Echoes Over Esfahan: The U.S. Strike on Iran and the Shadow of Pakistan’s Silence
Paromita Das
New Delhi, 24th June: In the early hours of June 21st, 2025, the desert sky over Iran lit up—not with the glow of dawn, but with the firepower of the United States Air Force. Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan—three of Iran’s most critical nuclear infrastructure sites—were reduced to smoldering symbols of power and provocation. Officially, it was a surgical strike; a targeted message wrapped in precision munitions. But beneath the calculated calm of press briefings, the region was already beginning to boil.
What unfolded was more than a military maneuver. It was a geopolitical message. President Donald Trump, returning to the global stage with characteristic bravado, declared victory. Iran, in turn, accused Washington of aggression and claimed only partial damage. Yet the craters at Natanz and the disrupted centrifuge cascades in Esfahan told a more sobering tale—one that Iran’s nuclear ambitions would have to pause, perhaps even reconsider.
But even as satellite imagery confirmed the destruction, attention quietly began shifting westward—not toward Tel Aviv or Riyadh, but toward Islamabad.
The Geography of Betrayal
No military operation of this magnitude happens in a vacuum. The flight paths, refueling logistics, regional radar evasion—all demand cooperation, or at the very least, compliance. That’s where Pakistan enters the conversation, not as an overt actor, but as a plausible accomplice. Though no official confirmation has emerged, geopolitical watchers are piecing together clues. Pakistan’s strategic location bordering Iran, its historically transactional foreign policy, and the timely visit of Army Chief General Asif Munir to Washington only add to the suspicion.
Was Pakistan merely a bystander, or did it quietly open its airspace to American bombers?
For many, the question evokes déjà vu. In May 2011, Osama Bin Laden—one of the world’s most wanted terrorists—was found and killed in Abbottabad, a garrison town nestled in Pakistan. Then, too, Islamabad denied foreknowledge. Yet few believe the world’s most infamous fugitive could live undetected within earshot of a military academy. Trust eroded that day. And it hasn’t fully returned.
Brotherhood for Sale?
If Pakistan indeed supported the U.S. strikes on Iran—through airspace access, logistical silence, or intelligence nods—then it has crossed more than just a border. It has crossed the lines of ideological allegiance that it so vocally champions.
Pakistan often positions itself as a defender of the Muslim world, the standard-bearer of Islamic unity, or Ummah. But this potential complicity betrays those principles. Selling out an “Islamic brother” for the promise of trade deals, military equipment, or IMF-friendly headlines is not just pragmatic—it is cynical. For Iran, which once stood by Pakistan diplomatically, this would be more than a betrayal. It would be a revelation of Islamabad’s elastic morality.
And the irony is sharp: A nation built on the ideal of Muslim solidarity, potentially aiding the destruction of another Muslim state’s critical infrastructure, all for promises whispered in Washington’s corridors.
An Economy for Sale
It’s hard to ignore Pakistan’s motives if the suspicions are true. With an economy perpetually on life support—battered by inflation, energy deficits, and rising debt—Islamabad is desperate for external lifelines. The United States, with its expansive defense budget and influence over financial institutions, remains a tempting partner. Add the fear of Bharatiya escalation or surgical strikes, and the logic becomes coldly transactional: Secure American backing and reduce strategic pressure from all sides.
But this logic is shortsighted. Aligning with Washington’s firebrand tactics in the Middle East might offer short-term gains but risks long-term isolation. Iran, for all its flaws, remains a significant regional player with connections that stretch from the Gulf to China. Aligning against it without public clarity or strategic foresight could leave Pakistan exposed—diplomatically and ideologically.
Silence Is Its Own Confession
In geopolitics, silence often speaks louder than press conferences. Pakistan’s refusal to clarify its role in the strikes is telling. If it were uninvolved, one might expect swift condemnation or at least a denial. But the quiet has been deafening.
This silence suggests complicity—not just in action, but in values. If access was granted, or intelligence shared, then Islamabad has not merely taken sides—it has traded trust for convenience.
That pattern—seen in the Bin Laden operation, the Afghan war cooperation, and now potentially in the Iran strike—reveals a state that operates on shifting loyalties, not steady principles. The world is watching. And so is Iran.
A Price Too High for a Favor Too Small
Whether or not Pakistan directly facilitated the U.S. airstrikes on Iran, the questions it has failed to answer matter almost as much as the role it may have played. Inaction can be strategic. But silence, in this case, feels complicit.
If Islamabad did indeed allow its skies to serve as a launchpad for a mission that rattled the Middle East, it has bartered its voice in the Muslim world for promises that history suggests may never fully materialize. The American embrace is often transactional and temporary. The regional fallout, however, is enduring.
In choosing Washington’s favor over Tehran’s fraternity—if such a choice was made—Pakistan may have gained a handshake in the short term. But in the ledger of global trust and regional solidarity, it might have lost far more.
