IAEA reports from 2003–2015 oscillated between verifying compliance and raising concerns about undeclared facilities, compelling multiple UN resolutions. Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment to near‑weapon grade in 2012 precipitated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015), easing sanctions in return for transparency.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions emerged in the 1950s under the US-led “Atoms for Peace” programme, but its transformation into a contentious strategic actor was most notable from the 1990s onwards. Pakistan’s Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan network, following his proliferation notoriety in the early 2000s, influenced Iran’s access to sensitive nuclear technologies—particularly centrifuge blueprints—providing Tehrān with foundational technical knowledge. Islamabad harboured a tacit policy of nuclear diplomacy, maintaining plausible deniability while enabling Iran’s latent enrichment capacity. With Iran’s accession to the NPT in 1970, its right to civilian nuclear energy was legally enshrined, yet repeatedly contested by IAEA inspections through the 2000s and 2010s. IAEA reports from 2003–2015 oscillated between verifying compliance and raising concerns about undeclared facilities, compelling multiple UN resolutions. Iran’s pursuit of uranium enrichment to near‑weapon grade in 2012 precipitated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (2015), easing sanctions in return for transparency. North Korea’s 2006 and 2009 nuclear tests provided Tehran a cautionary tale, encouraging it to pursue covert capability rather than overt weaponisation. Former Pakistani leaders from Musharraf to Zardari adopted calibrated foreign policies, weighing Western sanctions against regional balance, while Presidents Mamnoon Hussain and Arif Alvi emphasised sovereign solidarity with Iran. Under President Zardari’s regime, deep energy and diplomatic collaboration with Iran were actively reinforced, leveraging Iran’s nuclear resilience to deter US pressure. The historical entanglement of Khan’s proliferation network, NPT constraints, IAEA’s shifting assessments, and regional power interplay have created a nuclear ecosystem in which Iran remains emboldened and shielded by pragmatic alliances.

---

Russia under Vladimir Putin views Iran’s nuclear programme through a strategic realist lens, viewing it as a pivotal counterbalance to US hegemony in the Middle East. Moscow’s support—technical, diplomatic, and financial—serves its structural aim to fragment Western-led security architectures and preserve its access to Middle Eastern markets. Putin’s government has consistently vetoed or abstained on punitive UNSC resolutions against Iran, citing the JCPOA compliance window as justification. Russia has provided reactor fuel for Bushehr and collaborated on future units, reinforcing Iran’s civilian nuclear trajectory. Moscow’s alignment with Tehran also facilitates multipolar energy diplomacy, projecting influence through interdependent pipelines and power grids. By equipping Iran with credible hard power thresholds (short of nuclear warheads), Russia ensures regional deterrence against unilateral Western strikes. In return, Iran provides Moscow with strategic clout in the Gulf region, reinforcing Russia’s standing with Saudi Arabia and UAE. Putin’s alliance pattern—mirrored in support to Syria and Venezuela—illustrates his doctrine of selective alignment with anti-US states. The confluence of Iran’s nuclear resilience and Russia’s military influence fortifies a fragile deterrent architecture in Eurasia, posing difficult questions for Western military planners and Israeli policymakers.

---

Pakistan’s support for Iran has shifted across administrations but consistently aligned with Islamabad’s national-interest paradigm. Under General Musharraf’s military regime (2001–2008), Pakistan discreetly supplied Iranian efforts via defence and nuclear-industrial linkages, prioritising regional stability over Western sanctions. During Zardari’s presidency (2008–2013) and later Mamnoon Hussain’s (2013–2018), Pakistan deepened economic and diplomatic ties, never openly endorsing any weaponization, but ensuring technological continuity. Under President Arif Alvi (2018–2022), Islamabad reaffirmed Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear technology at the IAEA and UN platforms, preserving bilateral energy projects and connectivity. Each Pakistani leader calculated that a nuclear-empowered Iran would check rival Indian predominance, especially if US influence waned. Pakistan’s nuclear know-how, inherited from Khan, enabled covert knowledge-sharing without public visibility—maintaining strategic ambiguity. Islamabad’s position at the IAEA was always cautious—echoing Iran’s insistence on compliance with its NPT rights. Pakistan’s dual alignment with China and Saudi Arabia also shaped its balancing strategy regarding Iran. Thus, Pakistan’s long-term posture in support of Iran is not ideological but predicated on realpolitik and structural deterrence.

---

The recent wave of Israeli air strikes on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in June 2025 marks a sharp escalation in regional confrontation. Iran responded with ballistic and drone counter-attacks on Israeli sites—prompting a cycle of tit-for-tat eruptions in the Gulf and Levant. Moscow’s public pronouncements have voiced concern about regional stability while reinforcing that Tehran’s nuclear activities—so long as they remain under IAEA oversight—build multipolar deterrence. Pakistan, for its part, condemned the Israeli strikes as violations of international law, extending diplomatic backing to Tehrān’s sovereignty. Both states positioned themselves as principled defenders of NPT norms and condemned Western unilateralism. Their diplomatic coordination in the UNSC prevented a proposed resolution condemning Iran, revealing a strategic bloc aligned against Israeli-American adventurism. This post-June 2025 confrontation underscores the systemic role Iran now plays as a regional balancer and as a shield state for Russian and Pakistani interests. Israel’s strikes, while tactically disruptive, have only strengthened Iran’s cohesion with its nuclear patrons. This episode, and the ongoing reciprocal attacks, demonstrate the structural logic of nuclear deterrence and alliance formation in a shifting Eurasian security order.

---

By 2025, Iran’s nuclear journey—from Bushehr to near-threshold enrichment—has been shaped by NPT frameworks, IAEA verifications, A‑Q Khan network influences, Korean divergence, and Pakistan and Russia’s strategic patronage. Each Pakistani leader—Musharraf, Zardari, Hussain, Alvi—navigated the balance between Western pressure and regional imperatives, enabling Iran’s nuclear maturation. Putin’s realpolitik has ensured Iran remains diplomatically armored and technologically capable, disrupting Western monopoly in nuclear governance. As Israel’s military actions intensify, Iran’s nuclear resilience and alliance with Moscow and Islamabad become national insurance. The structural realist understanding—that a nuclear-armed Iran stabilises by deterring rather than provoking aggression—anchors this nexus. The cumulative effect of these state-level and network dynamics is an entrenched regional deterrent complex, challenging decades of Western hegemony. Even amid warfighting and sanctions, the Iran–Pakistan–Russia alliance remains coherently rational within a realist worldview. Their collective posture foreshadows a Middle Eastern order predicated on multilateral nuclear deterrence and Eurasian strategic autonomy.