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
Centralized Power and the Core–Periphery Divide in Afghanistan
The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan’s return in 2021 brought rapid consolidation of power, but also the revival of a historical flaw. By concentrating authority in the hands of southern Pashtun elites, the Taliban have recreated the core–periphery divide that has destabilized every Afghan regime since the 19th century. This hyper-centralization, rooted in ethnic exclusivity and Kandahar dominance, risks a repeat of past collapses as non-Pashtun regions turn toward functional autonomy.
Broken Promises: The Taliban’s Betrayal of Global Commitments
Nearly three years after seizing power, the Taliban’s systematic violation of their international commitments under the 2020 Doha Accord has transformed Afghanistan into a sanctuary for terrorism, entrenched an autocratic regime, and institutionalized gender apartheid. Beyond moral failure, this deceit poses a grave threat to regional stability, international counterterrorism efforts, and the credibility of global diplomacy. Holding the regime accountable is now a strategic necessity, not a choice.
Do You Remember 6/11/ 1947?: A Forgotten Jammu Genocide and the Continuing Erasure of Kashmiriyat
On November 6, 1947, one of South Asia’s earliest genocides unfolded in Jammu, where hundreds of thousands of Muslims were massacred or forced to flee. Yet, unlike other global tragedies, this atrocity remains buried in silence. The Jammu Genocide not only reshaped the region’s demography but laid the foundation for India’s ongoing campaign of identity erasure in Kashmir. From demographic engineering to cultural censorship, the spirit of Kashmiriyat continues to face systematic annihilation.
India’s Climate Policy after COP28: Net Zero 2070 — A Fair Promise or a Risky Postponement?
India’s Net Zero 2070 target reflects a delicate balance between development equity and climate urgency. While progress in renewables, green finance, and adaptation is visible, the absence of clear interim milestones risks turning ambition into delay. The real challenge lies in translating a distant horizon into measurable, near-term climate action before 2030.
The Tehreek-e-Hijrat of 1920 and Its Parallels with Contemporary Refugee Politics
The Tehreek-e-Hijrat of 1920 saw thousands of Indian Muslims migrate to Afghanistan, only to be turned away when Kabul could no longer cope. A century later, Afghan officials criticise Pakistan’s refugee policies while ignoring their own historical refusal to host Muslim migrants. The parallel reveals not just irony, but the enduring challenge of compassion, capacity, and collective responsibility.