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 geopolitical sands of Southwest Asia have shifted dramatically in recent months. In a stunning reversal of roles, Pakistan—once viewed as a struggling state battling internal insurgencies and economic instability—has emerged as a pivotal power broker on the world stage. Through its successful mediation between the United States and Iran and its efforts to avert a global economic crisis, Islamabad has positioned itself as a formidable voice in international diplomacy. This diplomatic ascendancy, however, has come at a considerable cost. By challenging the established order and offering a counterbalance to Israeli power in the region, Pakistan has inadvertently painted a target on its own back. The result is a new and dangerous proxy war being fought on Pakistani soil, leveraging the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan and the Balochistan Liberation Army as tools to bleed the nation from within.
The calculus of power in the Middle East has been fundamentally upended. As the only nuclear-armed Muslim state with a growing arsenal, Pakistan is increasingly viewed by regional actors as a necessary counterweight to Israel’s unbridled military might and expansionist ambitions. The narrative in Islamabad and across many Middle Eastern capitals is that Israel, guided by a maximalist ideology and backed by its own nuclear capabilities, seeks to redraw the map of the region.
The perceived Greater Israel project, aiming to control territory from the Nile to the Euphrates, necessitates the destruction or fracture of all regional power structures. Under this worldview, Israel’s strategy is to create chaos, foster fractured governments, and use nuclear blackmail to cow its adversaries.
In this context, Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella is seen as the ultimate deterrent against Israeli aggression. By providing a potential shield for nations like Turkey, Egypt, and Iran, Pakistan has become a primary obstacle to Israel’s regional ambitions. This is the crux of the new animosity. Israel has recognized that it cannot neutralize Iran, Turkey, or other regional rivals without first neutralizing the threat from Pakistan.
The diplomatic achievements of Pakistan—including its instrumental role in stopping the wars in Lebanon and Gaza—have made it a major thorn in the eye of Israel. What Pakistan achieved diplomatically is perhaps greater in value and impact than what Iran achieved through its military confrontations with the United States and Israel.
This remarkable ascent has transformed Pakistan from a peripheral player into a central actor in the Middle Eastern power equation, and with that transformation has come the inevitable attention of adversaries who view its rise as a direct threat to their interests.
To counter this emerging threat, Israel is purportedly pivoting to a strategy of asymmetric warfare, exploiting Pakistan’s internal vulnerabilities through a classic playbook: find, fund, and arm proxy actors to destabilize a state from within, avoiding a direct and costly conventional confrontation.
The first prong of this strategy involves the TTP. Pakistan has long differentiated between the good Taliban in Afghanistan and the bad Taliban at home, but this distinction has become dangerously moot. The Afghan Taliban, now in power in Kabul, has provided safe havens, training camps, and logistical support to the TTP, allowing them to operate with near impunity across the porous border.
Now Israel in collaboration with India and elements within the Afghan government, is providing arms, ammunition, financial incentives, and operational guidance to the TTP. This financing and advanced training are intended to motivate TTP operatives to intensify their attacks on Pakistan’s military and civilian power centers, creating a constant state of insecurity that weakens the state from within.
The second, equally dangerous prong involves the separatist movements in Balochistan. The Balochistan Liberation Army and other ethnic insurgent groups are waging a war for independence, and while these movements have deep-rooted local grievances, they have become receptive to external manipulation.
The exiled Baloch leaders have expressed a willingness to align with Israel, viewing it as a potential guarantor of their independence. This creates a perverse alliance of convenience. India’s Research and Analysis Wing has a well-documented history of fomenting unrest in Balochistan to destabilize Pakistan, with the arrest of Indian naval officer Kulbhushan Jadhav in 2016 serving as a key example.
Now, Israel is reportedly deepening this cooperation, offering advanced intelligence, satellite reconnaissance, and perhaps even technological assistance to these separatist groups. In return, the BLA and its affiliates are promising to act as Israel and India’s stooges in a post-conflict scenario, leveraging whatever remains of a fractured Pakistan. The goal is to cripple the Pakistani state, potentially allowing external actors to seize control of the strategic Gwadar port and neutralize Pakistan’s nuclear assets.
Beyond the proxy war, there is an immediate and visceral threat that Pakistan must contend with: Israel’s technological prowess in targeted assassinations. Israel has a documented history of using sophisticated, often commercially available technology to track and eliminate high-value targets across the globe.
This includes the use of advanced surveillance software, remote-controlled weaponry, and even cyber-enabled sabotage of critical infrastructure. Pakistan, with its community of nuclear scientists, military strategists, and political leaders, is vulnerable to such tactics.
The threat is not merely hypothetical. Pakistan must ensure that the technology used by Israel for assassinating marked rivals and people of high political, scientific, and military value cannot be successfully deployed within its borders.
This demands a comprehensive overhaul of Pakistan’s internal security protocols, including strict monitoring of digital communications, protection of supply chains from cyber-tampering, and rigorous vetting of personnel with access to sensitive information. Failure to address this vulnerability could result in the loss of the nation’s most valuable minds and a catastrophic blow to its strategic capabilities.
Passive defense, however, is no longer sufficient. The current situation demands a proactive and offensive strategy. Pakistan cannot simply wait for an attack to occur; it must act to deter it. The core recommendation emerging from strategic analysts is the creation of a counter-spy network in Israel.
This is not merely an intelligence-gathering operation; it is a strategic necessity that would provide Islamabad with two critical advantages. First, a counter-network would provide Islamabad with powerful leverage, as knowing that Pakistan possesses the capability to respond in kind within Israeli territory would raise the stakes for any Israeli-initiated action in Pakistan.
Second, the doctrine of proportional response is central to this strategy. If Israel engages in sabotage, assassination, or support for proxy militancy within Pakistan, Islamabad must be prepared to reply in the same coin, delivering a proportional, measured, and effective response inside Israel itself. The goal is not escalation, but the creation of a credible deterrent that ensures the cost of aggression is too high to be borne.
This is where the expertise of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence becomes paramount. The ISI has decades of experience in covert operations, counterinsurgency, and intelligence gathering in Afghanistan and against Indian targets.
These accumulated skills must now be refocused on the Israeli threat. Pakistan has shown its diplomatic capability to de-escalate major international conflicts; now it must demonstrate its resolve to defend its sovereignty and nuclear assets against covert infiltration and sabotage.
The agency must evaluate the situation from all angles and place security mechanisms that are not only defensive but also offensive in nature. Pakistan should use all the deceptive and intelligence-gathering methods that Israel has employed to weaken countries within their own borders and apply them in Israel itself, creating a countervailing power that ensures proportional and responsible retaliation for any aggression. If this is not done now, it will be too late, and Pakistan will have to face the consequences of inaction. To be continued…….

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 convergence of the AfPak insurgency, the Balochistan separatist movement, and the rise of Pakistan as a geopolitical power has created a perfect storm. Israel, viewing Pakistan as the primary obstacle to its regional hegemony, is allegedly employing its formidable intelligence apparatus to fracture the country from within.
The nexus between the TTP, the BLA, and external actors like India and Israel represents the most significant threat to Pakistan’s national security in decades. Pakistan is not a stupid country; it is smart, resilient, and has repeatedly proven its ability to punch above its weight.
History rarely announces the arrival of a new geopolitical order; it reveals itself gradually through shifting alliances, changing perceptions, and the emergence of unexpected diplomatic actors.
Whether one agrees with every aspect of Pakistan’s recent foreign policy or not, there is a growing perception among several analysts that Islamabad has become a more consequential player in regional diplomacy than it was only a few years ago.
As Pakistan’s diplomatic profile rises, so too does the possibility that it may become the target of increasingly sophisticated forms of geopolitical competition, including proxy conflict, intelligence rivalry, and information warfare.
Former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson recently remarked that if someone had predicted only two months earlier that Pakistan would emerge as a significant political force helping shape a new security architecture for the Persian Gulf, many observers would have dismissed the idea.
Yet, he argued, “that is exactly what has happened,” describing Pakistan as “a major force” and expressing admiration for both what Pakistan is doing and how it is doing it. While this represents Johnson’s assessment rather than an established fact, it reflects a perception that Pakistan’s diplomatic influence has expanded significantly.
Pakistan’s importance stems not only from geography but from strategic relevance. Situated at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, China, Afghanistan, Iran, and the Arabian Sea, Pakistan occupies one of the world’s most strategically important locations. It is also the only declared Muslim-majority nuclear power, giving it a unique position in regional security calculations.
Recent regional crises have reinforced this importance. Pakistan has maintained active diplomatic engagement during periods of heightened tension involving Iran, Afghanistan, and the Gulf region. Whether these efforts ultimately reshape the regional order remains to be seen, but they have undoubtedly elevated Pakistan’s visibility within international strategic discussions.
As Pakistan’s diplomatic significance increases, its security challenges will become more complex. The security environment stretching from Afghanistan through Iran to the Persian Gulf has undergone profound transformation.
Aaron Y. Zelin of The Washington Institute argues that the “AfPak” and Iran theatres should no longer be viewed separately because militant organizations, cross-border insurgencies, terrorism, and regional conflicts increasingly overlap. In his analysis, the Taliban’s return to power has strengthened the operational environment for the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and associated jihadist organizations, creating interconnected security challenges extending beyond Pakistan’s western frontier.
These concerns are echoed by Richard Lindsay, the United Kingdom’s Special Envoy to Afghanistan. In an interview with Amu TV, Lindsay described the TTP as a terrorist organization and stated that Afghan authorities in Kabul and Kandahar need to address concerns involving safe havens, training camps, weapons, and financial support associated with the group. He also affirmed that every sovereign state possesses the right to defend itself against genuine terrorist threats while emphasizing the need to avoid civilian casualties.
These observations from international officials reinforce what Pakistan has argued consistently for several years: that instability along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border has become one of the country’s most serious national security challenges.
Another important development is the deepening strategic partnership between India and Israel. Military cooperation, intelligence sharing, drone technology, missile systems, cyber capabilities, and surveillance technologies have become defining features of this relationship. These developments are widely documented and are increasingly viewed in Pakistan as significant components of the country’s evolving security environment.
While Pakistan has never fought a direct conflict with Israel, Israel has nevertheless entered Pakistan’s threat perceptions through indirect strategic developments. Israel’s expanding partnership with India, its increasing attention to Balochistan, and broader regional dynamics have collectively altered Pakistan’s strategic calculations requiring sound national security decisions that require careful evaluation of evidence.
Incidentally, Balochistan has become one of South Asia’s most strategically significant provinces. It hosts the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), borders both Iran and Afghanistan, and provides Pakistan with direct access to the Arabian Sea through Gwadar Port.
The province has also experienced a long-running separatist insurgency. The external actors are seeking to exploit local grievances to advance broader geopolitical objectives. Israeli-linked organizations such as MEMRI have increasingly highlighted Balochistan-related issues.
MEMRI has translated and archived statements by exiled Baloch nationalist leaders, including Hyrbyair Marri, who has publicly expressed support for closer relations with Israel and praised Israeli military actions against Iran. These publications demonstrate that some Baloch nationalist figures openly seek international partnerships, including with Israel.
Similarly, opinion pieces published in The Jerusalem Post have discussed overtures by exiled Baloch leaders toward Israel. These developments do not by themselves establish operational cooperation. However, they have contributed to a growing perception within Pakistan’s strategic community that Balochistan has become part of a wider geopolitical contest.
Most importantly, modern conflict increasingly extends beyond the battlefield. Military force is now accompanied by information campaigns, digital influence operations, cyber activities, political advocacy, and international narrative building. The media platforms, advocacy organizations, think tanks, and digital campaigns increasingly influence international perceptions regarding Balochistan. Whether one accepts these assessments or not, information competition has clearly become an important dimension of contemporary geopolitical rivalry.
The debate surrounding Balochistan therefore extends beyond security operations to include competing narratives over governance, human rights, separatism, terrorism, and regional stability.
Pakistan’s response should be guided by evidence, strategic patience, and institutional resilience rather than alarmism. Strengthening border security, improving intelligence coordination with neighboring countries, expanding counterterrorism capabilities, protecting critical national infrastructure, enhancing cyber resilience, and investing in economic development in vulnerable regions should remain national priorities.
Equally important is deeper security cooperation with Iran, whose own border provinces face similar challenges involving cross-border militancy, organized crime, and extremist violence.
Diplomatically, Pakistan should continue engaging regional and international partners while explaining its security concerns through credible evidence and sustained dialogue.
History demonstrates that countries assuming greater geopolitical importance inevitably attract greater strategic attention from both partners and competitors. Whether Pakistan’s growing diplomatic role proves temporary or enduring, its security environment has undeniably become more complex.
The convergence of terrorism, proxy conflicts, information warfare, and regional power competition demands careful strategic planning rather than reactive policymaking.
The international analysts increasingly view Pakistan as a country whose security is intertwined with broader regional dynamics. While some claims regarding external involvement in insurgent movements remain contested and require continued scrutiny, they have nonetheless become part of Pakistan’s evolving strategic discourse.
Pakistan’s greatest strength has historically been its resilience. If it combines diplomatic engagement with effective governance, counterterrorism, economic inclusion, and regional cooperation, it will be better positioned to navigate an era in which influence is measured not only by military capability but also by the ability to withstand hybrid threats and preserve national cohesion.

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 : Political assassination has remained one of the darkest instruments of international power politics. Throughout modern history, governments and intelligence agencies have been accused of eliminating individuals they regard as threats to their national security beyond their own borders. Whether such operations are justified as self-defense, counterterrorism, or preemptive action, they raise profound legal, moral, and strategic questions that continue to divide the international community.
Among the countries most frequently associated with targeted killings is Israel. Over the decades, numerous operations attributed to Israeli intelligence have targeted leaders, military commanders, scientists, and members of armed organizations across the Middle East and beyond. Israel has often neither confirmed nor denied these operations, while maintaining that it has the right to defend its citizens against imminent threats.
Critics argue that regardless of the intended objective, extrajudicial assassinations violate fundamental principles of international law. Every individual, irrespective of nationality or political affiliation, is entitled to due process. When states assume the authority to investigate, prosecute, convict, and execute individuals without judicial oversight, they bypass the very legal framework that the international community has spent decades constructing. Such actions inevitably raise questions about sovereignty, accountability, and the rule of law.
The recent allegation made by journalist Pepe Escobar that Israel’s intelligence agency allegedly planned to assassinate Pakistan’s Field Marshal Asim Munir and members of the Pakistani delegation during their visit to Switzerland has once again reignited this debate. According to Escobar, Pakistan received intelligence regarding an alleged assassination plot and conveyed a stern warning through diplomatic channels.
However, Pakistani authorities have categorically rejected the allegation, describing it as “baseless fiction” and “complete nonsense.” They have stated that the visit proceeded normally, that no security concerns were raised by either Swiss or American authorities, and that no such threat existed. Consequently, there is currently no publicly available evidence substantiating the allegation.
Yet irrespective of whether this particular claim proves true or false, the controversy has drawn renewed attention to a broader and well-established question: how should the international community respond when states are accused of conducting targeted killings beyond their borders?
The perception that certain countries possess the capability to eliminate adversaries almost anywhere in the world has contributed to a growing sense of strategic imbalance. Many nations have witnessed the deaths of senior political figures, military commanders, or scientists in attacks widely attributed to foreign intelligence services. In most instances, these incidents have not resulted in direct military retaliation against the alleged perpetrators.
This reality inevitably raises questions about deterrence.
History repeatedly demonstrates that deterrence often depends upon an adversary’s belief that aggression will carry unacceptable consequences. Nations possessing credible military capabilities are generally perceived differently from those unable to impose meaningful costs upon an aggressor. Whether one examines nuclear deterrence during the Cold War or conventional military balances today, the principle remains remarkably consistent: strength influences strategic calculations.
Supporters of this view argue that states capable of defending themselves are less likely to become targets of coercion or external aggression. They contend that maintaining strong defensive capabilities—including intelligence, missile defense, and conventional military preparedness—reduces the likelihood of hostile actions by increasing their potential cost.
The recent military confrontation between India and Pakistan has reinforced, for many Pakistanis, the importance of maintaining credible defensive capabilities. Regardless of differing assessments of the conflict’s military outcomes, the episode demonstrated how deterrence continues to shape strategic behavior in South Asia. It also reinforced the belief among many observers that military preparedness remains an essential component of national security.
However, deterrence alone cannot provide a lasting solution.
If every state concludes that its security depends upon possessing the ability to respond with equivalent force, the world risks entering an increasingly dangerous cycle of retaliation. International stability cannot rest solely upon reciprocal threats. It must ultimately be supported by institutions capable of enforcing universally accepted legal standards.
The greatest weakness of the present international order lies not in the absence of legal principles but in their inconsistent application. International law prohibits unlawful killings, violations of sovereignty, and attacks upon protected persons. Yet accountability frequently depends upon political considerations rather than consistent legal enforcement. Powerful states often face little practical consequence when accused of violating these norms, while weaker states remain subject to extensive international scrutiny.
This inconsistency undermines confidence in the international legal system itself.
The world therefore requires stronger mechanisms to investigate allegations of politically motivated assassinations. Independent international investigations should be initiated whenever credible evidence emerges that state actors have participated in extrajudicial killings beyond their borders. If responsibility is established through transparent legal processes, appropriate sanctions and legal consequences should follow irrespective of the country’s political influence or military power.
Such accountability should never be selective. The principles governing sovereignty, due process, and the sanctity of human life must apply equally to allies and adversaries alike. International justice loses credibility when similar actions receive dramatically different responses depending upon who commits them.
The objective should not be to legitimize retaliation through further assassinations. Rather, it should be to strengthen institutions capable of preventing such acts before they occur. Durable peace cannot be achieved by replacing one unlawful killing with another. It can only emerge when international law is consistently enforced and political disputes are resolved through diplomacy rather than covert violence.
Ultimately, the lesson for every nation is twofold. First, countries must maintain sufficient defensive capabilities to safeguard their sovereignty and protect their citizens against external threats. Second, the international community must develop stronger, more impartial mechanisms to hold accountable any state or organization that engages in unlawful political assassinations.
Power may deter aggression in the short term, but only justice can secure peace in the long term. Unless international institutions become capable of enforcing the law equally against all states, the normalization of political assassination will continue to erode the foundations of global order, encouraging a world governed increasingly by force rather than by law.