Public opinion in the United States is far more cautious
than political rhetoric. After the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
American voters are wary of another open-ended Middle Eastern conflict. Polling
indicates limited appetite for military escalation. That hesitation reflects
hard-earned lessons - wars launched with limited objectives often expand beyond
initial calculations.
For Pakistan and the broader region, the consequences would
be immediate and severe. Iran sits at the crossroads of global energy routes.
Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would send oil prices sharply higher,
straining fragile economies across South Asia. For energy-importing states
already battling inflation and external account pressures, this would be
destabilizing.
Equally important is the question of strategic clarity. Is
the objective deterrence? Degradation of nuclear capability? Or regime change?
Absent a clearly articulated end-state, military action risks triggering
retaliation without securing lasting stability. Even limited strikes could
invite asymmetric responses across the region.
Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, though its
stockpile of highly enriched uranium alarms Western powers. Yet past diplomatic
frameworks proved that monitoring and verification are possible when political
will exists. Diplomacy is slow and frustrating, but war is irreversible.
The 21st century offers enough evidence that military
adventurism in the Middle East produces unintended and often uncontrollable
consequences. From prolonged insurgencies to regional fragmentation, the record
is sobering. An attack on Iran could become another costly chapter in that
history — one that reshapes the region in ways no strategist can fully predict
and no economy can easily absorb. Strategic restraint is not idealism; it is
realism grounded in experience.
