Editor's Note: Recently, Israel's undeclared war against Iran has attracted worldwide attention. The Israeli Air Force's unhesitating attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities have also raised concerns about the stability of the global nuclear non-proliferation system. More and more people are wondering whether the traditional nuclear threshold strategy is applicable in today's era.

Regarding the impact of this Israeli-Iranian conflict on the surrounding region and the shock it has caused to the entire nuclear non-proliferation system, Dr. Shahid Hashmat, former Pakistani ambassador to Sri Lanka and former advisor to the National Defense University of Islamabad, interpreted relevant issues in an online dialogue with the Observer Network.

【Translated and compiled by Guancha Network, Tang Xiaofu】

Observer Network: Hello, could you please tell us how the Muslim world views the current conflict between Iran and Israel?

Shahid Hashmat: The Muslim world strongly condemned Israel's attack, emphasizing that this strike will bring extremely serious consequences and may lead to a disaster spreading throughout the region and even further afield. Among them, Turkey and Pakistan's reactions are the most important. Turkish President Erdogan stated: "Netanyahu and his network of killings are plunging the entire region and the world into a sea of fire, and these actions must be stopped."

I believe that understanding this crisis hinges on understanding Israel and America's goals, their prospects for realization, and their regional and broader impacts. Although Israel claims that the goal of 'Operation Rising Lion' is to weaken and destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, depriving it of the ability to produce weapons-grade enriched uranium used to make nuclear bombs, clearly its objectives go far beyond this.

Since the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979, the US, Israel, and their allies have pursued this strategy: implementing economic sanctions on Iran, advancing overt and covert military and intelligence operations against Iran, isolating Iran diplomatically, and inciting Iraq to invade Iran. After a series of failures, they crafted the Iranian nuclear crisis in a manner eerily similar to the fabrication of the "Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction" used to justify the invasion of Iraq by the US and its Western allies.

Jeffrey Sachs mentioned in a recent video program with Tucker Carlson a report published when Netanyahu first served as prime minister: "Total Breakdown: A New Strategy to Defend the Nation."

Some might compare Israel's layout against Iran with its layouts against Libya and Syria, but in fact, the situations faced by these countries are not entirely the same. Professor Jeffrey Sachs once mentioned the 1996 report, "Total Breakdown: A New Strategy to Defend the Nation," jointly formulated by the CIA and Mossad to destroy plans targeting seven Islamic countries, including Iran. These seven countries include Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran, with the ultimate goal of establishing a "Greater Israel" extending from the Euphrates River/Persian Gulf in the east to the Nile River in the west, and from the Arabian Peninsula in the south to the Mediterranean Sea in the north.

Looking back, six out of these seven countries have been almost completely destroyed, leaving only Iran as the sole remaining country. And Israel is actively colluding with the United States, Britain, France, and Germany, providing continuous diplomatic and economic support, uninterrupted arms supplies, and the latest weapons and technological assistance; on the other hand, it is taking steps to wage wars in the region, carry out genocides and cleansings of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, and directly bomb Iran, aiming to achieve its ultimate strategic goal.

Observer Network: Considering the good relations between Prime Minister Sharif and the United States, as well as the long-term cooperation between the leaderships of the US and Pakistan, how do Pakistani leaders view Israel's sudden attack on Iran?

Shahid Hashmat: In international politics and global affairs, personal relationships between leaders are indeed important, but more importantly, "national interests" always take precedence in formulating national policies and decisions. The US-Pakistan relationship has a long history, full of ups and downs. For a long time, the US has supported most of Pakistan's regimes diplomatically, especially during crises in the region. Not only does Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif maintain good working relations with the US, but the US also continues to maintain military-to-military relations with the Pakistani army.

The Pakistani leadership has been striving to safeguard national interests under difficult geopolitical conditions and constraints. In response to this attack, Pakistan expressed strong and clear condemnation. Apart from condemning Israel's immoral, baseless, and meaningless aggression, Pakistan also stated its solidarity with Iran. The Pakistani Prime Minister urged the international community and the United Nations to take "urgent and credible measures" to stop Israel's war against Iran. Pakistan's concerns are very real, given its long land border and coastline shared with Iran's Sistan-Baluchistan province and Pakistan's Baluchistan province.

The Baloch issue has long troubled Iran and Pakistan

The Pakistani Defense Minister called on Islamic nations to adopt a unified strategy to counter Israel, warning that failure to act collectively would leave them vulnerable. He also expressed full diplomatic support for Iran. Pakistan demanded an immediate meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), with all Islamic nations required to jointly formulate a collective response strategy to Israel. The Pakistani envoy to the UN Security Council also issued a warning that if the conflict escalates in the region or beyond, it will have catastrophic consequences.

Observer Network: How has the attack on Iran's nuclear facilities affected public opinion within Pakistan?

Shahid Hashmat: Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities has had significant impacts across Asia and globally. Pakistan shares a long history, culture, and religious ties with Iran, naturally fostering a sense of closeness. Public opinion in Pakistan is highly sensitive to Israel's attack, expressing strong disdain and frustration at Israel's unannounced war. Moreover, due to its geographical proximity to Iran, Pakistan is particularly concerned about the potential nuclear leakage problems caused by Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Although previously Israel seemed to have only damaged the above-ground structures of several nuclear facilities, including the Natanz nuclear facility, without clearly causing a nuclear leak problem, there is no doubt that Israel is planning more severe damage to Iran's nuclear facilities to completely destroy them. If nuclear facilities are severely damaged, radiation leaks will affect wider regions. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also warned that Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities (which have been under IAEA supervision and regular inspections) will have extremely disastrous consequences.

Observer Network: Will these events trigger discussions on nuclear strategy within Pakistan? What are their viewpoints?

Shahid Hashmat: We generally do not discuss nuclear strategy issues in public forums, but experts and professionals within Pakistan will express their opinions, which will be reported by domestic media. Generally speaking, most experts in Pakistan believe that every country has the right to obtain nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes.

In addition, we believe that if a country's security is threatened and its adversary possesses nuclear capabilities, the threatened country should have the right to obtain similar capabilities to exercise its legitimate right to self-defense. Experts, scientists, and strategists in various countries have differing views on nuclear non-proliferation issues, nuclear thresholds, and preemptive nuclear strike policies. However, most experts in Pakistan's nuclear security field believe that the IAEA's policies are discriminatory, and this is strongly reflected in Muslim countries and non-American allied nations.

Observer Network: Do you think this attack will have a decisive impact on the policies of various countries, such as leading some countries to abandon the nuclear threshold strategy? Will this cause the collapse of the nuclear non-proliferation system?

Shahid Hashmat: Undoubtedly, this attack will have a profound impact on countries that already possess nuclear weapons but are not widely recognized by the international community, as well as those attempting to peacefully utilize nuclear energy or acquire dual-use nuclear capabilities. In fact, countries have long realized that there is no universal "nuclear threshold strategy" in the world; each country has its own nuclear threshold adapted to its external environment and capabilities.

Traditionally, nuclear threshold policies have rarely been openly discussed and displayed, maintaining their strategic ambiguity. Although all hope to establish reliable deterrence systems, "nuclear threshold" strategies and "preemptive" nuclear strategies are clearly different, and the ambiguity of the "nuclear threshold" has both advantages and disadvantages.

I believe that the overall concept of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) system has become redundant. The three pillars of the NPT are: non-proliferation, disarmament, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Historically, the NPT has contributed to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, promoting cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and further achieving nuclear disarmament.

However, for obvious reasons, Pakistan did not join the NPT. The other two nuclear-armed countries that have not signed the NPT are India and Israel. North Korea joined the NPT in 1985 and announced its withdrawal from the treaty in 2003.

However, in this round of attacks, we see that Iran, as a signatory to the NPT, despite having all its nuclear facilities under IAEA supervision and being willing to accept regular inspections by the IAEA, is still being coerced, harassed, and extorted by Israel, the United States, and its European allies, particularly the UK, France, and Germany, and has even become the target of this strike.

IAEA

In fact, Iran has been under continuous economic and military sanctions. Iran's legitimate rights to develop nuclear facilities and enrich nuclear fuel for peaceful civilian use have been deprived. Previously, many Iranian nuclear scientists were assassinated in open and covert operations. The United States and its allies have consistently supported Israel's actions to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities and have viewed Iran's nuclear program as a threat to Israel.

After this recent round of attacks, I do not believe that Iran has any reason to continue participating in the NPT. Given that Iran is embroiled in an escalating military conflict with Israel, the Iranian government stated on June 17, 2025, that its parliament is drafting legislation to withdraw from the NPT. Additionally, Iran believes that the UN nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, incorrectly claimed in its reports that Iran was not complying with its nuclear safeguards obligations, thereby paving the way for Israel's offensive.

We see that Israel, with full backing from the United States, has clearly, deliberately, and aggressively violated multiple international laws, norms, and treaties with impunity, while other signatories to the treaty have not made any effective responses. This has made the future of many international agreements, including the NPT, highly uncertain.

No matter what, due to the discriminatory, biased, and unfair nature of the NPT, not only will Iran seriously consider withdrawing from the NPT, but many countries may also consider withdrawing from the NPT. And I am very skeptical that after this round of strikes, Iran will quickly enrich uranium to weapon-grade levels because they will view this as the only means of self-defense.

Observer Network: What do you think the future of the war between Iran and Israel will look like? Will the US get involved?

Shahid Hashmat: Due to several constraints, the likelihood of Iran significantly escalating is small. Due to the gap in aviation technology, Iran heavily relies on ballistic missile strikes against Israeli targets. Additionally, Iran is aware that if the scale of the conflict expands significantly, it will face the risk of direct US military intervention. Therefore, thus far, Iran has avoided taking action against US assets or regional troops.

It can be expected that unless it suffers major losses, Iran will continue to adopt a "sustained but limited" strike strategy. Compared to Israel, Iran has strategic depth and a large population. Even if suffering significant blows, Iran still possesses considerable missile capabilities and asymmetric combat methods, demonstrating certain resilience.

However, prolonged conflicts will deplete Iran's military strength, logistical capabilities, and damage Israel's economic infrastructure and domestic political stability. Additionally, additional sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and the lack of reliable allies will further weaken Iran's ability to sustain prolonged conflicts. Therefore, I believe that Iran's primary task in the near future is to control its losses and reposition its international strategy rather than continuing to escalate.

Currently, although there is a possibility of spillover risks in the region, it is not high. The most critical variable is whether the US forces stationed in the Gulf region will intervene. Although the US military has not yet decided to participate in the war, any attack on US assets or allies may change this position and lead to an expansion of the conflict scope.

Netanyahu deeply understands that Israel alone cannot inflict irreparable damage on Iran, so he is making great efforts to rally the US to join the war. Considering that the US and Israel share common interests in regime change, one cannot rule out the possibility that Israel, through proxies, launches a "false flag operation" to attack US forces. Once this happens, the US will be dragged into the conflict, causing it to spread and engulf the entire region.

In the short term, the most critical issue is how to de-escalate and resolve the Israeli-Iranian conflict. To date, neither Iran nor Israel has found a credible mediator. Theoretically, the United Nations, which bears responsibility for maintaining global peace and security, lacks authority and credibility and cannot play an effective mediating role in this matter.

Pakistan, although willing to mediate, needs to seek effective support from Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Strong support from Russia and China is also essential, as any mediation effort requires certain guarantees in such complex situations.

However, Israel currently has no intention of accepting any mediation. The US, despite its significant influence in the region, maintains a consistent stance with Israel due to its national interests in the region and domestic political considerations. The Jewish lobby is too powerful to allow any US administration to remain neutral on this issue. In the absence of a neutral, credible, and capable third party, any strong triggering factor may significantly escalate the conflict.

In this situation, China and Russia can become balancing forces, pushing the Security Council to mediate more effectively, contain the conflict, and ultimately reach a mutually acceptable settlement. But undoubtedly, this path faces the challenge of being vetoed by the US.

This article is an exclusive contribution of the Observer Network. The content purely reflects the author's personal views, which do not necessarily represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, otherwise legal liabilities will be pursued. Follow the Observer Network WeChat account guanchacn for daily interesting articles.

Original link: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7518653438717084211/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and welcome your feedback via the 'Like/Dislike' buttons below.