Can Pakistan afford regime change in Iran?

ISLAMABAD:

When Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir met US President Donald Trump at the White House last June, the situation in Iran was still tantalizingly precarious.

There were still murmurs that Israel, backed by the United States, would push for regime change in Iran. But within days of the field marshal’s meeting with Trump, the situation de-escalated after Iran carried out largely symbolic airstrikes on the US military base in Qatar.

The Iranian government survived. If sources and circumstantial evidence are to be believed, it was Pakistan’s army chief’s advice to Trump that made the US not pull the trigger.

Today, as protests again rage in Iran and Trump issues new warnings of military action, Islamabad’s stance remains unchanged. Pakistan does not want regime change in Iran because the costs would be catastrophic, according to some experts and officials

Iran is not a distant concern for Pakistan, it is a 900 kilometer neighbor that shares a sensitive border with Balochistan, the country’s most fragile province. Any upheaval in Iran immediately threatens cross-border militancy, arms trafficking, refugee flows and economic disruption.

“Any change in Iran, whether it comes as a result of internal development or external intervention, will have a direct impact on Pakistan,” said Asif Durrani, who served as Pakistan’s ambassador to Iran.

“Pakistan has played a role in the past in helping reduce tensions between Iran and the West, and it should be remembered that Pakistan’s diplomatic mission in Washington also looks after Iran’s interests,” he added, while referring to Islamabad’s possible role in de-escalating the crisis.

This underscores Islamabad’s dual role of managing its own security while subtly advising global powers on the consequences of aggressive action against Tehran.

One of Pakistan’s immediate concerns is the impact on Balochistan. Iran’s Sistan-Baluchestan province shares ethnic, tribal and linguistic ties with Pakistan’s Baloch areas.

State instability across the border would energize militant networks and enable them to exploit safe havens and expand cross-border operations. Security analysts note that Pakistan’s past counter-terrorism efforts in Balochistan could quickly unravel if Iran descends into chaos.

Johar Saleem, a former foreign minister, said when there was a conflict going on between Iran and Israel last time, and at that time, Pakistan had supported Iran’s territorial integrity and sovereignty very categorically.

“But I was one of the very few commentators in Pakistan who believed that military conflict had actually weakened Iran. So the situation we’re seeing now is partly because Iran is facing a huge crisis of political instability.”

Johar stressed that external intervention now, be it economic, cyber or military, would worsen the situation and further destabilize a country already weakened by internal and external pressures.

Pakistan already hosts millions of Afghan refugees. A collapse or military intervention in Iran could trigger another massive influx of people, overwhelming border management, urban centers and social services.

The economic toll alone would be significant when Pakistan is under IMF programs and facing domestic fiscal constraints.

A forced regime change in Tehran would reverberate far beyond Pakistan. It could harden fault lines across the Middle East, provoke proxy conflicts and draw in regional powers such as China, Russia and Turkey.

For Pakistan, which relies heavily on the stability of the Gulf for energy, trade and remittances, the consequences could be dire.

“In situations like these, it is always dialogue and amicable solutions that not only people inside the country want, but also people outside the country, especially those who are well-wishers of Iran. And Pakistanis are big well-wishers of Iran,” Johar said.

This underlines that Pakistan’s approach is rooted in realism: it seeks to manage regional dynamics without being drawn into risky external adventures.

“Besides economic sanctions, there are also other options that the Americans have talked about – military strikes, for example, or cyber attacks.

“Technologically, there is a wide range of options, so any kind of intervention by the US or the West will worsen the situation in Iran,” Johar warned. Pakistan’s position is clear that Iran must remain stable, sovereign and intact.

While Islamabad does not always agree with Tehran’s internal policies, it recognizes that a collapse of the Iranian state would be a strategic disaster for Pakistan, spanning border security, refugee flows, regional power dynamics and long-term diplomatic credibility.

As protests continue in Tehran and Trump hints at intervention, Pakistan is likely to continue to counsel restraint, emphasize dialogue and push for solutions that preserve both Iran’s territorial integrity and regional stability.