Veterans of past conflicts have always cautioned that wars are far easier to enter than to leave. On the 24th day of the war on Iran, this warning appears to have acquired a wider and more dangerous connotation. What was launched on 28 February as a military campaign with declared (if not clear) objectives has moved steadily beyond them, drawing in energy infrastructure, shipping lanes, labour flows, and economies far removed from the battlefield.
With at least 3,220 people killed, among them at least 210 children, in Iran, over a thousand in Lebanon and 28 in the Gulf, the conflict has already become a political liability in Washington itself, with 59% of Americans disapproving of the strikes.
Over the weekend, US President Donald Trump threatened to strike Iran’s power plants unless the Strait of Hormuz was fully reopened within 48 hours, while Tehran responded with threats against US-linked infrastructure across the Gulf. Brent crude closed on Friday at $112.19 a barrel, its highest level since July 2022.
The latest phase has been especially alarming because it has shifted the conflict into the domain of economic warfare. After Israel struck facilities at Iran’s South Pars gas field, Iran retaliated against Qatar’s Ras Laffan industrial complex, causing extensive damage at the centre of the world’s second-largest LNG exporter. Resultantly, European gas prices surged by as much as 35 per cent, oil prices rose sharply, and QatarEnergy said it could invoke force majeure on long-term contracts.
Writing closer to home, the consequences are not remote. The State Bank has called the macroeconomic outlook “quite uncertain” after the outbreak of war, citing higher fuel prices, freight and insurance costs, and wider risks to the domestic economy. It’s an open secret that workers’ remittances, a significant portion of which comes from the Gulf, continue to finance a substantial part of the trade deficit.
In calls over the past several days, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif spoke separately with the leaders of Azerbaijan, Malaysia and Egypt. In each exchange, there was agreement on the need for immediate de-escalation and the resolution of tensions through dialogue and diplomacy. Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar also joined consultations in Riyadh with counterparts from across the Muslim world, where participants called for restraint and an end to further escalation. Pakistan’s position, reflected in these engagements, has remained consistent: the conflict must not be allowed to widen, and diplomatic channels must be preserved.
Diplomacy is now the only serious option because the war has already demonstrated its tendency to expand beyond military calculations into economic and political consequences that none of its authors can fully control. De-escalation is not a concession to Tehran. It is recognition that a widening Gulf conflict will exact its heaviest price from ordinary people and from states that had no part in starting it. *