Realpolitik: Nuclear Threats, and U.S. Policy: The 2025 Iran–Pakistan Dilemma

by | Aug 15, 2025 | Politics | 0 comments

realpolitik

The summer of 2025 spotlighted two ground-shaking events that illuminated the double standards and realpolitik often underlying U.S. foreign policy. First, President Donald Trump ordered massive airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, escalating tensions in an already volatile Middle East. Soon after, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, made headlines by issuing a thinly veiled nuclear threat to the world from American soil. The Trump administration’s responses to these crises—direct military force against Iran, muted diplomacy with Pakistan—laid bare pragmatic interests trumping moral consistency. Realpolitik at work, read on to understand explores these events, their causes, reactions, and the broader implications for global stability.

The U.S. Strikes on Iran, June 2025

Crisis Origins

Long-standing U.S.–Iran tensions reached a boiling point in June 2025. Western and Israeli intelligence indicated Iran was rapidly advancing toward weapons-grade uranium enrichment. Israel, feeling existentially threatened, launched strikes on Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure. Iran struck back at U.S. and Israeli assets, rapidly spiraling into direct confrontation.

“Operation Midnight Hammer”

Amid growing alarm, U.S. President Donald Trump authorized large-scale bombing raids on June 22, 2025, targeting Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites. The operation used advanced bunker-busting munitions. Trump publicly asserted that these attacks “completely and totally obliterated” the foundations of Iran’s nuclear program.

Yet, intelligence assessments revealed a different picture: while Iran’s above-ground facilities suffered extensive damage, core underground operations remained largely intact. Analysts estimated that the strikes set Iran’s nuclear timetable back only months, not years.

Diplomatic Fallout

The global reaction was immediate and intense. Russia, China, and the EU condemned the U.S., warning of a destabilizing precedent. Israel and the Gulf Arab states welcomed the strikes as necessary to uphold nuclear non-proliferation and reinforce collective deterrence. International organizations called for restraint, fearing wider war and damage to the already fragile nuclear order.

Pakistan’s Nuclear Threat from U.S. Soil

The Army Chief’s Provocation

Barely two months later, Pakistan’s chief of army staff, Field Marshal Asim Munir, delivered a provocative statement at a Florida event: “We are a nuclear nation. If we think we are going down, we’ll take half the world down with us”. Delivered as U.S.-Pakistan cooperation was increasing and in the immediate wake of the Iran crisis, the statement landed with diplomatic shock.

Regional and International Reaction

India’s government condemned Munir’s remarks as “nuclear blackmail,” and international analysts called them “dangerously irresponsible”. There were fears that such rhetoric would upend long-standing nuclear norms. The U.S. response was tellingly subdued: no public condemnation followed, only routine reiterations of the need for dialogue and stability.

Why the Stark Contrast? Strategic Logic Over Principle

Realpolitik in Action

The divergent responses are best explained by strategic considerations, not legal or moral standards realpolitik]:

  • Adversary vs. Difficult Partner: Iran is an adversary—hostile to U.S. interests, allied with America’s rivals, and suspected of destabilizing the Middle East. Bombing Iranian sites reasserts U.S. resolve and aims to deter proliferation.
    In contrast, Pakistan, despite its instability and nuclear history, remains crucial to U.S. security in South Asia, counterterrorism, and checking Indian influence. Any harsh action risks destabilizing a nuclear regime—with unthinkable fallout.
  • Nuclear Status and Risks: Iran, not yet a nuclear state, is treated with preemptive strikes to forestall weapons acquisition. Pakistan, a confirmed nuclear power, is managed through cautious engagement due to the risk of catastrophic escalation if challenged directly.
The Power of Leverage and Dependency
  • Carrots for Allies, Sticks for Rivals:
    The U.S. is forthright about adversaries (air strikes, sanctions) but careful with problematic allies—pressuring quietly while maintaining strategic ties. With Pakistan, security and regional stability take precedence over public shaming.
  • Security > Consistency:
    The imperative to protect U.S. and allied interests means that moral consistency is often sacrificed for expedience and security assurance.

The Appearance—and Reality—of Hypocrisy

Double Standards in International Conduct

The world noted these episodes as glaring examples of nuclear double standards:

  • Force Against Non-Club Members: The U.S. invokes nuclear nonproliferation rules to justify force against Iran, a non-nuclear state.
  • Tolerating Nuclear Club Members: When it comes to established nuclear powers or strategic allies (like Pakistan, Israel, Britain, France), even extreme statements or proliferation activities elicit only muted criticism or engagement.
Critics and Consequences
  • India’s Protests: Indian officials lambasted Washington’s silence on Munir’s remarks as “nuclear exceptionalism,” warning of emboldened regional brinkmanship.
  • Nonproliferation Crisis: Experts argue that inconsistent enforcement makes global arms control regimes look hollow, inviting other countries to use nuclear threats as leverage.

Consequences for Global Security

Escalating Regional Dangers
  • Middle East: The US–Iran clash intensified regional instability, with Iran’s retaliation and Israeli involvement raising the chance of uncontrolled war and endangering global oil supply.
  • South Asia: Pakistan’s rhetoric destabilized Indo–Pakistani relations, heightened nuclear fears, and complicated U.S.-led conflict prevention in the subcontinent.
Global Norms Under Strain
  • Weakening Nonproliferation: The selective application of force and tolerance for provocative threats weakens faith in international norms—casting doubt on the effectiveness and fairness of existing frameworks for controlling nuclear arms.
  • Normalizing Nuclear Threats: The lack of U.S. response to Pakistan, paired with aggressive action toward Iran, risks normalizing nuclear threats as statecraft. This elevates the danger of nuclear escalation, whether by design or miscalculation.
Lessons, Outlook, and the Way Forward
  • Reconciling Interests and Principles: The 2025 events highlight the perennial challenge: major powers must guard their interests but cannot afford to erode moral standing, which ultimately underpins the legitimacy of the global order.
  • Need for Dialogue and Constraints: The path ahead requires more than military brinkmanship or selective engagement. The U.S. and its partners must push for meaningful dialogue with all parties—encouraging de-escalation, responsible nuclear stewardship, and multilateral efforts to shore up the global non-proliferation regime.
  • Strengthening Institutions: International bodies like the IAEA and UN must be empowered and respected, providing impartial oversight and mediation to prevent national interests from overwhelming global security.

In summary, the 2025 Iran–Pakistan dilemma is less about the personality of one U.S. president and more a reflection of deep systemic contradictions in the way modern great powers pursue global security. Realpolitik, alliances, and fears of instability typically outweigh calls for consistency or principled conduct. While these calculations serve immediate interests, their long-term cost is felt in the erosion of trust, the encouragement of brinkmanship, and the steady decline of the global arms control system—a legacy that will shape international security for years to come. Realpolitik needs to be aligned with reality and not appear as lost logic in the background of lost memory.

In-line Source Links

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *