war
The Iran War That Turned Against Trump
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 decision to plunge the United States into a direct confrontation with Iran—taken at the urging and strategic direction of Israel—has triggered a chain of events that few in Washington appear to have fully anticipated. What was originally conceived as a swift military operation designed to cripple Iran’s capabilities and compel regime change has instead evolved into a widening regional conflict whose consequences are now rippling through military, political, and economic systems across the globe. Inside the United States, the mood has shifted from early confidence to growing anxiety as policymakers, military planners, and the public begin to reckon with the scale of the unfolding crisis.
From the earliest hours of the conflict, Iran responded with an intensity that surprised even seasoned defense analysts. Waves of drones and missiles targeted American and allied installations throughout the Middle East. Several facilities used by U.S. forces experienced direct hits or operational disruption, forcing commanders to reassess their logistics and operational posture across the region. While Washington maintains that the majority of its capabilities remain intact, the attacks have nevertheless exposed the vulnerability of a military architecture heavily dependent on forward bases and allied infrastructure.
These bases—spread across the Gulf and the broader Middle East—serve as the backbone of American air and naval power projection. They are critical for refueling aircraft, replenishing munitions, and maintaining sustained combat operations. Once they became targets, the operational calculus changed dramatically. Aircraft carriers, naval task groups, and combat aircraft that had been positioned for sustained operations suddenly faced logistical strain. War planners who assumed a short campaign now confront the reality of an adversary capable of prolonged resistance.
Compounding the strategic difficulty has been the hesitation of several allied countries to allow their territory or bases to be used as launch platforms for the campaign. Spain publicly declined to allow its bases to be used for offensive operations against Iran, while Britain clarified that it would not join offensive strikes and imposed restrictions on the use of its installations. Several Gulf states adopted a posture of neutrality, unwilling to risk retaliation by becoming direct participants in the conflict. Even allies who expressed rhetorical support have quietly avoided deeper involvement, reflecting their fear that the war could spread across the region.
This reluctance among partners has further constrained Washington’s options. Modern warfare, especially for expeditionary forces like those of the United States, depends not only on military power but also on the political willingness of allies to provide territory, logistics, and legitimacy. When that support becomes uncertain, the operational environment becomes far more complex.
Inside the United States itself, the political atmosphere is rapidly evolving. Members of Congress from both parties have begun questioning the strategic purpose of the war. Media commentators and policy analysts are asking what the ultimate objective is—whether it is regime change, deterrence, or simply punishment. Even the president’s own public statements have hinted at a reassessment. After initially projecting confidence in the military campaign, Donald Trump acknowledged in later remarks that Iran had signaled a willingness to talk and that diplomatic channels could be reopened.
This shift reflects a growing realization that the conflict may not be as controllable as originally assumed. Iran’s strategy appears to rely not on conventional military parity but on asymmetric endurance. Years of sanctions forced Tehran to accept that it could not compete with the United States in traditional air and naval warfare. Instead, it invested heavily in missile technology, drones, underground facilities, and decentralized command structures. Many of its most important missile centers are buried deep beneath mountains or fortified bunkers, rendering them extremely difficult to destroy even with advanced bunker-busting munitions.
As the war drags on, the economic consequences are beginning to reverberate far beyond the battlefield. One of the most dramatic developments has been Iran’s declaration that the Strait of Hormuz—the narrow maritime corridor through which a significant portion of the world’s oil supply passes—will be closed to commercial shipping except vessels carrying Chinese flags. Whether fully enforceable or not, the announcement alone has sent shockwaves through global energy markets.
Oil prices surged almost immediately. Markets reacted with alarm to the prospect that even partial disruption of shipping through Hormuz could remove millions of barrels of oil per day from global supply chains. The result has been a rapid rise in crude prices, which is already being felt at gasoline stations across the United States and Europe. Higher oil prices inevitably translate into higher transportation costs, and those costs cascade through the entire economy.
The economic logic is straightforward but devastating. When fuel becomes more expensive, the cost of transporting goods—from food to consumer products—increases. Airlines raise ticket prices, trucking companies pass on their fuel surcharges, and shipping costs climb. These increases ripple outward, affecting nearly every product and service used by ordinary citizens. Inflationary pressures intensify, eroding household purchasing power and deepening public frustration.
For political leaders, the consequences are immediate. Rising gasoline prices have historically been among the most sensitive indicators of public discontent in the United States. When voters see the cost of filling their cars jump dramatically, the issue quickly becomes political. Analysts already warn that if the conflict continues to disrupt oil markets, the economic backlash could undermine the administration’s domestic support and influence the outcome of upcoming midterm elections.
Beyond the economic sphere lies an even deeper concern: the potential for the conflict to ignite wider instability. Israel has already expanded its operations into neighboring theaters such as Lebanon, attempting to suppress rocket attacks from Hezbollah. Meanwhile, reports indicate that Kurdish opposition groups are being encouraged to challenge the Iranian government, raising the possibility of internal unrest inside Iran itself. Such strategies carry enormous risk. History has repeatedly shown that arming or empowering insurgent groups can produce unintended consequences, sometimes turning yesterday’s proxy into tomorrow’s adversary.
In the streets of American cities and towns, ordinary citizens are grappling with a mixture of fear and uncertainty. Many worry that a prolonged war could provoke retaliatory actions or terrorist incidents far from the Middle Eastern battlefield. Others question whether the United States had sufficient justification to launch the attack at a moment when diplomatic negotiations—mediated by Oman—were reportedly making progress toward a nuclear agreement.
According to diplomatic sources involved in those talks, Iran had indicated a willingness to dilute highly enriched uranium by mixing it with lower-grade material, effectively reducing its weapons potential while allowing continued civilian nuclear activity. Negotiators believed a framework agreement was within reach. If true, the abrupt shift from diplomacy to war has left many observers wondering whether a peaceful solution was abandoned prematurely.
The result is a conflict that now appears increasingly difficult to control. What began as a calculated show of force has become a contest of endurance between a global superpower and a regional state determined to resist. The United States still possesses overwhelming military superiority, yet military power alone cannot easily resolve the complex political and economic dynamics now unfolding.
For that reason, voices calling for diplomacy are growing louder. Even those who supported the initial strikes increasingly acknowledge that negotiations may be the only realistic path toward de-escalation. Wars often begin with confidence and resolve, but they end through dialogue and compromise.
At this critical juncture, the choice facing Washington is stark. Continuing down the path of escalation risks widening the conflict, destabilizing global markets, and entrenching hostility across the region. Reopening diplomatic channels, by contrast, offers at least the possibility of limiting the damage and preventing the war from spiraling into a broader catastrophe.
History may ultimately judge this moment not by the missiles fired or the targets destroyed, but by whether leaders possessed the wisdom to step back from the brink and rediscover the power of diplomacy before the costs became irreversible.
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 war in the Middle East has now moved far beyond the battlefield. What initially appeared as a regional military confrontation has evolved into a systemic global crisis—one that is tightening its grip not only on governments and markets, but on ordinary people struggling to sustain daily life. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, combined with targeted disruption of oil infrastructure, has triggered a cascading breakdown across energy supply chains, aviation networks, and tourism-dependent economies. The world is no longer merely watching a war; it is experiencing its economic consequences in real time.
At the center of this unfolding crisis lies the global jet fuel market—a sector often overlooked in geopolitical analysis, yet one that sustains the arteries of globalization. Prior to the conflict, global jet fuel demand had recovered strongly, reaching approximately 107 billion gallons annually in 2024, with projections climbing to nearly 7.2 million barrels per day by early 2026. This demand was supported by a finely balanced supply network spanning North America, Asia, and the Middle East. Today, that balance has been violently disrupted.
The Middle East, which typically contributes around 20% of global jet fuel supply, has seen a dramatic collapse in its effective output. War-related damage to refineries, combined with the strategic closure of the Strait of Hormuz, has removed an estimated 320,000 tons of jet fuel per day from global circulation. At the same time, approximately 3 million barrels per day of refining capacity across the الخليج region has either been shut down or rendered inoperable. This is not a marginal disruption—it is a structural shock to the global energy system.
Jet fuel prices have responded accordingly. Within weeks, prices surged from approximately $85–90 per barrel to well above $200, representing one of the sharpest increases in modern energy market history. For the aviation industry, where fuel accounts for up to one-third of operating costs, this is nothing short of catastrophic. Airlines are no longer operating in a demand-driven environment; they are navigating a survival crisis defined by cost pressures and supply scarcity.
The impact is most visible in Europe, where the aviation sector—and by extension, the tourism economy—is deeply exposed. Europe imports roughly 25–30% of its jet fuel from the Persian Gulf. With supply lines disrupted, airlines have begun aggressive capacity cuts. Major carriers have canceled thousands of flights ahead of the critical summer season. Lufthansa alone has reportedly removed tens of thousands of flights from its schedule, while other carriers are grounding aircraft, optimizing routes, and operating only essential services.
This contraction strikes at the heart of Europe’s economic model. Tourism is not a peripheral sector; it is a foundational pillar. The continent generates between $600 and $700 billion annually from tourism, supporting millions of jobs and contributing significantly to GDP in countries such as Spain, Italy, France, and Greece. This entire ecosystem depends on affordable, reliable air travel. Without it, hotels remain empty, restaurants lose customers, and entire regional economies begin to contract.
The crisis is not confined to Europe. In Asia-Pacific, where airlines depend heavily on Middle Eastern fuel flows, the situation is even more acute. Carriers have entered emergency operational modes, securing limited fuel supplies and preparing for prolonged disruption. Even in the United States—buffered by its status as a major producer—airlines face massive financial strain. Leading carriers have warned of billions of dollars in additional fuel costs, threatening profitability and forcing difficult operational decisions.
What makes this crisis particularly dangerous is its compounding nature. Aviation is not only about passenger mobility; it is a critical component of global trade. High-value goods, pharmaceuticals, and time-sensitive cargo depend on air freight. As flight capacity shrinks, supply chains tighten, prices rise, and inflationary pressures intensify. Indeed, energy analysts have already warned that this crisis could add nearly 0.8% to global inflation—an alarming figure in an already fragile economic environment.
Meanwhile, the maritime dimension of the conflict is adding further instability. The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply normally passes, has become a contested zone. Tankers are being intercepted, diverted, and in some cases seized. Insurance costs have soared, discouraging shipping companies from entering the region. Even where fuel is available, the ability to transport it safely has become uncertain.
China’s position offers a temporary buffer but not immunity. With substantial strategic reserves and a diversified energy portfolio, including large-scale investments in renewable energy, China can withstand short-term shocks. However, as the world’s manufacturing hub, any prolonged disruption will inevitably impact its output. A slowdown in Chinese production would have global consequences, affecting supply chains and economic growth worldwide.
This brings into focus a critical strategic question: what is the underlying objective of this disruption? One interpretation—gaining increasing traction—is that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is not merely a byproduct of conflict, but a strategic lever. By constraining Middle Eastern supply, global demand is redirected toward alternative producers, most notably the United States. Over the past decade, the U.S. has transformed into a leading exporter of oil and liquefied natural gas. In a constrained market, its leverage increases significantly.
For Iran, the situation presents a profound strategic dilemma. Maintaining the closure of the Strait exerts pressure on adversaries but simultaneously inflicts economic pain on the wider world. Reopening the waterway, on the other hand, could reposition Iran as a stabilizing force while exposing the broader dynamics at play. It would restore global supply flows, ease economic pressures, and potentially shift international opinion.
From a strategic standpoint, reopening Hormuz could neutralize the leverage derived from disruption. It would deny the United States to exploit scarcity and would reestablish a degree of economic normalcy. More importantly, it would demonstrate that stability—not disruption—is the stronger strategic position in an interconnected global system.
The world today is facing more than an energy crisis. It is confronting the fragility of a system built on uninterrupted flows—of fuel, goods, people, and capital. When one critical node collapses, the effects ripple outward, disrupting industries and livelihoods across continents.
If the current trajectory continues, the consequences will be severe. Aviation networks may contract further, tourism economies could enter recession, and global trade may slow significantly. Inflationary pressures will rise, and economic uncertainty will deepen. What began as a regional conflict risks becoming a global economic turning point.
The solution lies not in escalation, but in recalibration. Restoring the free flow of energy through critical waterways, stabilizing supply chains, and reengaging in meaningful diplomacy are essential steps. The alternative is a prolonged period of economic disruption with far-reaching consequences.
The Strait of Hormuz is no longer just a geographic chokepoint. It has become the pivot on which the global economy now turns.
There is No Way to Peace, Peace is the Way
Akhtar Hussain Sandhu
Chicago (USA)
Iran-US War and Islamabad peace facilitation prompt me to recall the famous quotes of Abraham Johannes Muste, a US-based civil rights and anti-nuclear-weapons activist. To him, nothing can lead to peace, but peace, in fact, facilitates a positive change in relations therefore, not circumstances or ways, but ‘peace’ itself proves a nucleus of attention in the crisis-packed situation in a society or world. Social scientists usually count the factors and circumstances leading to peace in a conflict at the societal and international level, but A. J. Muste believes that ‘peace’ is the greatest force that attracts rival protagonists to create understanding and end conflict. A. J. Muste opposed World War I and the US-Vietnam War and also opposed nuclear weaponry. He worked zealously and nonviolently for labor rights and civil liberties in the United States. The US-Israel led war against Iran on 28 February 2026 caused a catastrophic results and the continuous bombing destroyed Iran’s civil infrastructure, and approximately 180 schoolgirls were killed in an aerial attack. It was condemned by the masses in the US and other countries. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz as a war tactic, which created a global oil crisis, and all countries’ economies experienced an overnight major setback. The US President changed his initial war objectives and focused on the reopening of the Hormuz because multiple nations were bashing the US President for his unethical war mongering ambition, which caused the energy crisis. US President Donald Trump first decided to isolate the US from this dangerous drive and declared that the affected countries should send their troops to open this sea route for their vessels, but in April 2026, he issued a furious statement that if Iran did not open the Strait of Hormuz, it would be eliminated from the earth. It caused panic in the world because this message meant a nuclear attack on Iran. If it happened, any power could justify the use of nuclear weapons against the rival country, and the world could be an unsafe and hellish place. It could also convince every country, including Iran, to have nuclear weapons in future because having nuclear weaponry was to be left as the only option to survive against a rival nuclear power. However, Pakistan, China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, enjoying cordial relations with the US and Iran, ultimately brought a truce of two weeks, and both countries consented to dialogue in Islamabad on 10 April. Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir, PM Mian Shahbaz Sharif, and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar from Pakistan played a pivotal role in the ongoing parleys between the rival leaders. The ceasefire created an environment in which both camps claimed victory, and both seemed busy proving their military strength and muscles, but despite all, they are heading towards peace through dialogue. Threatening Statements by the US President even before a day before the negotiations is an evidence that the agreement (if it is concluded) would be presented as Iran’s surrender before the US might. A. J. Muste quotes that not circumstances, but ‘peace’ itself pushed the rival forces away from the battlefield. Once, a reporter questioned his presence as a protest in front of the White House: ” Can you change the White House? A. J. Muste replied. ‘I don’t do this to change the country. I do this so the country would not change me.’ The ruling elite always use the name of ‘state’ to change the people as it desires, but the state’s predilections change with the passage of time; therefore, to curb the citizens proves havoc for the social fabric. Dissatisfied masses can hardly produce a beneficial human resource that truly serves a nation. A. J. Must says that the problem after a war is that the victor shows the fight has brought a bright future, and war has paid the nation a lot. In their perception, the war was a new form of reform that would ensure prosperity and psychological pride for the people. Iran and the USA have both been claiming victories and asserting that the conflict has brought blessings. Both countries closed their eyes to the human sufferings and loss of innocent lives, wealth, economy, infrastructure, and hatred generated against each other. Peace proved its importance and motivated them to approach the neutral countries for a ceasefire, which means the war had crippled both the rivals to the extent that they were unable to talk even of ‘peace’, which shows the weakness and impotency of the so-called victors. A. J. Muste opines that no big power in the war accepts itself as an aggressor; instead, it is always the rival that is the aggressor.’ However, I think that every fighting country thinks of itself as a big force, therefore both become ‘big powers’ under their own justifications. Look at the arguments of the US and Iran that have been justifying their righteousness and aggression toward the rival according to their own national narratives. None of them is ready to accept any lapse on the side. Perhaps it happens amid internal and external threats to the political leadership, who twist events and arguments to secure their political position and national morale. This is another form of stress and aggression against peace, humanity, and righteousness. For example, many US military and other officials refused to attack Iran who must be consulted about their current thinking on their decision. A. J. Muste says that peace is impossible if people are only concerned with peace. A war is an outcome of different ways of life. If people desire to attack war, they have to attack that way of life.’ A. J. Muste here can be disagreed because way of life is always different, which does not mean to be in a battlefield all the time. I think he wants to say that if people dislike war, they should change their vision to one of living in societies with divergent ways of life. This quote reflects Muste’s desire that prosperity and civil liberties can change society, and by this, war maneuvering can be suffocated. AJ Must was a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation in the US, which struggled against war hysteria and the violation of civil liberties and for labor rights. He delivered lectures in different universities on the nonviolent struggle for rights. He joined the Montgomery Bus Boycott, led by Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1955. A. J. Muste’s struggle is still admired by Americans and Europeans because he worked selflessly for humanity, peace, and the dignity of all races.
Writer is a US-based Historian & Colmunist
9 April 2026
war
PM Shehbaz, Starmer Hold Key Call on Regional Security UK Backs Pakistan’s Peace Initiatives and Ceasefire Efforts
Prime Minister’s Office
Media Wing
ISLAMABAD: 10 April 2026.
Prime Minister’s Telephone Call with Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the United Kingdom
Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif received a telephone call from Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, His Excellency Keir Starmer, this evening.
Prime Minister Starmer deeply appreciated Pakistan’s effective diplomatic efforts in facilitating the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, and the resumption of dialogue. He felicitated Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif on hosting the peace negotiations in Islamabad and offered his best wishes for the success of this endeavor.
Reaffirming Pakistan’s sincere commitment to regional peace and stability, Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif welcomed the joint statement issued by key European and international leaders, including Prime Minister Starmer, endorsing Pakistan’s peace initiatives.
Both leaders emphasized the importance of ensuring that the ceasefire remains in place and creates the necessary conditions for lasting peace and stability in the region.
The two leaders agreed to work together to lend fresh impetus to the longstanding friendly ties between Pakistan and the United Kingdom, across all spheres of mutual interest.
The Prime Minister reiterated his cordial invitation to Prime Minister Starmer to undertake an official visit to Pakistan.
Part 2-Muslim-Sikh Harmony in Punjab: Akhtar Hussain Sandhu with Arshdeep Kaur Battu in a TV Interview on Sanjha TV (Canada)
Navruz & Timur’s Empire: A Kaleidoscope of Cultures Blooms at Uzbekistan’s University of Journalism
How Iran War Is Grounding the World Economy
-
Europe News1 year agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News1 year agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
American News1 year agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
Pakistan News10 months agoComprehensive Analysis Report-The Faranian National Conference on Maritime Affairs-By Kashif Firaz Ahmed
-
American News1 year agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Art & Culture1 year agoThe Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage
-
Pakistan News1 year agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?
-
Entertainment1 year agoChampions Trophy: Pakistan aim to defend coveted title as historic tournament kicks off today