On June 17, 2025, Pakistan joined 19 other countries in a joint diplomatic appeal calling for a comprehensive ceasefire between Israel and Iran, following days of escalating military strikes. The joint statement called the Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear and military sites as a violation of international law and urged a return to diplomacy to avert broader regional conflict.
The signatories included Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Türkiye, Qatar, Oman, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Kuwait, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan, Morocco, and Palestine. Together, they issued a “categorical rejection” of Israel’s military action and demanded its immediate halt.
Nuclear Disarmament at the Heart of the Statement
A central theme of the joint statement was the call for a nuclear-free Middle East. The countries emphasized “the urgent necessity of establishing a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction,” noting that such a framework must apply to “all States in the region without exception” and be grounded in existing international resolutions.
The statement also urged all countries in the Middle East to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) pointing towards Israel, thereby reaffirming global disarmament norms and calling for a potential “De-nuclearisation” of Israel.
See Also: Layered Defense vs Layered Attack: The Iran-Israel Missile Contest
Warning Against Targeting IAEA-Monitored Facilities
Another critical point was the explicit condemnation of military actions near or against nuclear infrastructure monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The statement warned that attacks on such facilities “constitute a grave violation of international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions of 1949,” underscoring the potentially catastrophic risks of any miscalculated escalation.
This warning follows Israeli strikes on Iranian sites reportedly engaged in nuclear activity, even as Tehran remained engaged in nuclear negotiations with Washington at the time.
Focus on Maritime Security and Global Trade Routes
The joint declaration also pointed to growing concerns over maritime instability. With global trade heavily reliant on Middle Eastern sea lanes, the countries stressed that “freedom of navigation and maritime security must be preserved in accordance with international law.”
As the Israel-Iran crisis risks spilling into surrounding waterways, including the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, the statement highlighted the fragility of these critical arteries and the dangers posed to international shipping.
See Also: Oil, War, and the Hormuz Strait: South Asia and China’s Fragile Link to the Gulf
Diplomacy as the Only Sustainable Path
In its concluding sections, the statement rejected military solutions, asserting that “diplomacy, dialogue, and adherence to the principles of good neighborliness, in accordance with international law and the UN Charter, remain the only viable path to resolving crises in the region.”
This emphasis on political engagement, rather than armed confrontation, aligned with Pakistan’s longstanding stance on peaceful conflict resolution, strategic restraint, and non-interventionism.
Pakistan’s Position: Strategic Alignment, Not Escalation
While the joint statement follows speculation about Pakistan’s possible strategic commitments to Iran, Pakistani officials have strongly denied any such arrangements. Finance Minister Ishaq Dar recently reiterated that Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is purely deterrent in nature, stating that “our nuclear assets are meant for national defense only, not external conflict.”
By aligning itself with a broad coalition of regional actors, Pakistan underscored its diplomatic approach: supporting peace-building initiatives, international norms, and collective regional stability without being drawn into bilateral hostilities.
Broader Regional Message by Pakistan
The joint declaration signals a growing regional alignment around the principle that escalation between Israel and Iran serves no one’s interests. The inclusion of countries from South Asia, the Gulf, North Africa, and the Levant reflects widespread concern that a continued cycle of retaliation could spiral into a multi-theater conflict.
As the United States deploys additional military assets to the region and countries like China issue evacuation orders for their nationals in Israel, the urgency behind this statement is clear. Whether it shifts strategic calculations remains to be seen—but it does mark a rare and unified regional call for restraint, disarmament, and diplomacy at a moment of heightened uncertainty.
Pakistan, 19 Nations Urge Ceasefire, Denounce Israeli Strikes on Iran
On June 17, 2025, Pakistan joined 19 other countries in a joint diplomatic appeal calling for a comprehensive ceasefire between Israel and Iran, following days of escalating military strikes. The joint statement called the Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear and military sites as a violation of international law and urged a return to diplomacy to avert broader regional conflict.
The signatories included Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Türkiye, Qatar, Oman, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Kuwait, Algeria, Tunisia, Sudan, Morocco, and Palestine. Together, they issued a “categorical rejection” of Israel’s military action and demanded its immediate halt.
Nuclear Disarmament at the Heart of the Statement
A central theme of the joint statement was the call for a nuclear-free Middle East. The countries emphasized “the urgent necessity of establishing a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction,” noting that such a framework must apply to “all States in the region without exception” and be grounded in existing international resolutions.
The statement also urged all countries in the Middle East to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) pointing towards Israel, thereby reaffirming global disarmament norms and calling for a potential “De-nuclearisation” of Israel.
See Also: Layered Defense vs Layered Attack: The Iran-Israel Missile Contest
Warning Against Targeting IAEA-Monitored Facilities
Another critical point was the explicit condemnation of military actions near or against nuclear infrastructure monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The statement warned that attacks on such facilities “constitute a grave violation of international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions of 1949,” underscoring the potentially catastrophic risks of any miscalculated escalation.
This warning follows Israeli strikes on Iranian sites reportedly engaged in nuclear activity, even as Tehran remained engaged in nuclear negotiations with Washington at the time.
Focus on Maritime Security and Global Trade Routes
The joint declaration also pointed to growing concerns over maritime instability. With global trade heavily reliant on Middle Eastern sea lanes, the countries stressed that “freedom of navigation and maritime security must be preserved in accordance with international law.”
As the Israel-Iran crisis risks spilling into surrounding waterways, including the Persian Gulf and Strait of Hormuz, the statement highlighted the fragility of these critical arteries and the dangers posed to international shipping.
See Also: Oil, War, and the Hormuz Strait: South Asia and China’s Fragile Link to the Gulf
Diplomacy as the Only Sustainable Path
In its concluding sections, the statement rejected military solutions, asserting that “diplomacy, dialogue, and adherence to the principles of good neighborliness, in accordance with international law and the UN Charter, remain the only viable path to resolving crises in the region.”
This emphasis on political engagement, rather than armed confrontation, aligned with Pakistan’s longstanding stance on peaceful conflict resolution, strategic restraint, and non-interventionism.
Pakistan’s Position: Strategic Alignment, Not Escalation
While the joint statement follows speculation about Pakistan’s possible strategic commitments to Iran, Pakistani officials have strongly denied any such arrangements. Finance Minister Ishaq Dar recently reiterated that Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is purely deterrent in nature, stating that “our nuclear assets are meant for national defense only, not external conflict.”
By aligning itself with a broad coalition of regional actors, Pakistan underscored its diplomatic approach: supporting peace-building initiatives, international norms, and collective regional stability without being drawn into bilateral hostilities.
Broader Regional Message by Pakistan
The joint declaration signals a growing regional alignment around the principle that escalation between Israel and Iran serves no one’s interests. The inclusion of countries from South Asia, the Gulf, North Africa, and the Levant reflects widespread concern that a continued cycle of retaliation could spiral into a multi-theater conflict.
As the United States deploys additional military assets to the region and countries like China issue evacuation orders for their nationals in Israel, the urgency behind this statement is clear. Whether it shifts strategic calculations remains to be seen—but it does mark a rare and unified regional call for restraint, disarmament, and diplomacy at a moment of heightened uncertainty.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
Anonymous Sources, Big Claims, Thin Ground
A recent Drop Site News report claims a covert UK–Pakistan exchange of convicted sex offenders for political dissidents. But a closer look shows the story rests on hearsay, anonymous insiders, and a narrative shaped more by partisan loyalties than evidence. From misrepresenting legally declared propagandists as persecuted critics to ignoring the legal impossibility of such a swap, this report illustrates how modern journalism can slip into activism. When sensational claims outrun facts and legality, credibility collapses, and so does the line between holding power accountable and manufacturing a story.
Zabihullah Mujahid’s Bizarre Statement on TTP: A Lesson in Hypocrisy and Evasion
Zabihullah Mujahid’s recent statement dismissing the TTP as Pakistan’s “internal issue” and claiming Pashto lacks the word “terrorist” is a glaring act of evasion. By downplaying a UN-listed militant group hosted on Afghan soil, the Taliban spokesperson attempts to deflect responsibility, despite overwhelming evidence of TTP sanctuaries, leadership, and operations in Afghanistan. His remarks reveal not linguistic nuance, but calculated hypocrisy and political convenience.
Beyond the Rhetoric: What Muttaqi’s Address Reveals About Afghan Policy
Interim Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi’s recent address sought to reframe Afghanistan’s strained ties with Pakistan through a narrative of victimhood and denial. From dismissing cross-border militancy to overstating economic resilience, his claims contradict on-ground realities and historical patterns. A closer examination reveals strategic deflection rather than accountability, with serious implications for regional peace and security.
We Want Deliverance
Political mobilization in South Asia is not rooted in policy or institutions but in a profound yearning for deliverance. From Modi’s civilizational aura in India to Imran Khan’s revolutionary moral narrative in Pakistan, voters seek not managers of the state but messianic figures who promise total transformation. This “Messiah Complex” fuels a cycle of charismatic rise, institutional erosion, and eventual democratic breakdown, a pattern embedded in the region’s political psychology and historical imagination.
Nuclear Technology at COP30: What It Means for Pakistan’s Clean Energy Goals
At COP30, nuclear energy emerged as a key solution for global clean-energy transitions. For Pakistan, expanding nuclear power, especially through Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), offers a path to cleaner, reliable electricity, despite challenges like high costs and restricted technology access.