NYN | Articles
When the Pakistani Senate unanimously votes in support of Iran against Israeli threats, and when Islamabad—according to multiple reports—begins supplying Tehran with defense systems, fighter jets, and drones, we are witnessing more than just a bilateral rapprochement between two neighboring countries. What we may be seeing is a strategic turning point that revives the most pressing question in the Islamic geopolitical landscape: has the foundation of an Islamic security project opposing Zionist hegemony begun to take shape?
What stands out in Pakistan’s recent position is not just its timing, but its depth and significance. The open support for Tehran is not a reactionary move, nor merely an ideological alignment—it is a strategic decision viewed within the broader conflict map. Islamabad understands that Israel is not solely targeting Iran as a state, but rather the very idea of an “independent Islamic state.”
A look back at Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2011 remarks, in which he explicitly stated that Israel “will prevent any Islamic country, including Pakistan, from acquiring nuclear weapons,” reveals the nature of this project. From Tel Aviv’s perspective, the conflict is not about borders or nuclear deterrence, but about denying any Muslim entity the keys to sovereign decision-making or the development of technological and military independence.
Pakistan’s stance did not emerge in a vacuum—it is driven by a complex mix of internal pressure and external threats. On one hand, there is growing popular awareness in Pakistan rejecting the official silence on the atrocities in Gaza, demanding decisive action from a nuclear-armed country belonging to the Islamic ummah. On the other hand, the Indian-Israeli alliance—especially in intelligence and technology—poses a direct existential threat to Pakistan, particularly in relation to Kashmir.
In this context, Islamabad’s alignment with Tehran is not a symbolic gesture but a reflection of a shift in Pakistan’s own security doctrine—from a defensive posture to a strategy of preemptive deterrence. This includes building new regional partnerships that, if developed further, could lead to an Islamic security bloc capable of reshaping the balance of power in Southwest Asia.
In contrast, the official Arab mindset—especially in Cairo and Riyadh—remains entrenched in rhetoric about “stability” and “neutrality,” as if the ongoing geopolitical shifts are irrelevant to Arab capitals, or as if the Zionist project will stop at Iran and Pakistan’s borders.
The irony is that some Arab states continue to portray Iran as the primary threat, ignoring the reality that Israel no longer hides its intentions toward the Arab heartland. Tel Aviv’s strategy is to encircle the Islamic world through Indian and African alliances, leaving no one outside the circle of threat.
The painful question: are these capitals waiting for Israel to explicitly declare—just as it did regarding Pakistan—that Cairo or Riyadh is next, before reassessing their priorities?
What must be understood from the Iranian-Pakistani rapprochement is that the core of today’s conflict is not about nuclear weapons, but about the architecture of will. Israel fears not the bomb itself, but the emergence of a capable Islamic political mindset—one that can gather elements of strength and channel them into an independent project.
If cooperation between Tehran and Islamabad evolves into joint defensive and technological coordination, then we may be witnessing the real beginning of a redefinition of Islamic national security—not as an internal sovereign matter, but as a collective cause for the entire ummah. A framework is needed that prioritizes integration over rivalry.
The lesson Pakistan offers today is that popular pressure can compel political elites to take decisive action, and that shared threats can be transformed into opportunities to build a bloc of resistance against hegemony. But this moment cannot become a lasting project unless other Islamic capitals realize that avoiding confrontation does not prevent danger—it hastens its arrival.
What the ummah needs today is not only weapons or temporary alliances, but a new strategic doctrine that views independence as a long-term mission, and Islamic cooperation as a cornerstone for building a new global balance—one that ends decades of dependency and grants peoples the right to defend their dignity and existence.
Liberation will not come from Western decision-making centers. It will be forged in a moment of awareness—when the ummah realizes that its true power begins when it writes its destiny with its own hands.
Researcher and Political Activist / Jordan
