing through these border crossings.

Foundations of the Pakistani Position

The Pakistani stance supporting Iran reflects the deep complexities currently affecting the Far Middle East region, which is now confronting the repercussions of the war in Gaza. These aftershocks have begun to directly impact regional stability.

Although Iran and Pakistan share a long and porous border stretching approximately 959 kilometers (595 miles), and maintain trade relations valued at $2.8 billion, the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding on February 25 to raise trade volume to $10 billion.

Despite this economic cooperation, their relationship has long been marked by tension and contradictions within the broader framework of regional geopolitical rivalry. Indeed, the border between the two countries experiences frequent tensions, escalating to the exchange of rocket fire and leading both sides to withdraw their diplomatic missions in early 2024.

Theoretically, Pakistan’s strongly supportive diplomatic stance, combined with the threat of military backing, appears relatively surprising, especially considering that the very weapons Pakistan might supply to Iran were nearly used against it during the recent escalation. Moreover, Iran did not adopt a similar supportive position toward Pakistan during the Indian-Pakistani escalation on April 22—it preferred to remain neutral. However, the Pakistani approach reveals a broader matrix in its assessment of the future risks that will result from the outcomes of the Israeli military operation. These include:

Firstly: Stability of the Pakistani-Iranian Relations

The stability and relative balance of the Pakistani-Iranian relations—especially when compared to Pakistan’s historically hostile ties with Israel—are reflected in Israel’s support for India in various stances against Pakistan. This was particularly evident in the recent escalation between the two sides, during which India used Israeli-made drones, including the "Harop" and "Heron Mark 2," in its attacks against Pakistan. This was widely interpreted as a strategic message from Israel, signaling its geopolitical alignment with India against Pakistan, especially as it came amid official Israeli support for India.

Secondly: Large Waves of Iranian Refugees

Pakistan views the potential wide-ranging repercussions of the Israeli operation in Iran as a significant threat to its national security. Israeli alerts to Iranian residents living near military and nuclear facilities could trigger a wave of refugees fleeing to Pakistan. Such an influx might create a prolonged military and security burden for Pakistan if widespread instability occurs along the border. This concern likely prompted Pakistan’s swift decision to close its borders to passenger movement.

Thirdly: Movement of Armed Groups Along the Border

The deepening and expansion of the strikes’ targets may prompt Iranian armed opposition groups to take military action against the regime. Some of these groups are located within the border gaps between the two countries, which could have direct repercussions on Pakistan’s security. Additionally, this situation might encourage local Pakistani opposition groups to establish external contacts in search of a similar scenario or to act independently at a moment that mirrors the actions of their Iranian counterparts, based on the assumption that such moves would receive external support.

Constraints on Pakistan’s Position in Supporting Iran

Despite four days having passed since the start of the Israeli attacks targeting Iranian military leadership and capabilities, there is still no concrete evidence of direct military involvement by Pakistan in support of Iran. So far, this support has been limited to political, diplomatic, and media levels. It is unlikely that this support will escalate significantly in the near term, due to a number of obstacles preventing Pakistan’s hostile rhetoric against Israel from being translated into actual practical action. These obstacles include:

First: Internal Sectarian and Demographic Considerations

One of the most prominent obstacles restricting Pakistan’s direct involvement in supporting Iran is its keen desire to maintain internal religious and demographic balance amid a complex population structure and underlying sectarian tensions. This delicate balance is intertwined with tense security conditions along its borders with Iran, India, and Afghanistan.

Any open support for Tehran could provoke negative reactions from armed Sunni groups within Pakistan, potentially exacerbating the cycle of sectarian violence and reigniting religious tensions that the state has repeatedly strived to contain.

Underscoring the fragility of the sectarian situation in certain areas, between July and November 2024 the Kurram region along the Afghanistan border witnessed clashes between Sunnis and Shiites that resulted in 82 deaths.

Second: The Burden of Internal Armed Groups
Internal armed groups represent one of the most significant factors shaping Pakistan’s foreign policy limits regarding regional conflicts, particularly its support for Iran. Islamabad faces ongoing threats from extremist organizations active within the country, most notably the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, ISIS-Khorasan, as well as armed separatist groups such as the ethnonationalist Balochistan Liberation Army. These threats impose a continuous security and military burden on the state, compelling it to adopt a cautious and balanced approach in dealing with regional issues that carry sectarian or complex security dimensions.

Amid growing concerns over the escalation of terrorist activities within the country alongside the current regional circumstances, Pakistan’s military establishment appears compelled to reprioritize its focus inwardly, viewing it as an urgent national necessity. This stance reflects Islamabad’s determination to avoid direct involvement in any external conflict, especially since the armed groups operating inside Pakistan, many with cross-border support, target the armed forces. This ongoing threat keeps the military in a state of continuous depletion both in terms of personnel and intelligence resources.

Third: Positioning within the Eastern Axis

Pakistan and Iran both occupy positions within an Eastern axis led by China and Russia, giving their stances a geostrategic dimension that goes beyond bilateral considerations. While Pakistan’s rhetoric has been notably harsher and more escalatory compared to the positions of Beijing and Moscow—which both call for restraint and de-escalation without showing any explicit bias or support for either party—this contrast highlights the preference of China and Russia to maintain a neutral approach.

On the Russian side, the ongoing war in Ukraine poses a significant obstacle to any possibility of providing tangible support to Iran, especially since Moscow appears to be affected—albeit indirectly—by the Israeli strikes targeting Iran’s military capabilities. Russia relies heavily on Iranian weapon systems in its confrontations with the West on the Ukrainian front, including drones and ballistic missiles, which are among the primary targets of Israeli attacks. Moreover, Moscow is not known for pursuing a Middle Eastern foreign policy based on rigid alliances or sharp alignments.

China, despite its broad strategic partnership with Tehran, remains keen on maintaining a delicate balance between its relations with Iran and its deepening and expanding interests with Israel, particularly in economic and technological fields. This careful balancing act helps explain the cautious stance both countries have toward one another and calls for de-escalation without showing a clear bias toward either side.

In conclusion, Pakistan’s stance toward the escalation of the Israeli military operation against Iran remains governed by a complex set of internal and external calculations that lead it to adopt a cautious approach that avoids direct involvement. Despite the political and media rhetoric sympathetic to Tehran, Islamabad is well aware that entanglement in this conflict could threaten its fragile internal security, expose it to complicated regional and international pressures, and potentially draw it directly into Middle Eastern conflicts, especially the ongoing war in Gaza.

Consequently, Pakistan is likely to continue limiting itself to symbolic positions and diplomatic and moral support, carefully avoiding crossing those boundaries to prevent security and political repercussions that could disrupt its strategic positioning.

Nevertheless, the deeper impact of the Israeli operation may not be reflected as much in Pakistan’s overt statements as it is in a quiet reassessment of its nuclear doctrine, including an expansion of its deterrence concept. This comes particularly after recognizing Israel’s operational capabilities in the wake of the Indian strikes and the recent blow directed at Tehran, effectively reshaping Pakistan’s national security priorities in light of fundamental shifts in the regional balance of power.