Connect with us

Pakistan News

Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded

Published

on

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 : Geopolitics has never been governed by sentiment. Not religion, not shared history, not cultural brotherhood—only interests. The unfolding realignments across South Asia and the Middle East illustrate this truth with striking clarity. Alliances are shifting, rivalries are recalibrating, and Pakistan finds itself increasingly positioned at the intersection of competing strategic designs.
The roots of today’s complexity stretch back to 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Pakistan became the frontline state in a U.S.-backed campaign to counter Moscow. Billions of dollars in American and Saudi assistance flowed through intelligence networks to arm and train Afghan fighters. The mobilization of religious ideology was not incidental—it was strategic. Fighters from across the Muslim world converged in Afghanistan. By 1989, the Soviet withdrawal marked a Cold War victory for Washington and its partners.
But militant infrastructures rarely dissolve once their immediate utility ends. The Taliban emerged in the 1990s from the ashes of war, establishing control over Kabul in 1996. Pakistan was among the few nations to recognize their regime. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the same Taliban became the primary target of American military intervention. The subsequent 20-year war cost over $2 trillion and claimed more than 170,000 lives before the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021.
The Taliban’s return to power reshaped the region yet again. Instead of ushering in stability for Pakistan, however, cross-border militancy intensified. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), operating from Afghan soil, escalated attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Islamabad responded with cross-border airstrikes against militant sanctuaries. While tactically decisive, these actions strained relations with Kabul and risked civilian backlash.
Instead, Pakistan with its deep intelligence roots in Afghanistan, had the option to adopt the same tactics which Afghanistan is using by infiltrating Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan and killing innocent people mostly by detonating human bombs in Mosque. This could have been a more discrete way to weed out the menace of TTP. History suggests that purely kinetic responses can produce unintended strategic consequences. Airstrikes may eliminate immediate threats, but they can also deepen mistrust and create diplomatic openings for rival powers.
In geopolitics, tactical victories can sometimes yield strategic setbacks. By intensifying overt military pressure, Islamabad may have inadvertently accelerated Kabul’s search for diversified partnerships.
That diversification is perhaps the most striking development. The Taliban government, ideologically committed to Islamic governance, has increasingly explored diplomatic and economic engagement beyond traditional Islamic partners. India reopened diplomatic channels in Kabul and expanded humanitarian assistance. Israel has pledged billions of dollars of aid to Kabul in alignment with India. This is a profound geopolitical entanglement: an Islamic Emirate seeking expanded engagement with a Hindu-majority India and a Jewish-majority Israel, even as tensions simmer with neighboring Muslim Pakistan.
This underscores a fundamental principle of realpolitik: states pursue survival and leverage, not theological alignment. Religious brotherhood and shared culture matter, but only when they coincide with national interest calculations. Facing economic collapse, frozen reserves, and diplomatic isolation, Kabul seeks diversification. India offers infrastructure and access. Israel offers technological cooperation and strategic outreach. Ideology yields to necessity.
For Pakistan, however, the optics intensify concerns of encirclement. On its eastern border, India remains a strategic competitor, particularly over Kashmir. On its western frontier now stands an Afghanistan willing to engage Islamabad’s rivals. To the southwest lies Iran, itself navigating tense relations with the United States. This evolving geometry fuels perceptions of a tightening strategic ring.
An additional dimension complicates matters further: Bagram Airbase. During the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, Bagram served as the largest American military installation in the country, with dual runways capable of handling heavy aircraft and advanced surveillance platforms. Its geographic location—approximately 500 kilometers from China’s Xinjiang region—made it strategically significant.
U.S. President Donald Trump publicly criticized the abandonment of Bagram in 2021, arguing that retaining the base would have preserved American leverage, particularly in the context of intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. Bagram’s proximity to Central Asia, Iran, and western China positions it as more than a counterterrorism platform—it is a potential springboard in great-power competition.
While direct American military reentry into Afghanistan appears unlikely in the near term, evolving regional alignments could create indirect pathways of influence. The strengthening of India’s presence in Kabul, combined with Israel’s strategic engagement in broader Asian geopolitics, introduces analytical possibilities. Washington maintains deep defense partnerships with both New Delhi and Tel Aviv. If Afghanistan continues diversifying toward these actors, space may gradually reopen for U.S. strategic leverage—without formal troop deployments.
Interestingly, geopolitics often unfolds through indirect channels. For Washington, containing China remains a central strategic priority. For India, Afghanistan offers westward strategic depth. For Israel, expanded regional engagement broadens diplomatic influence. For Kabul, diversified partnerships reduce isolation. For Pakistan, however, these convergences heighten strategic anxiety.
For Israel, extending its engagement with Kabul through India would provide a strategic foothold in South Asia and enhance its capacity to deter Pakistan from aligning with Turkey and Saudi Arabia in any configuration perceived as intimidating to Israel. Such cooperation could be viewed as a counterweight to a potential alignment involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and nuclear-armed Pakistan, which some analysts argue might aim to exert strategic pressure or encirclement against Israel.
Simultaneously, the Persian Gulf remains heavily militarized. The U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain deploys advanced naval assets, while Iran has invested in ballistic missiles, drones, and anti-ship systems designed to offset conventional asymmetry. China, importing substantial Gulf energy supplies, and Russia, expanding ties with Tehran, both observe carefully.
Any escalation between Washington and Tehran would reverberate in Pakistan. The country already hosts approximately 1.3 million registered Afghan refugees. A major Iran conflict could trigger further displacement, compounding economic strain amid IMF-backed reforms and domestic political polarization.
Internally, Pakistan faces political turbulence, including debates surrounding the incarceration of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and federal-provincial tensions. External pressure combined with internal division magnifies vulnerability.
Yet one broader truth emerges from this complex web: strategic encirclement is not solely a product of adversarial design. It can also arise from miscalculation, overreliance on hard power, and insufficient diplomatic agility. States that rely exclusively on military tools risk narrowing their strategic options.
This is a defining moment. Great-power rivalry, regional insecurity, and ideological contradictions intersect at fragile fault lines. Afghanistan’s outreach beyond traditional religious alignments demonstrates the primacy of interest over identity. Bagram symbolizes the enduring shadow of great-power competition. India and Israel’s evolving engagement in Kabul reflects the fluidity of modern alliances.
But history offers a sobering lesson. From the Soviet-Afghan war to the U.S. intervention, military campaigns have reshaped borders without resolving deeper grievances. Stability requires not merely deterrence but diplomacy.
Encirclement strategies may promise leverage. Hybrid doctrines may promise precision. Yet sustainable security demands cooperation grounded in mutual recognition of vulnerabilities.
Geopolitics may be ruthless in its calculations, but peace remains the only enduring strategic victory.

Pakistan News

Pakistan and the Trillion-Dollar Peace Dividend

Published

on

By

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 : At a moment when the world stood dangerously close to a wider regional inferno, Pakistan has emerged not merely as a bystander, but as one of the few states able to talk to all sides and keep diplomacy alive. As of April 15, 2026, there is still no final U.S.-Iran agreement, and no official ceasefire extension has been publicly confirmed. But Washington says fresh talks may happen in Pakistan within days, President Trump is signaling optimism, Pakistan’s military chief has been in Tehran, and regional diplomacy is now visibly revolving around Pakistani mediation. That alone marks a dramatic shift in Pakistan’s standing in the current geopolitical crisis.
The facts matter. The first 21-hour round of talks in Islamabad ended without a deal, with Vice President JD Vance saying Iran had not accepted core U.S. demands, especially on the nuclear issue. Yet Pakistan did not walk away after that setback. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly said Pakistan’s “full effort” remained focused on ending the conflict, while Field Marshal Asim Munir traveled to Tehran in an attempt to narrow differences before the ceasefire expires. That is the real significance of Pakistan’s role: not that it solved the war in one stroke, but that it kept open the only serious diplomatic corridor after formal negotiations collapsed.
This matters because the war’s costs are no longer theoretical. The conflict that began on February 28 has already killed more than 5,000 people across the region. The repair costs to damaged energy infrastructure alone may reach as high as $58 billion. The Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of global oil and LNG normally passes, remains the central choke point in the conflict. Even after the April 8 ceasefire, traffic through Hormuz had at one stage fallen to less than 10% of normal, while ships and crews remained trapped and insurers, traders and governments braced for a prolonged shock.
That is why Pakistan’s diplomatic intervention should be understood not only in moral or political terms, but in financial ones. No government or international institution has yet issued an official dollar figure for what Pakistan has “saved.” Still, scenario-based calculations grounded in World Bank, IMF and Reuters reporting suggest that if Pakistan’s mediation helps convert the fragile ceasefire into a durable settlement, the avoided losses could plausibly run from the high hundreds of billions into the low trillions. This is not propaganda; it is what the macroeconomic numbers imply.
Start with global growth. The IMF cut its 2026 global growth forecast to 3.1% because of the war and warned that, in a severe scenario, growth could fall to 2.0%. The World Bank separately warned that even in a best case the war could shave 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points off global growth, and as much as 1 point in a prolonged conflict. WTTC data showing global travel and tourism alone contributed $11.7 trillion in 2025, equal to 10.3% of global GDP, implying a world economy of roughly $113.6 trillion. On that basis, preventing a 0.3–0.4 point hit means protecting roughly $341 billion to $454 billion of global output. Preventing a 1-point hit protects about $1.14 trillion. Preventing the IMF’s 1.1-point slide from 3.1% to 2.0% implies roughly $1.25 trillion in avoided output loss.
And that is only the macro layer. Add the already-estimated $58 billion energy repair bill, the IMF’s warning that more than a dozen countries may need $20 billion to $50 billion in support, the World Bank’s preparedness to mobilize $80 billion to $100 billion for war-hit economies, and the UNDP estimate that just $6 billion in emergency support could keep 32 million people from falling into poverty due to the war-driven energy shock. Even before counting military fuel, munitions, deployment costs, higher insurance, rerouted shipping, lost industrial output and inflation spillovers, the visible tally of avoided or containable damage quickly rises into the hundreds of billions.
Markets themselves are already pricing the value of diplomacy. Gulf stock markets rising on renewed hopes of U.S.-Iran talks, while Wall Street pushed to record highs as investors bet the worst might be avoided. Brent crude, though still elevated, has pulled back from the panic zone above $100 and hovered around $95 on April 15 as traders responded to the possibility of renewed negotiations. Eleven finance ministers meeting around the IMF-World Bank spring meetings called for full implementation of the ceasefire, warning that even if the shooting stops, the economic aftershocks on inflation, growth and debt will linger. That is the clearest evidence that diplomacy is not a symbolic exercise; it is already functioning as a stabilizing economic asset.
Pakistan’s importance in this crisis is therefore not accidental. It has managed to present itself as credible to Washington, acceptable to Tehran, relevant to Gulf capitals and increasingly necessary to wider regional diplomacy that now also involves Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. President Erdogan has openly referenced Pakistan’s mediator role, while the White House has acknowledged Pakistan as the likely venue for the next round. In a fractured region where many actors are aligned too heavily with one bloc or another, Pakistan’s value lies in being politically connected, militarily serious, diplomatically flexible and geographically impossible to ignore.
Still, the argument must remain grounded. Pakistan has not yet “saved the world” in any final sense, because the war is not formally over, the Hormuz issue is unresolved, Lebanon remains volatile, and the hardest questions — nuclear verification, sanctions, shipping access and war damages — are still on the table. The IAEA chief has warned that any real settlement will require detailed inspections, and Reuters says U.S. economic pressure on Iran is still intensifying even while diplomacy continues. So the credit Pakistan deserves today is not for a completed peace, but for preventing diplomatic collapse and preserving the one path that could still save the region from a second explosion.
If the second round succeeds, Pakistan’s diplomatic dividend will be immense. It will not simply have hosted talks; it will have helped prevent a wider energy shock, a deeper inflation spiral, further destruction across Iran and the region, and perhaps a global recession. In scenario terms, that would place Pakistan’s peace dividend somewhere between roughly $341 billion and $1.25 trillion in avoided world output loss, before adding infrastructure, humanitarian and fiscal savings. For a country long described as fragile, indebted and peripheral, that would be a stunning reversal. Pakistan may still be economically constrained, but in this crisis it has demonstrated something rarer than wealth: strategic usefulness. And in the modern world order, the country that can stop a war may matter more than the country that can afford one.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan’s Peace Window Reopens

Published

on

By

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 : After a tense pause in talks between Iran and the United States held in Islamabad on April 11, and to the relief of the entire world, diplomacy has not died; it has simply entered a more difficult and consequential phase, with Pakistan once again emerging as the venue where war-weary rivals may still search for an exit.
The collapse of the first round of direct U.S.-Iran talks in Pakistan did not end diplomacy. It exposed how far apart the two sides still are, but it also showed that both Washington and Tehran believe the crisis is too dangerous to leave to military logic alone. On April 14, President Donald Trump said a second round of talks in Pakistan could happen “over the next two days,” while U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres called it “highly probable” that negotiations would restart. Pakistan’s finance minister, Muhammad Aurangzeb, also said the country’s leadership was “not giving up” and would keep pursuing dialogue.
That is the real story of the moment. The first session in Islamabad may have ended without a deal, but it was not a diplomatic failure in the larger sense. Vice President JD Vance himself struck a more optimistic tone on April 14, saying negotiators had made “a ton of progress,” that Iranian negotiators appeared to want a deal, and that he felt “very good” about where things stood. That is a very different message from a final rupture. It suggests the breakdown was procedural and substantive, not terminal. The gap remains wide, especially over enrichment, inspections, and access, but the process is alive.
Pakistan’s importance has therefore grown rather than diminished. It hosted the first direct U.S.-Iran discussion in nearly half a century, won public praise from Guterres, and is now being openly discussed again as the venue for the next round. In diplomacy, trust is measured less by ceremony than by repetition. If two adversaries return to the same table in the same country after a failed first round, that country has already scored a quiet but significant success. Pakistan’s role is no longer symbolic; it is becoming operational.
The reason the world cares so intensely is obvious. The war has already imposed a severe economic shock. Reuters reported that Wall Street rallied sharply on April 14 because investors interpreted talk of renewed negotiations as a sign that the worst-case scenario might still be avoided. The S&P 500 rose 1.17%, the Nasdaq jumped 1.95%, and Brent crude fell 4.6% to $94.79 while WTI dropped nearly 8% to $91.20. Markets were not celebrating peace; they were pricing in the possibility that diplomacy might prevent a wider catastrophe.
The IMF’s warning makes the stakes even clearer. It cut its 2026 growth forecast for the Middle East and North Africa to 1.1%, with Iran’s economy projected to contract 6.1%, and warned that the conflict is already inflicting broad damage through disrupted shipping, damaged infrastructure, and energy insecurity. In other words, this is no longer a regional war with merely regional costs. It has become a global economic threat touching inflation, shipping, fertilizer, fuel, and food systems far beyond the battlefield.
That is why the Strait of Hormuz remains central to everything. About one-fifth of the world’s oil trade normally passes through that corridor, and both the war and the subsequent U.S. blockade of Iranian ports have turned it into the most sensitive chokepoint in the global economy. Reuters reported that Britain and France are now preparing a 40-country diplomatic effort focused on restoring freedom of navigation, while refusing to simply fold themselves into the American approach. That alone tells us how far the crisis has widened: even close U.S. allies are now building parallel frameworks to contain the fallout.
Washington’s own posture reflects strain. Publicly, U.S. officials remain firm. Vance has repeated that Iran cannot be allowed to retain a path to nuclear weapons capability, and reports from CBS and the Washington Post indicate that Washington pushed a demand for a long suspension of uranium enrichment, alongside wider restrictions. But firmness is not the same as appetite for endless war. The very fact that the White House is signaling renewed talks so quickly after the first round shows that military pressure alone has not delivered closure. It has created leverage, but not resolution.
Iran, for its part, is also signaling that it has not shut the door. Tehran continues to insist on its rights under international law and rejects maximalist U.S. demands, but its willingness to return to talks in Pakistan indicates that it still sees diplomacy as useful, especially if the alternative is a prolonged economic siege and continued strategic pressure. Guterres’ remarks, Pakistan’s continued engagement, and Trump’s own public comments all point in the same direction: neither side believes this crisis can be settled quickly through coercion alone.
Parallel diplomacy is also unfolding on another front, though with far less certainty. Israel and Lebanon held their first direct talks in decades in Washington on April 14, under U.S. auspices and with Secretary of State Marco Rubio participating. The talks produced agreement to continue discussions, but they also immediately revealed their core weakness: Hezbollah rejects the track, and rocket fire resumed even as diplomacy was being launched. That does not make the talks meaningless, but it does mean they cannot by themselves end the violence unless they eventually alter the military and political calculations of the armed actors on the ground.
So the regional picture is mixed. On one side, there is cautious diplomatic movement: Pakistan trying to bring Washington and Tehran back together, Europe preparing a post-crisis Hormuz framework, and Washington opening a rare direct Israel-Lebanon channel. On the other side, there is still active fighting, deep mistrust, maritime disruption, and a massive humanitarian toll. AP reported that more than 2,100 people have been killed in Lebanon and more than a million displaced, while the broader war has killed thousands in Iran and continued to wound U.S. forces. These realities make optimism necessary, but premature triumphalism dangerous.
What Pakistan can claim, however, is substantial. It has shown itself capable of hosting high-risk diplomacy with professionalism and enough credibility that both parties are prepared to consider returning. For a country often described internationally through the language of instability, this is a valuable reversal of narrative. Pakistan is being seen not as a bystander to chaos, but as a facilitator of de-escalation. That does not guarantee success, but it does restore diplomatic relevance.
The next 48 hours matter because they will test whether the first Islamabad round was merely an opening probe or the foundation of a real process. If talks resume, markets will likely read that as the strongest signal yet that a broader settlement remains possible. If they do not, the war economy, maritime insecurity, and political fragmentation now spreading from Tehran to Washington to Europe will deepen. For now, the most important fact is simple: the door is still open, and Pakistan is still holding it.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan High Commission Partners with Gerrys for UK Consular Services New Facilitation Centres to Enhance Access for Overseas Pakistanis

Published

on

By

Press Release

During a solemn ceremony held today, the High Commission for Pakistan signed a landmark agreement with Gerrys Visa Services Ltd., designating the latter as the sole authorized partner for establishing a network of Facilitation Centres to provide Consular Services across the United Kingdom. The initiative has been undertaken in line with the approval of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and aims to enhance the accessibility and efficiency of consular services for the Pakistani community throughout the country.

The initiative marks a major step forward in the High Commission’s commitment to serving the two million strong Pakistani diaspora in the UK. Under the agreement, Gerrys Visas Services Ltd. will operate the only authorized service centres nationwide, enabling overseas Pakistanis to access a wide range of consular services, including the processing of visas, passports, NADRA related documents, and attestation services.

Speaking on the occasion, the High Commissioner for Pakistan, Dr. Muhammad Faisal, stated, “this partnership is about putting overseas Pakistanis first. By decentralizing these essential services through authorized partners like Gerrys, we are eliminating the burden of long distance travel and making consular access faster, safer, and more convenient.”

At the same time, a key objective of the agreement is to combat the growing menace of unauthorized and fraudulent visa and NADRA facilitation centres operating across the UK, which have been charging exorbitant fees and perpetrating scams that harm vulnerable applicants. The new framework will also help prevent data pilferage by ensuring that personal information is no longer provided to unapproved entities.

Mr. Afzal Wali Muhammad, Chairman of Gerrys Visa Services Ltd., expressed that the company is honoured to be entrusted as the single authorised partner for this transformative project. He pledged to ensure world-class, transparent, and secure services for the Pakistani community across the UK.

The first Gerrys Visa Services Ltd. Facilitation Centre will be inaugurated in May 2026, with a phased expansion planned to establish a comprehensive presence across all major regions of the United Kingdom. Further details regarding locations, services, and appointment procedures will be announced in the coming weeks.

London
13th April, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending