For the first time since the 1991 Gulf War, the Strait of Hormuz is not just a chokepoint for global oil, it is a live battlefield. The US has launched twelve consecutive nights of strikes inside Iran, targeting power plants and roads under the pretext of degrading Tehran's ability to threaten shipping lanes. Iran, in turn, has vowed to render "no infrastructure safe" unless its security is guaranteed, and has already hit water and power plants in Kuwait and an air base in Jordan, killing three US service members and a fourth in Iraq. The message is clear: this is no longer a shadow war fought through proxies. It is a direct confrontation that is shredding the Gulf's energy architecture, and Pakistan, which imports 30% of its oil through these very waters, is watching from the sidelines with a sinking feeling.
Why This Is a Global Economic Earthquake in the Making
The strikes are not just military operations; they are a strike against the Gulf's economic nervous system. According to the US Central Command (CENTCOM), the raids aim to "degrade Iran's ability to threaten civilian mariners and commercial vessels transiting regional waters." But the collateral damage is already visible: oil prices have surged past $95 a barrel, and shipping insurers have quietly raised war-risk premiums for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz by 400% since the first US strike. This is not a regional skirmish, it is a systemic shock that threatens to reroute global energy flows, reroute shipping contracts, and reroute the financial bets of energy traders from Singapore to Shanghai. For Pakistan, which imports 70% of its oil and 35% of its LNG through the Gulf, the immediate impact is a widening trade deficit and a currency under pressure. But the deeper risk is strategic: if the Strait of Hormuz becomes a no-go zone even for weeks, Islamabad will have to choose between rationing fuel, accelerating its pivot to Russian crude, or begging Riyadh for emergency supplies under politically costly terms. The US, meanwhile, is gambling that its strikes will force Iran to the table, but the gamble carries a price tag that extends far beyond the battlefield.
The Powder Keg: How Two Decades of US-Iran Tensions Exploded Into Open War
The current escalation did not emerge overnight. It is the culmination of a decade-long cycle of brinkmanship that began with the 2015 nuclear deal and collapsed under the weight of mutual distrust. In 2019, Iran's Revolutionary Guard seized a British-flagged tanker in the Strait of Hormuz, triggering a brief but intense standoff. Then came the targeted assassinations, Qasem Soleimani in January 2020, and Iran's retaliatory ballistic missile strikes on US bases in Iraq. The cycle of retaliation and counter-retaliation has now spiraled into a full-blown war of infrastructure, with both sides deliberately targeting civilian facilities under the flimsy pretext of "military necessity." Iran's chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf framed the stakes starkly on X: "In a region where we do not sell oil, no one will sell oil. If our security is not ensured, no infrastructure will be safe." The message is not just a threat, it is a declaration that Iran will weaponize its control over regional energy flows unless its core security demands are met. For Pakistan, the historical parallel is the 1971 US-Pakistan standoff during the Bangladesh Liberation War, when Washington suspended military aid and Islamabad was forced to pivot toward Beijing and Tehran for survival. Today, Pakistan faces a similar crossroads: will it align with Washington's campaign against Iran, or hedge its bets by deepening ties with Moscow and Riyadh to secure energy lifelines?
What Happened: The Mechanics of a War That Is Not Yet a War
According to reporting by Al Jazeera, the US launched its twelfth consecutive night of strikes on Wednesday, targeting power plants and roads in southern Iran near Bushehr. The strikes followed Iranian threats to expand attacks across the Gulf, and came after US President Donald Trump threatened to target more Iranian power plants and bridges. Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency reported explosions in Bushehr, while Kuwait said its air defenses intercepted an Iranian drone attack. The exchange has already crossed multiple red lines: Iran has hit water and power plants in Kuwait, an air base in Jordan (killing three US service members), and a drone in Erbil, Iraq (killing a fourth US soldier). The death toll from US strikes inside Iran now stands at 53 civilians, including three children, with 590 injured, according to Iran's Ministry of Health. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi vowed "an eye for an eye" retaliation, while Iran's military warned that US threats "will have no result other than the expansion of the war." The most chilling detail is not the body count, it is the deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, which violates international law unless the facilities are proven to serve a military function. Both sides are gambling that the other will blink first, but the gamble is becoming increasingly reckless.
Global and Regional Reaction: A World Divided Between Hawks and Doves
The international response has fractured along predictable lines. The United States, backed by the United Kingdom and Israel, has framed the strikes as a defensive operation to protect "civilian mariners and commercial vessels." The UK's Foreign Office issued a statement supporting "the right of nations to defend their interests," while Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the strikes "a necessary blow against Iranian aggression." On the other side, China and Russia have condemned the US actions as "provocative" and warned of "unpredictable consequences." China's Foreign Ministry spokesman stated that "military strikes will only escalate tensions and harm regional stability," while Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov accused Washington of "reckless adventurism." In the Gulf, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have remained conspicuously silent, avoiding public criticism of either side but privately signaling to US officials that they fear the strikes could spiral into a wider conflict that engulfs their own infrastructure. The most telling silence, however, is from India. New Delhi, which imports 85% of its oil from the Gulf and has historically balanced its ties between Washington and Tehran, has yet to issue a formal statement. The question now is whether India will quietly support the US campaign, or whether it will begin rerouting oil purchases through Russia or Central Asia to avoid the Strait of Hormuz altogether. For Pakistan, the regional reaction raises a critical dilemma: if the Gulf becomes a war zone, will Islamabad follow India's lead, or will it seek a separate path that prioritizes energy security over alliance politics?
South Asia Impact: Pakistan's Energy Lifeline Is Under Siege, What Comes Next?
For Pakistan, the immediate impact is economic. According to the State Bank of Pakistan, the country's oil import bill has already risen by 18% since the first US strike, and the rupee has lost 4% of its value against the dollar in the last two weeks. The government has responded by rationing fuel in major cities and increasing power cuts, a move that risks stoking public unrest. But the deeper risk is strategic: if the Strait of Hormuz becomes a war zone, Pakistan will have to choose between three unpalatable options. First, it could beg Riyadh for emergency oil supplies under politically costly terms, deepening its dependence on Saudi Arabia. Second, it could accelerate its pivot to Russian crude via the northern corridor, a route that bypasses the Strait but ties Pakistan more closely to Moscow. Third, it could ration fuel and risk economic contraction, a path that could trigger social instability. The last time Pakistan faced a similar energy crunch was during the 1999 Kargil crisis, when India threatened to blockade Karachi port. Then, Islamabad turned to Tehran for emergency oil supplies, a move that angered Washington but kept the economy afloat. Today, the stakes are higher: a prolonged war in the Gulf could force Pakistan to choose between its alliance with the US and its energy security, a choice that could reshape the country's geopolitical identity for decades.
What Happens Next: Three Scenarios That Could Redraw the Gulf, and Pakistan's Place in It
Analysts expect the current standoff to escalate along three possible paths, each with distinct implications for South Asia. The first scenario is a negotiated ceasefire, brokered by China or Russia, that freezes the conflict at its current level. Under this outcome, Iran would halt attacks on Gulf allies, and the US would pause its strikes in exchange for a vague commitment from Tehran to "de-escalate." The problem is that neither side has shown any willingness to back down. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has vowed "an eye for an eye" retaliation, and the US has doubled down on its strikes, targeting power plants and roads. The second scenario is a wider regional war, in which Iran launches sustained attacks on Gulf oil facilities, triggering a US-led naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Under this outcome, oil prices could spike to $120 a barrel, and Pakistan's import bill could balloon to $20 billion annually, double its current level. The third scenario is a de facto partition of the Gulf, in which Iran cedes control of the Strait to a US-led coalition while maintaining its influence over land-based energy routes. Under this outcome, Pakistan could be forced to reroute its oil imports through Central Asia or Russia, a shift that would require massive infrastructure investments and could take years to implement. The most likely outcome, analysts say, is a prolonged stalemate in which both sides continue to trade blows while avoiding a full-scale war. But the longer the stalemate persists, the greater the risk of miscalculation, and the greater the pressure on Pakistan to choose a side.
Can Islamabad Stay Neutral, or Will the Gulf War Drag It Into the Fight?
The question Pakistanis should be asking is not whether their country can avoid the war, but how long it can avoid the consequences. The US has already signaled that it expects regional allies to support its campaign against Iran, and Pakistan, despite its historical ties to Tehran, is no exception. In 2024, Pakistan and Iran signed a 25-year cooperation agreement that included energy deals worth $5 billion, a pact that Washington has repeatedly criticized. If Islamabad publicly supports the US strikes, it risks alienating Tehran and losing access to Iranian oil and gas. If it opposes the strikes, it risks angering Washington and facing pressure on IMF loans or military aid. The GFN editorial desk assesses that Islamabad's most likely response is a carefully calibrated neutrality: publicly condemning the strikes while quietly rerouting oil purchases through Russia. But this hedging strategy carries risks of its own. Russia's oil exports to Pakistan are already increasing, but the volumes are insufficient to replace lost Gulf supplies. Moreover, Washington has shown little tolerance for neutrality in the past, in 2019, the US imposed sanctions on Turkey for purchasing Russian S-400 missiles, a move that could serve as a warning to Pakistan if it deepens ties with Moscow. The real question for Islamabad is whether it can afford to stay neutral in a war that is increasingly impossible to ignore, or whether it will be forced to choose between its energy security and its alliance with the US.
Related Coverage
Middle East Conflict Analysis → — In-depth analysis, background context, and continuous updates on this developing story.
Key Takeaways
- Pakistan's energy lifeline is under siege. With 30% of its oil and 35% of its LNG transiting the Strait of Hormuz, Islamabad faces a stark choice: ration fuel, pivot to Russian crude, or beg Riyadh for emergency supplies.
- The US-Iran war is no longer a shadow conflict. Both sides are deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure, crossing red lines that could trigger a wider regional war, and Pakistan is caught in the middle.
- Neutrality is becoming impossible. Whether Islamabad supports the US strikes or opposes them, the economic and geopolitical costs are rising. The country's foreign policy identity may soon be reshaped by the Gulf's descent into war.
