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
Qatar’s Dubious Neutrality and the Narrative Campaign Against Pakistan
Qatar’s role in South Asia illustrates how mediation and media narratives can quietly converge into instruments of influence. Through Al Jazeera’s selective framing of Pakistan’s security challenges and Doha’s unbalanced facilitation with the Taliban, neutrality risks becoming a performative posture rather than a principled practice. Mediation that avoids accountability does not resolve conflict, it entrenches it.
From Dialogue to Patronage: How Qatar Mainstreamed Radical Movements Under the Banner of Mediation
Qatar’s diplomacy has long been framed as pragmatic engagement, but its mediation model has increasingly blurred into political patronage. By hosting and legitimizing groups such as the Taliban and Hamas without enforceable conditions, Doha has helped normalize armed movements in international politics, weakening counterterrorism norms and reshaping regional stability.
AI, Extremism, and the Weaponization of Hate: Islamophobia in India
AI is no longer a neutral tool in India’s digital space. A growing body of research shows how artificial intelligence is being deliberately weaponized to mass-produce Islamophobic narratives, normalize harassment, and amplify Hindutva extremism. As online hate increasingly spills into real-world violence, India’s AI-driven propaganda ecosystem raises urgent questions about accountability, democracy, and the future of pluralism.
AQAP’s Threat to China: Pathways Through Al-Qaeda’s Global Network
AQAP’s threat against China marks a shift from rhetoric to execution, rooted in Al-Qaeda’s decentralized global architecture. By using Afghanistan as a coordination hub and relying on AQIS, TTP, and Uyghur militants of the Turkistan Islamic Party as local enablers, the threat is designed to be carried out far beyond Yemen. From CPEC projects in Pakistan to Chinese interests in Central Asia and Africa, the networked nature of Al-Qaeda allows a geographically dispersed yet strategically aligned campaign against Beijing.
The Enduring Consequences of America’s Exit from Afghanistan
The 2021 US withdrawal from Afghanistan was more than the end of a long war, it was a poorly executed exit that triggered the rapid collapse of the Afghan state. The fall of Kabul, the Abbey Gate attack, and the return of militant groups exposed serious gaps in planning and coordination.