Pakistan’s military diplomacy amid US-Iran nuclear standoff: Regional power brokers navigate geopolitical fractures

Baloch and Pashtun communities in Pakistan’s border regions have long suffered under military operations tied to counterterrorism and nuclear security narratives, yet their resistance to state violence is systematically excluded from diplomatic discourse. Indigenous Pashtun traditions of jirga-based conflict resolution are dismissed in favor of top-down military negotiations, reinforcing a colonial-era hierarchy where local governance is subordinated to state security imperatives. The erasure of these voices reflects a broader pattern where indigenous knowledge systems are deemed irrelevant to ‘high-stakes’ geopolitical games, despite their proven efficacy in de-escalating localized conflicts.

Pakistan’s nuclear program emerged from the 1971 Bangladesh War, when US-backed military rule sought a deterrent against India, illustrating how regional conflicts are militarized through nuclear posturing. The 1998 nuclear tests by Pakistan and India were framed as sovereignty assertions but were deeply tied to domestic political legitimacy, with both governments using external threats to justify authoritarianism. Cold War-era US support for Pakistan’s military (via the 1980s Afghan-Soviet War) created a dependency that persists today, with Pakistan’s military acting as a proxy for both Washington and Beijing in regional power plays.

In Latin America, nuclear-free zones (e.g., Treaty of Tlatelolco) were achieved through collective diplomacy that rejected superpower nuclear dominance, offering a model for South Asia where regional blocs could demand mutual disarmament. African nuclear governance, exemplified by the Pelindaba Treaty, emphasizes non-proliferation without the militarization seen in South Asia, where nuclear programs are tied to national prestige and military control. Iranian and Pakistani narratives often invoke the Non-Aligned Movement’s anti-colonial ethos, framing nuclear programs as acts of resistance against Western hegemony, though this rhetoric obscures domestic repression and regional destabilization.

The IAEA’s safeguards regime, while designed to prevent proliferation, has been criticized for its selectivity—targeting Iran and Iraq while ignoring Israel’s undeclared arsenal, undermining its legitimacy in the Global South. Pakistan’s nuclear program, though not IAEA-verified, operates under a doctrine of ‘full-spectrum deterrence,’ which includes tactical nuclear weapons, raising questions about escalation risks in a crisis. The lack of transparency in Pakistan’s nuclear command structure—controlled by the military—contrasts with civilian oversight models in democracies, increasing the risk of accidental or unauthorized use.

Sufi and folk traditions in Pakistan and Iran often critique state militarism through poetry and music, framing nuclear programs as hubris that defies divine balance (e.g., Persian poet Rumi’s warnings against tyranny). In Pakistan, anti-nuclear movements like the ‘Pakistan Peace Coalition’ use art and theater to humanize the victims of militarization, contrasting with state narratives that glorify nuclear prowess. Iranian cinema (e.g., Abbas Kiarostami’s works) subtly critiques the militarization of society, though such critiques are censored when they intersect with nuclear policy.

Scenario modeling suggests that a US-Iran nuclear deal could reduce regional tensions but may trigger a new arms race if Pakistan perceives its deterrent as obsolete, particularly given India’s expanding arsenal and China’s growing influence. A collapse of talks could lead to preemptive strikes or sabotage (e.g., Stuxnet-like cyberattacks), with Pakistan’s military likely to respond by accelerating its nuclear program, further destabilizing South Asia. Long-term, the militarization of nuclear diplomacy risks normalizing nuclear use in limited conflicts, eroding the global taboo against tactical nuclear weapons.

Women’s rights groups in Pakistan and Iran, such as the ‘Women’s Action Forum’ in Pakistan, have long opposed nuclearization as a drain on resources that could fund social programs, but their critiques are sidelined in favor of ‘national security’ rhetoric. Iranian feminists and labor activists argue that nuclear programs are used to justify repression, with dissenters labeled as ‘foreign agents’ or ‘traitors,’ mirroring Pakistan’s use of blasphemy laws to silence critics. The voices of nuclear test survivors in Balochistan—who suffer from radiation-related illnesses—are absent from diplomatic narratives, despite their firsthand evidence of the program’s human costs.