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 : In a world increasingly defined by polarized narratives, few leaders evoke as intense a spectrum of reactions as Donald Trump. Critics across global media and political corridors have not hesitated to label his actions as reckless, impulsive, or even dangerous—particularly in the context of escalating tensions in the Middle East. Yet, beneath the surface of this widespread criticism lies an alternative interpretation: that what appears chaotic may, in fact, be a calculated and deeply strategic attempt to reorder global power dynamics, particularly through control of energy resources.
At the heart of this perspective is the doctrine of “America First,” a policy framework that prioritizes U.S. economic and strategic supremacy above all else. Rather than viewing recent geopolitical developments as isolated events, this lens interprets them as interconnected steps in a broader strategy aimed at securing long-term dominance—especially over emerging rivals like China.
During his political rise, Trump repeatedly identified China as America’s foremost strategic competitor. This assessment was not merely rhetorical. China’s rapid economic expansion, its integration with over 140 countries through the Belt and Road Initiative, and its dominance in critical sectors such as rare earth minerals positioned it as a formidable challenger to U.S. global influence. Any serious attempt to counterbalance China, therefore, required not just military strength, but economic leverage of equal or greater magnitude.
Energy, particularly oil and gas, emerged as the most potent instrument in this strategic contest. The United States, already endowed with significant natural resources, dramatically expanded its production capacity under the “drill, baby, drill” policy ethos. Advances in shale extraction and aggressive domestic production turned the U.S. into one of the world’s leading energy producers, rivaling traditional giants like Saudi Arabia and Iran. This surge was not merely about self-sufficiency; it was about positioning the U.S. as a dominant global supplier.
Simultaneously, attention turned toward other major energy reserves—most notably Venezuela, home to some of the largest proven oil reserves in the world. Through a combination of political pressure, sanctions, and strategic interventions, the U.S. effectively reduced Venezuela’s ability to operate independently in global oil markets, thereby limiting alternative supply channels—particularly those accessible to China.
The next phase of this strategy unfolded in the Middle East, a region that has long served as the backbone of global energy supply. Tensions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program—whether viewed as legitimate concerns or strategic pretexts—provided the context for heightened military engagement. In this interpretation, the objective was not solely to neutralize nuclear threats or enforce regime change, but to influence a far more critical variable: the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most vital chokepoints, through which nearly a fifth of global oil supply passes. Any disruption in this narrow passage sends shockwaves across international markets. By escalating tensions and contributing to instability in the region, the United States effectively created conditions under which oil flows could be restricted, redirected, or controlled.
When regional production facilities were damaged and shipping routes became uncertain, global economies—especially those heavily dependent on imported energy—were forced into a state of urgency. In such a scenario, the United States positioned itself as the most reliable alternative supplier. Reports of large numbers of oil tankers heading toward U.S. ports underscore this shift, reflecting a reorientation of global supply chains.
This redirection of energy flows carries profound implications. Countries that once relied on Middle Eastern oil—many of them key partners of China—are now increasingly dependent on American exports. In effect, energy dependency is being recalibrated, transferring leverage from traditional producers and transit routes to a new central hub: the United States.
For China, this development poses a strategic dilemma. As one of the world’s largest energy consumers, China’s economic engine depends on stable and affordable access to oil. Historically, it has diversified its sources, importing from Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. However, sanctions, geopolitical tensions, and disruptions in shipping routes have significantly constrained these options. If access to these supplies is reduced or eliminated, China faces the prospect of turning—directly or indirectly—to the United States to meet its energy needs.
This dynamic mirrors an existing asymmetry: the global dependence on China for rare earth minerals, which are essential for advanced technologies. By establishing a parallel dependency in energy, the United States potentially creates a counterbalance—an economic lever that can influence even the most powerful economies.
The strategic vision does not end there. Additional proposals, such as pipeline networks connecting Middle Eastern oil fields to Israeli ports and onward to global markets, suggest efforts to create alternative routes that bypass traditional chokepoints while maintaining U.S.-aligned control. Such infrastructure would further consolidate influence over energy distribution, extending beyond 40% toward potentially 60% of global oil flows.
Critics argue that such strategies come at an immense cost: regional instability, economic volatility, and human suffering. The disruption of global trade routes, spikes in energy prices, and the threat of prolonged conflict have placed enormous strain on economies worldwide. Journalists and analysts, often operating far from the realities of decision-making at the highest levels, highlight these consequences and question the rationale behind such policies.
However, supporters of this strategic interpretation contend that leadership at this level requires decisions that transcend immediate perceptions. They argue that the complexities of global power competition demand unconventional approaches—moves that may appear disruptive in the short term but aim to secure long-term advantages.
From this perspective, labeling Trump as irrational or incompetent oversimplifies a far more intricate picture. His background as a businessman—someone who built a vast enterprise and navigated complex negotiations—suggests a familiarity with leverage, risk, and long-term positioning. Whether one agrees with his methods or not, the outcomes of these strategies—particularly in energy markets—indicate a deliberate attempt to reshape global dependencies.
Ultimately, the unfolding scenario represents a broader shift in how power is exercised in the modern world. Military actions, economic policies, and geopolitical maneuvers are increasingly intertwined, forming a cohesive strategy where energy becomes both a tool and a target. The intersection of war and economics, once considered distinct domains, is now central to the pursuit of global influence.
As the world watches these developments, the debate is unlikely to settle into a single narrative. Some will continue to see chaos and recklessness; others will perceive calculated strategy and bold leadership. What remains clear is that the stakes are extraordinarily high—not just for the United States or China, but for the global system as a whole.
In this evolving landscape, one question persists: is the current trajectory a path toward renewed dominance, or a gamble that could redefine the balance of power in unpredictable ways?

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 global order is often described as rules-based, yet moments of crisis reveal how unevenly those rules are applied—and how fragile the system becomes when power, rather than consistency, defines legitimacy. The unfolding confrontation between the United States and Iran has brought that contradiction into sharp focus. What is justified as deterrence for some is condemned as provocation for others. That tension, long embedded in geopolitics, is now colliding with economic reality in ways that are shaking the foundations of the global system.
What began as a regional war has evolved into a systemic shock. At the center of this disruption lies the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow maritime corridor through which nearly 20 million barrels of oil pass each day—roughly a quarter of global seaborne supply—along with a critical share of liquefied natural gas. Even partial disruption to this artery has sent tremors across energy markets, tightened supply, and amplified uncertainty worldwide.
The economic consequences are already visible. Oil prices have moved into the $90–$95 per barrel range, placing nearly $2 billion in daily energy flows at risk. Even a temporary interruption translates into tens of billions of dollars in strain; if prolonged, the damage compounds into the hundreds of billions. Analysts warn that a sustained escalation could shave as much as one percentage point from global growth—equivalent to a loss of $1 trillion to $1.8 trillion annually.
Yet energy is only the entry point. The deeper crisis lies in how rapidly disruption spreads through interconnected systems. Asia, the region most dependent on Middle Eastern energy imports, has become the first major zone of impact. Across the Asia-Pacific, economies are experiencing cascading breakdowns—faster and more unpredictable than the shocks seen in previous global crises.
Air travel has been among the earliest casualties. Airlines across Asia are cutting routes as jet fuel prices rise sharply and supply becomes uncertain. Smaller carriers are reducing operations drastically to remain solvent, while larger airlines are recalibrating networks under mounting cost pressure. Passenger flows are weakening, tourism is contracting, and entire service economies—from hotels to transport—are under strain.
The disruption extends into manufacturing, the backbone of Asia’s growth. Energy-intensive industries are scaling back production as fuel and gas supplies tighten. Supply chains are under stress, and shortages of key inputs—from petrochemicals to industrial gases—are beginning to ripple across sectors, from textiles to electronics.
What is emerging is a pattern of cascading scarcity. Petrochemical shortages disrupt plastics and packaging. Fertilizer constraints threaten agricultural output. Transport disruptions increase costs across supply chains. Each bottleneck reinforces the next, creating a cycle that becomes progressively harder to contain.
At the human level, the consequences are severe. The United Nations Development Programme estimates that the Asia-Pacific region could suffer losses between $97 billion and $299 billion, with as many as 8.8 million people at risk of falling into poverty. For millions already living on narrow margins, rising food prices combined with declining incomes are proving destabilizing.
Farmers are leaving crops unharvested because transportation costs exceed returns. Workers are returning to rural areas as factories slow or shut down. Small businesses are struggling to survive as consumer demand weakens. What begins as an energy shock is rapidly transforming into a broader economic and social crisis.
Against this backdrop, diplomacy—centered in Islamabad—remains deeply uncertain. Pakistan has positioned itself as a facilitator for a second round of talks, with preparations reportedly centered around high-security zones in the capital. Yet the diplomatic choreography is already faltering before it fully begins.
On the American side, uncertainty surrounds even the basic question of participation. The expected delegation—linked to senior figures within the administration—has not yet definitively departed the United States. Reports suggest that key officials remain on standby rather than en route, reflecting hesitation and unresolved internal calculations. The absence of a confirmed airborne delegation at this critical moment signals a lack of urgency that is difficult to reconcile with the gravity of the crisis.
On the Iranian side, the position is equally, if not more, guarded. Tehran has conveyed mixed signals—on one hand keeping the diplomatic channel nominally open, and on the other expressing strong reservations over what it views as coercive pressure, including maritime seizures and escalating rhetoric. Indications from Iranian officials suggest that participation in the second round is conditional, uncertain, and potentially subject to withdrawal if the current trajectory continues.
This dual hesitation has created what can only be described as a vacuum of commitment. The talks are planned, the venue is prepared, but the actors themselves appear unconvinced. It is this gap—between planning and participation—that has led many observers to a stark conclusion: the second round risks collapsing before it even formally begins.
Compounding this uncertainty is a strategic narrative emerging from Washington. President Donald Trump has repeatedly framed the disruption in Middle Eastern energy flows not only as a threat but also as an opportunity. He has stated that large numbers of empty oil tankers are moving toward the United States to be filled with American oil and gas, suggesting a redirection of global energy demand. In parallel, U.S. exports have surged, reinforcing the perception that the United States could expand its role as a primary supplier to global markets.
This introduces a complex and troubling dimension. If the crisis is simultaneously viewed as a strategic opening for economic gain, the incentives for rapid de-escalation may weaken. Even the perception of such an alignment between conflict and commercial advantage risks eroding trust and complicating already fragile negotiations.
The risk, therefore, is no longer simply that talks may fail, but that they may never meaningfully commence. Without a credible diplomatic start, escalation becomes the default trajectory. Iran has already signaled that continued pressure could lead to broader retaliation, including potential targeting of regional energy infrastructure. Such actions would dramatically expand the scale of disruption and deepen the global crisis.
Financial markets are already reflecting this uncertainty. Energy stocks have strengthened while broader markets show volatility, capturing the divergence between sectors that benefit from higher prices and those that suffer from instability. Investors are navigating conflicting signals, reinforcing an atmosphere of unpredictability.
This is no longer a localized conflict. It is a multidimensional crisis—spanning energy, trade, finance, and geopolitics. It underscores how deeply the global economy depends on stable flows of energy and goods—and how quickly those flows can be disrupted.
The assumption that major powers can manage conflict without triggering global consequences is being tested in real time. Asia’s experience demonstrates that no region remains insulated. Disruptions propagate through supply chains, financial systems, and societies with remarkable speed.
The coming days will be decisive. If the second round of talks materializes with genuine commitment, it may create a narrow window for de-escalation. But if current signals persist—hesitation, conditionality, and strategic divergence—the talks may collapse before they begin, leaving the world to confront the consequences of renewed escalation.
The broader lesson is unmistakable. Global stability cannot rest on selective principles or assumptions of insulation. It depends on cooperation, consistency, and recognition of shared vulnerability. The forces now in motion—scarcity, uncertainty, and interdependence—are reshaping the global landscape.
At this critical juncture, the world stands between two uncertain paths: a fragile and hesitant diplomacy that may yet falter, or a return to the flames of war with consequences that could reverberate far beyond the immediate conflict.

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 second presidential term of Donald Trump has triggered a geopolitical shift of historic proportions. For decades, the United States stood as the uncontested leader of the Western alliance, commanding not just military superiority but also strategic obedience from its European partners within NATO. That era, defined by unquestioned transatlantic unity, is now visibly eroding. What is emerging in its place is a more assertive, self-directed Europe—one that is no longer willing to follow Washington into conflicts without consultation, nor accept the consequences of decisions it did not shape.
This transformation has been dramatically accelerated by the recent war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, and the subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas once flowed daily. The decision by Washington to launch strikes on Iran without adequately consulting its European allies proved to be more than a strategic misstep; it became the breaking point in a relationship already strained by years of unilateral policies, sanctions, and economic coercion.
Europe’s response has been swift, calculated, and deeply symbolic. In a move that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, Keir Starmer, alongside Emmanuel Macron, convened a summit of more than 35 countries to address the Hormuz crisis—deliberately excluding the United States. This was not merely a diplomatic gathering; it was a declaration of strategic independence. For the first time in decades, Europe signaled that it was prepared to lead, not follow.
The summit focused on practical and urgent objectives: restoring safe navigation, securing stranded vessels, stabilizing energy flows, and coordinating both diplomatic and limited military responses such as mine-clearing and maritime monitoring. Unlike the U.S. approach, which has leaned heavily on military pressure, Europe emphasized a blend of diplomacy, coordination with global industry, and measured security interventions. The message was clear: sustainable solutions cannot be imposed through force alone—they must be negotiated and collectively maintained.
The urgency behind Europe’s actions is rooted in economic reality. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent shockwaves through global energy markets, but its impact on Europe has been particularly severe. Having already reduced dependence on Russian energy, European economies had shifted toward Middle Eastern supplies. The disruption of these routes has now placed the continent in a precarious position, facing rising fuel costs, supply shortages, and broader economic instability.
Tourism—a major pillar of many European economies—has been hit by reduced travel and rising costs. Aviation faces operational strain due to jet fuel uncertainty. Industrial output is slowing under the weight of energy constraints. In short, Europe is bearing a disproportionate share of the economic fallout from a conflict it neither initiated nor endorsed. This reality has reinforced a critical lesson: strategic dependence carries unacceptable risks.
Yet Europe’s response is not merely reactive—it is transformative. Collectively, European economies represent one of the largest economic blocs in the world, rivaling the United States and exceeding any single nation, including China. This economic weight is now translating into political ambition. Europe is beginning to act like what it has long been in economic terms: a global power capable of shaping outcomes rather than absorbing them.
The exclusion of the United States from the Hormuz summit underscores a deeper shift. It reflects a growing realization within Europe that reliance on American leadership has become a liability rather than an asset. Washington’s expectation that allies would support its military actions—followed by demands for assistance in managing the consequences—has been met with resistance. Europe is instead constructing a framework based on sovereignty, collective decision-making, and a clear preference for diplomacy over confrontation.
This evolving doctrine represents a fundamental rebalancing of the transatlantic relationship. It does not necessarily signal a complete rupture, but it does mark the end of unquestioned alignment. Europe is asserting its right to define its own strategic priorities and to pursue solutions that align with its interests, even when they diverge from those of Washington.
At the same time, a quieter but equally significant transformation is unfolding in the global financial system. The extensive use of sanctions by the United States has prompted many nations to explore alternatives to the dollar-based system. European countries, along with members of BRICS, are increasingly experimenting with trade settlements in euros, local currencies, and digital financial mechanisms. While the dollar remains dominant, its monopoly is gradually being challenged.
If this trend continues, it could weaken one of the United States’ most powerful tools of influence: its control over global financial infrastructure. The possibility of parallel systems—designed to bypass traditional channels such as SWIFT—reflects a broader desire among nations to insulate themselves from economic coercion. Europe’s participation in this shift signals that even long-standing allies are reconsidering their dependence on American financial dominance.
Beyond economics and strategy, Europe’s initiative represents a philosophical shift in how global conflicts are approached. The Hormuz summit emphasized de-escalation, post-conflict stabilization, and long-term security rather than immediate military gains. Plans to clear mines, secure shipping lanes, and engage Iran diplomatically illustrate a commitment to sustainable peace rather than temporary victories.
This approach resonates with a broader global sentiment. Many nations are increasingly wary of interventions that prioritize force over diplomacy and dominance over stability. Europe’s actions suggest that there is an alternative path—one that balances security with dialogue and power with restraint.
The implications of these developments are far-reaching. The world is moving toward a multipolar order in which power is distributed across multiple centers rather than concentrated in a single dominant state. In this emerging landscape, Europe is positioning itself as a key pillar—alongside rising powers in Asia and other regions.
The United States remains a formidable power, but its role is evolving. Its reliance on military solutions and economic pressure has accelerated the search for alternatives. Allies are no longer content to follow; they are beginning to lead.
For Washington, this moment presents a critical choice. It can adapt to the realities of a changing world—embracing multilateralism, respecting the autonomy of its partners, and leveraging its strengths in innovation and diplomacy—or it can continue on a path that risks further isolation.
For Europe, the challenge is equally significant. Leadership requires unity, coherence, and the ability to translate ambition into action. The Hormuz summit is a bold first step, but sustaining this momentum will require continued coordination and political will.
What is clear, however, is that the global order is undergoing a profound transformation. The age of unquestioned American dominance is giving way to a more balanced, more complex system. In this new world, leadership will not be defined solely by military power, but by the ability to build consensus, manage crises, and deliver stability.
Europe has signaled that it is ready to assume that role. The question now is not whether the world will change—but how quickly, and who will shape the future that emerges.