Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : During a White House Hanukkah celebration on December 16, 2025, President Donald Trump made a startling declaration about the Golan Heights, openly revisiting his 2019 decision to recognize Israeli sovereignty over territory internationally acknowledged as Syrian land occupied by Israel during the 1967 war. Trump boasted that no previous American president had dared take such a step, portraying his action as bold, swift, and unconstrained by diplomatic caution. He framed the recognition not as a complex legal judgment but as an act of personal resolve, reducing decades of international dispute to a matter he claimed required only minutes to decide.
Trump described the decision making process with casual bravado, saying he asked then United States Ambassador to Israel David Friedman to explain the importance of the Golan Heights in five minutes or less. According to Trump, he interrupted after barely two minutes, declared that he understood everything necessary, and proceeded to approve recognition immediately. He joked that the land was worth trillions of dollars and remarked that he should have asked Israel for something in return. The remarks transformed a grave issue of sovereignty, occupation, and war into an anecdote of impulsive executive authority with profound geopolitical consequences worldwide today.
Trump used the occasion to reaffirm his broader alignment with Israel and the Jewish community, listing what he described as historic achievements of his presidency. He cited moving the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, backing the Abraham Accords, and withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement negotiated under President Barack Obama. According to Trump, that deal endangered regional security rather than containing Iran. He framed each policy as evidence of loyalty, friendship, and moral clarity, repeatedly portraying himself as the most reliable ally Israel has ever had in Washington during modern United States political history overall period today.
He also spoke at length about his personal connections with Jewish Americans, recalling childhood interactions through his father and emphasizing long standing familiarity rather than political calculation. He referenced his daughter Ivanka Trump’s conversion to Judaism after marrying Jared Kushner as further proof of closeness, though he avoided addressing persistent rumors about his own religious affiliation. These remarks blended personal narrative with state policy, reinforcing the impression that national decisions affecting millions were shaped through intimacy, sentiment, and loyalty rather than institutional deliberation or international legal frameworks governing norms, accountability, restraint, balance, precedent, credibility, neutrality, consistency, legitimacy, stability, justice globally.
The most revealing segment of Trump’s speech came when he warned that Congress and the Senate were becoming increasingly antisemitic, claiming that traditional pro Israel influence in Washington was fading. He described this shift as dangerous and urged greater vigilance from supporters. The statement was remarkable, amounting to a rare acknowledgment that even within American political institutions discomfort with Israel’s conduct is growing. Yet the warning also functioned as pressure, implying that loyalty to Israel should remain a litmus test for legitimacy within United States politics despite constitutional pluralism, debate, dissent, oversight, accountability, ethics, law, values, representation, balance, restraint, democracy.
Despite Trump’s claims of declining support, Israel continues to enjoy unparalleled diplomatic, military, and financial backing from the United States. Washington has repeatedly used its veto power at the United Nations to shield Israel from accountability, even when resolutions condemning occupation or settlement expansion enjoy overwhelming global support. This posture places the United States above the rules it demands others obey, undermining the credibility of the international system it helped construct. Trump’s rhetoric thus exposed a contradiction between professed grievance and actual power exercised globally, institutionally, strategically, consistently, decisively, coercively, selectively, visibly, persistently, controversially, openly, repeatedly, internationally, historically, forcefully today.
Trump’s conduct cannot be examined in isolation from regional realities. Several Muslim majority states have normalized relations with Israel, expanded trade, and entered energy partnerships even as Gaza suffers devastation. Egypt’s multibillion dollar gas agreements with Israel inject revenue into the Israeli economy during ongoing military campaigns. These arrangements are celebrated publicly, while Palestinian suffering continues largely unchecked. Such actions weaken moral criticism of Washington, revealing a regional order where economic interests and regime security override solidarity with Palestine principles, law, justice, humanity, ethics, responsibility, restraint, accountability, credibility, consistency, conscience, leadership, courage, unity, vision, balance, resolve, purpose, fairness, legitimacy, peace.
Reports of military logistics and arms transfers passing through or involving regional actors have further deepened perceptions of complicity. Whether fully substantiated or not, these allegations reinforce a widespread belief that Palestinian blood is discounted in exchange for alliances and profits. In such a context, outrage directed solely at Trump or the United States appears selective and incomplete. Power is sustained not only by those who wield it, but also by those who enable it through silence, cooperation, and convenience across borders, systems, institutions, markets, governments, cultures, alliances, blocs, regions, conflicts, wars, crises, decades, generations, history, memory, politics, morality globally.
Trump’s long promised Middle East peace initiative has effectively collapsed. The proposed international mechanisms to stabilize Gaza were never implemented, ceasefire enforcement remained absent, and settlement expansion continued unabated. Gaza remains devastated, its civilian population displaced and deprived, while accountability mechanisms remain paralyzed. The peace plan functioned less as a pathway to justice than as a political diversion, shifting attention while irreversible facts were imposed on the ground with minimal resistance from global media, institutions, publics, diplomacy, negotiations, law, norms, enforcement, conscience, outrage, empathy, solidarity, responsibility, leadership, resolve, courage, action, urgency, intervention, accountability, fairness, balance, restraint, morality, humanity, peace, justice.
In this light, Trump’s Hanukkah speech read less as celebration than confession. It revealed a worldview where power overrides principle, alliances eclipse law, and suffering becomes collateral. It also exposed the shared responsibility of Western governments and Muslim states that have tolerated, financed, or normalized this order. Condemning Trump alone is therefore insufficient. He acted openly, but he was enabled by a broader system unwilling to enforce its own rules or defend a truly universal standard of justice grounded in law, equality, sovereignty, dignity, humanity, restraint, accountability, consistency, legitimacy, balance, peace, order, ethics, norms, responsibility, credibility, fairness, stability, conscience globally.
If peace and justice are to mean anything, the Muslim world must confront its own contradictions. It cannot decry occupation while financing its beneficiary, nor invoke international law selectively. Trump’s words should be read as a mirror, reflecting the erosion of norms and collective failure to resist it. Until regional actors withdraw complicity and demand accountability consistently, Palestine will remain abandoned, international law weakened, and power unrestrained. Moral authority cannot be outsourced; it must be practiced through courage, sacrifice, and principled consistency rooted in justice, dignity, humanity, solidarity, responsibility, leadership, restraint, ethics, law, balance, fairness, credibility, legitimacy, peace, stability universally.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : Gunboats, Oil, and the Illusion of Control: Why Trump’s Naval Embargo on Venezuela Risks Repeating History
President Donald Trump’s decision to impose a naval embargo on sanctioned Venezuelan oil tankers marks one of the most dramatic escalations in U.S.–Latin America relations in decades. Framed as a national-security response to drug trafficking—after the administration classified fentanyl and its precursors as “weapons of mass destruction” through an executive order—the move signals a fundamental shift: from counter-narcotics cooperation to maritime coercion. While officially described as a limited action targeting sanctioned vessels, the practical effect resembles a partial blockade, carrying economic, geopolitical, and humanitarian consequences far beyond its stated purpose.
Had the United States extended this naval action to all Venezuelan shipping, it would have amounted to a de facto declaration of war. Even in its current form, the message is unmistakable: Washington is prepared to use sea power to choke Venezuela’s primary economic lifeline—oil exports—under the banner of law enforcement. Caracas, unsurprisingly, responded by ordering its navy to escort oil tankers through territorial and international waters, asserting sovereignty through symbolism rather than strength. The imbalance is stark. Venezuela’s modest naval capabilities—largely coastal patrol vessels and a handful of aging combatants—cannot be meaningfully compared to the global reach of the U.S. Navy, with its aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, destroyers, and unmatched logistical infrastructure. The escort order is not about deterrence; it is about dignity and survival.
The real battlefield, however, is not the Caribbean Sea but the global energy market. In late 2025, Venezuela was exporting roughly 900,000 barrels of oil per day—its highest level in years after partial sanctions relief and creative logistics. Around 70 to 80 percent of this oil moved through a shadow fleet: aging tankers, opaque ownership structures, ship-to-ship transfers, and insurance arrangements designed to bypass sanctions. U.S. enforcement has now focused precisely on this network. More than 30 tankers operating around Venezuelan waters are already sanctioned, and the fear of seizure has caused many loaded vessels to remain anchored, unable—or unwilling—to sail.
This paralysis matters. If even two-thirds of Venezuela’s exports are disrupted, roughly 600,000 barrels per day could be removed from the global market. On paper, that represents less than one percent of global supply. In reality, oil prices are driven not by averages but by expectations and risk premiums. Markets respond sharply to uncertainty, especially when shipping routes become contested. Even modest disruptions can trigger disproportionate price movements, particularly for vulnerable import-dependent economies. A sustained squeeze could force Venezuela to shut in production due to storage constraints, turning a logistical problem into a structural collapse.
The consequences would not stop at oil prices. Venezuela’s economy remains overwhelmingly dependent on crude exports. Further strangulation of this sector would reduce state revenues, weaken the currency, worsen inflation, and deepen shortages of food and medicine. The burden would fall not on political elites but on ordinary citizens already exhausted by years of crisis. And history offers a grim forecast: economic collapse fuels migration. Venezuela has already produced one of the largest displacement crises in modern history, with nearly eight million people leaving the country over the past decade. Another severe shock could push hundreds of thousands more onto regional migration routes—first into neighboring states, then northward toward the United States.
Ironically, the very policy justified as a defense of American security may intensify pressures on U.S. borders. Colombia, already hosting millions of Venezuelan migrants, lacks the capacity to absorb another wave without destabilization. Other regional economies, strained by inflation and debt, would struggle as well. Migration does not occur in isolation; it cascades. When one country collapses, the shock ripples across continents.
Geopolitically, the naval embargo also accelerates Venezuela’s alignment with U.S. rivals. Russia and China have already condemned the move, framing it as a violation of sovereignty and maritime norms. While neither is likely to engage militarily, diplomatic, financial, and logistical support to Caracas could deepen, transforming Venezuela into another node in a growing network of states resisting U.S. pressure. Even traditional U.S. partners are uneasy. Canada and several Latin American countries, themselves affected by trade disputes and tariffs, see the normalization of gunboat diplomacy as a dangerous precedent. Rather than strengthening alliances, Washington risks reinforcing the perception that it creates more enemies than partners.
This raises a fundamental question: does maritime coercion actually reduce drug trafficking into the United States? Evidence suggests otherwise. The narcotics trade is demand-driven. As long as millions of Americans consume cocaine, fentanyl, and other drugs, suppliers will find routes—by sea, land, air, or digital networks. Interdiction may raise prices temporarily, but it rarely eliminates supply. Instead, it increases profitability, incentivizing smugglers to innovate and diversify. Destroy one corridor, and another emerges.
The United States has alternatives—more effective, less destructive, and more humane. The first is demand reduction. Large-scale investment in prevention, education, and treatment can shrink the market that fuels trafficking. Decades of research show that rehabilitation and public-health approaches are more cost-effective in reducing drug use than interdiction alone. Recent declines in overdose deaths, though fragile, demonstrate that progress is possible without militarization.
The second option is dismantling domestic trafficking infrastructure. Drugs do not distribute themselves. They rely on financial networks, logistics hubs, corrupt intermediaries, and money-laundering systems operating within U.S. borders. Aggressive enforcement against these networks—combined with financial transparency and asset seizures—would strike at the heart of the trade without destabilizing foreign societies.
The third is smarter border security integrated with humanitarian policy. Borders can be controlled without turning neighboring countries into failed states. Technology, intelligence sharing, and legal migration pathways reduce chaos far more effectively than economic strangulation abroad.
By contrast, collapsing Venezuela’s economy would likely increase, not decrease, drug flows over time. Unemployment and desperation are fertile ground for illicit activity. When formal economies implode, informal and criminal ones expand. Smuggling becomes not just profitable but necessary for survival. The result is a vicious cycle: sanctions breed collapse, collapse breeds crime, crime justifies further sanctions.
At its core, the naval embargo reflects an old reflex dressed in new language. The rhetoric has changed—from communism to drugs, from ideology to security—but the method remains coercion. History warns where this path leads. Iraq was once sanctioned into ruin in the name of global safety; the outcome was regional instability, humanitarian catastrophe, and long-term insecurity.
Sovereignty is not a privilege reserved for powerful states. Small and weak nations possess it as well, along with the right to economic survival. Using drug smuggling as a pretext to weaponize hunger, unemployment, and migration risks undermining the very international order the United States claims to defend.
If Washington’s objective is fewer drugs, fewer refugees, and a safer hemisphere, it must look inward as much as outward. Gunboats can seize tankers, but they cannot cure addiction. Blockades can choke economies, but they cannot build stability. Real security lies not in dominating seas, but in addressing the human systems—demand, inequality, governance—that drive crisis in the first place.
The choice before the United States is not between strength and weakness, but between wisdom and repetition. History is watching.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : The doctrine of preventive and pre-emptive strike, once defended as a tool to neutralize danger, has instead evolved into one of the most destabilizing forces of the modern era. It was misused in Iraq, misapplied in Afghanistan, refined by Israel across the Middle East, and has now begun reshaping U.S. policy in the Western Hemisphere with dangerous momentum. A strategy designed to stop future conflict is in reality manufacturing perpetual instability, radicalization, and blowback that reaches far beyond the battlefield. Today it resurfaces in Venezuela and Colombia, where U.S. kinetic actions mirror the same flawed logic that once plunged entire regions into chaos.
Washington now accuses Venezuela’s leadership of facilitating narcotics trafficking—including fentanyl, cocaine, heroin, and synthetic opioids—into the United States. Acting on these claims, U.S. forces have destroyed 21 Venezuelan maritime vessels, including a mini-submarine, multiple fishing boats, and coastal carriers allegedly tied to smuggling networks. Venezuela has condemned these strikes as “acts of war,” and nationwide protests demand retaliation. As naval deployments increase and rhetoric hardens, the region inches toward confrontation.
Colombia faces parallel pressure. American intelligence asserts that Colombian networks have expanded trafficking corridors and that the government has not done enough to stop them. In response, U.S. forces have conducted over 50 targeted seizure-and-destruction missions against Colombian-linked maritime and aerial assets. Colombia’s leadership has called these actions coercive violations of sovereignty, warning that repeated strikes “may compel defensive measures.” In both nations, U.S. interdictions are no longer viewed as anti-drug operations but as the early stages of a pre-emptive war doctrine extending into sovereign territory.
This rapid escalation is not new. It mirrors the same pattern witnessed in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, where preventive-strike logic produced catastrophic long-term consequences. After the 2003 Iraq invasion—justified by fabricated claims of weapons of mass destruction—extremist movements multiplied. The world soon witnessed the Madrid bombings of 2004 (193 killed), London bombings of 2005 (52 killed), Paris attacks of 2015 (130 killed), Brussels bombings of 2016 (32 killed), and the Nice massacre (86 killed). These were not isolated tragedies. They were the direct blowback of destabilizing entire societies under the banner of preventive security.
The United States has suffered its own share of domestic consequences. The Boston Marathon bombing, the Orlando nightclub massacre, the San Bernardino attack, and the Fort Hood shooting all emerged from radicalization fueled by wars that inflamed emotions, grievances, and ideological anger across continents. Western intelligence agencies acknowledged that the Iraq War accelerated global extremism more than any single event since World War II.
This pattern continued recently with the fatal shooting of a U.S. National Guard soldier and the wounding of another by an armed gunman who, according to initial assessments, carried deep personal grievances and emotional wounds closely tied to broader social and psychological turmoil. His act, though individual in execution, reflects a growing trend: internal radicalization born not only from ideology but from a society increasingly shaped by violence abroad and polarization at home.
When nations normalize pre-emptive violence externally, elements within their own society begin to internalize the same logic—that grievance can justify aggression, that perceived threats demand immediate force, and that violence is a legitimate expression of injury. This tragedy is a domestic echo of a doctrine whose psychological fractures now reach into American neighborhoods and military families.
These external and internal patterns converge with a new and overlooked threat: America’s own criminal ecosystem, which is deeply intertwined with the consequences of its foreign and domestic policies. According to law-enforcement estimates, there are approximately 172,000 cartel-affiliated and illegal-gang operatives inside the United States, embedded in trafficking, distribution, logistics, and underground financial networks. If aggressive external crackdowns in Venezuela and Colombia disrupt these supply chains, tens of thousands of operatives inside the United States will suddenly lose their income, hierarchy, and criminal ecosystems.
History shows that men trained in covert movement, armed logistics, intimidation, and criminal coordination rarely retire when their networks collapse. Some may reintegrate into society, but many—dispossessed, angry, and stripped of status—may evolve into more violent, unpredictable actors. A displaced criminal workforce of 172,000 individuals, skilled in violence and trafficking, represents a potential flashpoint for domestic terrorism far greater than the maritime vessels destroyed abroad. Without rehabilitation, education, economic inclusion, and cultural transformation, enforcement alone may ignite a domestic insurgency that grows silently inside American borders.
Meanwhile, abroad, the preventive doctrine continues generating diplomatic and strategic losses. Israel’s long-term reliance on pre-emptive strikes has led to unprecedented isolation from Europe, legal indictments, suspended arms transfers, and deep economic damage. Its military strength remains intact, but its global legitimacy has deteriorated. The United States is experiencing similar erosion. At the United Nations, America increasingly stands alone defending actions viewed internationally as violations of sovereignty. Allies abstain rather than stand with Washington. Latin American anger intensifies as U.S. forces strike vessels and aircraft in waters they consider their own.
If left unchecked, these actions could fracture hemispheric relations for decades. A region historically tied to the United States may transform into a zone of resistance and asymmetric retaliation. Every destroyed boat, every violated border, every wounded soldier, every act of internal violence becomes part of a growing web of instability linking foreign miscalculations with domestic consequences.
A sustainable solution requires more than interdictions, seizures, or kinetic displays. Preventive violence cannot cure the social, economic, and cultural conditions that fuel crime and extremism. Real security emerges from deeper reforms—education, opportunity, community rebuilding, regional cooperation, and domestic social healing. Without addressing underlying fractures, the United States risks creating the very threats it seeks to eliminate, both abroad and within its borders.
The world must move toward outlawing preventive and pre-emptive strikes. Nations that violate sovereignty must face automatic, impartial economic and diplomatic consequences enforced by mechanisms beyond the reach of political manipulation.
Humanity cannot afford another Iraq, another Libya, another Syria—or a Venezuelan and Colombian conflict born from speculative intelligence and unilateral force. Nor can the United States afford more tragedies like the killing of its own National Guard soldier at the hands of a deeply wounded man shaped by a fractured national psyche.
Pre-emptive doctrine does not provide safety. It creates destruction, resentment, and internal instability. Only when nations reject the impulse to strike first and invest instead in long-term social transformation—at home and abroad—will the world begin to heal from the damage this doctrine has unleashed.