ISLAMABAD: The prospect of a United States–Israel backed effort to reshapeIran’s political order is increasingly viewed by regional analysts as adestabilising gamble rather than a defensive necessity. Despite persistentrhetoric, there is no immediate, verifiable evidence that Iran currentlyposes an existential military threat to Israel. Tehran’s posture hasshifted from overt regional assertiveness to calibrated deterrence,prioritising internal stability and diplomatic balancing over directconfrontation, altering long-standing threat perceptions.
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt have simultaneously emerged as assertiveregional brokers, intervening diplomatically and economically across theMiddle East and Red Sea corridors. Their engagement has narrowed Israel’smanoeuvring space and constrained its narrative of regionalindispensability. For Ankara, Riyadh and Cairo, a direct military strike onIran threatens economic routes, energy security and domestic stability.Their opposition reflects not sympathy for Tehran, but concern over aprecedent that could redraw borders through force.
Within this context, the argument that Israel seeks regime change in Iranrather than threat neutralisation has gained traction. Analysts note that acompliant, pro-Israeli government in Tehran would fundamentally realign theregional balance of power. Iran would transform from a strategiccounterweight into a forward operating space, enabling new intelligence,military and economic corridors that could be leveraged againstneighbouring states under the guise of stabilisation and reconstruction.
For Pakistan, such a transformation would carry profound securityimplications. Islamabad cannot afford an Israeli-linked political order onits western frontier, particularly given Pakistan’s already strainedeastern border with India. A hostile alignment in Iran would compressPakistan’s strategic depth, forcing it to manage pressure from twotechnologically superior adversaries. This would stretch defence planning,complicate diplomatic neutrality, and undermine Pakistan’s long-standingemphasis on regional non-alignment.
Balochistan would likely become the most immediate pressure point. Theprovince’s geographic contiguity with Iran and its history of cross-bordersecurity challenges make it vulnerable to intelligence penetration andproxy competition. Any foreign military or intelligence footprint in Iranaligned against Pakistan could exploit local grievances, disruptdevelopment projects, and place additional strain on internal securityforces already balancing counterterrorism and economic protectionresponsibilities.
An altered Iran would also open new avenues for India. New Delhi hasinvested heavily in Iranian connectivity projects and has sought strategicaccess to Central Asia via Iranian territory. A government in Tehranaligned with Israel and supported by Washington could deepen intelligenceand logistical cooperation with India, amplifying Pakistan’s encirclementanxieties. This would effectively sandwich Pakistan between India in theeast and an unfriendly western strategic environment.
From a broader regional perspective, such an outcome risks cascadinginstability. Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia would face heightenedsecurity dilemmas, while nuclear non-proliferation norms could erode asstates seek deterrence against externally driven regime change. Pakistan,already navigating economic constraints and regional volatility, would becompelled to recalibrate alliances, potentially diverting resources fromdevelopment to defence preparedness under an increasingly uncertainsecurity architecture.
The United States, meanwhile, faces a strategic choice between short-termalliance management and long-term regional stability. Endorsing a regimechange project could entangle Washington in another protractedconfrontation, undermining its credibility as a stabilising force. ForPakistan and much of the region, preventing escalation remains preferableto managing its consequences, reinforcing diplomatic efforts aimed atde-escalation rather than coercive transformation.
Ultimately, the debate is less about Iran’s present capabilities than aboutthe future order of the Middle East and South Asia. A forced politicalrealignment in Tehran could redraw fault lines far beyond Israel and Iran,placing Pakistan in a precarious strategic squeeze. Islamabad’s interestlies in a balanced region where borders are not weaponised, and wheresecurity is pursued through diplomacy rather than imposed realignments thatrisk regional conflagration.
Image: A symbolic illustration showing Iran’s map at the center withregional borders and military silhouettes, highlighting shifting MiddleEastern alliances.
ogimageimage-name