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 : Capitalism, at its core, is a system built on freedom—the freedom to compete, to innovate, and to accumulate wealth without an upper limit imposed by the state. In a free-market economy, every individual has the right to amass as much wealth as talent, timing, risk-taking, and opportunity allow. Nowhere is this reality more visible than in the United States, where capitalism has produced astonishing prosperity alongside extreme concentration of wealth.
The scale of that concentration is often difficult to comprehend. The combined wealth of America’s ten richest individuals rivals—or exceeds—the total economic output of many developing nations, and is comparable to the GDP of more than a dozen smaller countries combined. At the same time, that wealth equals the collective net worth of tens of millions of ordinary Americans. This stark imbalance is frequently cited as evidence of capitalism’s moral failure. Yet this is only half the story.
History shows that capitalism is not merely a machine for accumulation; it is also a system that, at its most mature stage, often turns inward—forcing its greatest beneficiaries to confront uncomfortable questions about meaning, legacy, and responsibility.
As individuals approach the latter stages of life, a realization dawns with growing clarity: none of the wealth accumulated over decades can be carried beyond death. At that moment, capital—once a symbol of power, success, and security—becomes a burden unless it is transformed into purpose. It is here that capitalism, paradoxically, often produces its most noble outcomes.
The United States has seen this pattern repeatedly. Bill and Melinda Gates created one of the world’s most influential philanthropic foundations, targeting global health, education, poverty reduction, and disease eradication. Their work has saved millions of lives, empowered small entrepreneurs, and altered the trajectory of entire societies. This was not the rejection of capitalism, but its final evolution—capital redirected from accumulation to social investment.
Now, a new and potentially transformative chapter is being written.
Michael and Susan Dell have pledged an extraordinary sum—approximately $6.2 billion—toward an initiative designed to fundamentally alter the financial starting point of American children. The vision is both simple and radical: to open an investment account for every child born between 2025 and 2028, seeded at birth and invested in broad-based index funds. By the time a child reaches adulthood, this account could exceed $100,000, usable for higher education, home ownership, or launching a business. If left untouched until mid-adulthood, the value could rise several-fold—potentially surpassing $700,000.
This is not a handout in the conventional sense. It is not welfare, nor is it consumption-driven assistance. It is capital formation—distributed at birth.
What makes this initiative particularly striking is its momentum. Following the Dell announcement, other philanthropists and corporate beneficiaries of the American capitalist system have begun making similar pledges. What began as a single act of generosity is rapidly evolving into a movement—one that channels private wealth into a nationwide social investment framework.
If implemented at scale, the implications are profound.
For millions of families—rich and poor alike—the crushing financial anxiety associated with raising children could be dramatically reduced. Parents struggle to fund education, navigate healthcare costs, support young adults through early adulthood, and prepare children for a competitive world. This initiative shifts part of that burden from households to a class of individuals who benefited most from the system itself.
In effect, capitalism would be financing its own social correction.
Children who once would have been locked out of higher education due to lack of funds could now pursue academic excellence without lifelong debt. Young adults could start businesses without mortgaging their future. Families could enter marriage and parenthood with financial resilience rather than fear. Emergencies—medical, economic, or personal—could be met without catastrophic consequences.
From a macroeconomic perspective, this is seed capital for the nation itself. Millions of small endowments compounding over decades would translate into higher productivity, increased entrepreneurship, and greater social stability. In theory, it is a virtuous cycle: wealth creates opportunity; opportunity creates productivity; productivity sustains growth.
Yet for all its promise, this intervention raises a question that must not be ignored.
Struggle has always been a powerful engine of human development. Scarcity forces creativity. Hardship cultivates resilience. The absence of safety nets often compels individuals to innovate, persevere, and build character through adversity. Many of history’s most successful entrepreneurs, thinkers, and leaders were forged in environments of constraint rather than comfort.
This initiative introduces an unprecedented level of financial security at birth. While it removes destructive poverty, it may also reduce the constructive pressure that fuels ambition. The concern is not whether children will become lazy—an oversimplification—but whether the psychological edge that comes from necessity will be blunted. Will guaranteed capital reduce risk-taking, or will it empower smarter risk-taking? Will it foster entrepreneurship, or dilute hunger?
These are not ideological questions; they are empirical ones.
Before such an intervention is expanded nationwide, rigorous longitudinal studies must be conducted. Policymakers, economists, behavioral scientists, and educators must examine whether early financial security enhances productivity or dampens drive. The effects may differ across communities, cultures, and income brackets. The same intervention that liberates one child may unintentionally limit another.
The stakes are enormous. This is not a pilot program affecting thousands; it is a structural change that could shape the character of an entire generation.
And yet, despite these uncertainties, one truth remains undeniable.
Capitalism, when left to accumulate unchecked, produces inequality. But when its greatest beneficiaries consciously redirect wealth toward collective uplift, it can also produce social renewal on a scale no state-driven redistribution has ever achieved. What is unfolding in the United States today is not the abandonment of capitalism—it is its moral maturation.
The wealthy are not being coerced. They are volunteering. The system is not being dismantled; it is being refined. Wealth earned through free markets is returning to society not as charity alone, but as structured opportunity—invested in the future rather than consumed in the present.
America’s greatness has always rested on its ability to reinvent itself without destroying its foundations. If this initiative succeeds, it may stand as one of the most consequential innovations in social policy—not imposed by government fiat, but enabled by private conscience.
Whether it becomes a triumph or a cautionary tale depends on one thing: the willingness to study its impact honestly before scaling it irrevocably.
Capitalism has planted the seed.
Wisdom must decide how it grows.

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.