war
Are the USA and Israel Terrorists — or Is Iran?
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 ongoing war involving Iran has exposed a profound paradox, a striking contradiction, a concealed truth, and a manufactured lie. At its core lies a deeply unsettling question: who defines terrorism, and by what moral authority? The very states that stand accused globally of war, civilian casualties, and widespread destruction are the ones labeling another nation—Iran—as a “terrorist state.” This contradiction is not merely political; it is philosophical, moral, and deeply human.
If one were to objectively assess Iran’s historical conduct, the narrative becomes far more complex than the labels suggest. Iran, for centuries, has not engaged in expansionist wars in the way major global powers have. Unlike repeated military interventions seen in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, Iran’s posture has largely been framed as defensive or reactive within its sphere of influence. Yet, despite this, it continues to be branded as the “world’s leading sponsor of terrorism.”
This labeling becomes even more paradoxical when juxtaposed against the actions of powerful nations. The United States has been involved in prolonged wars—from Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan—resulting in immense civilian suffering. Similarly, Israel’s military operations have drawn sustained criticism for disproportionate force. Yet these actions are rarely framed within the same terrorism narrative. Power, it seems, does not merely influence outcomes—it defines vocabulary.
The contradiction deepens further when examining the language used by political leadership. In recent months, figures such as Donald J. Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth have employed rhetoric that is not only confrontational but deeply dehumanizing. Iranian leaders have been described as “lunatics,” “religious fanatic zealots,” and “radical clerics,” while their military has been portrayed as “decimated,” “rats running,” or facing “certain death.” Statements such as “annihilate,” “wipe out,” and “no mercy” reflect not diplomacy, but domination.
In the current 2026 conflict—widely referred to as Operation Epic Fury—this language has reached a new and alarming intensity. The successive elimination of Iran’s top leadership through three coordinated waves of U.S.-Israeli strikes has been framed not as a tragic necessity of war, but as a moment of triumph. President Trump described the killing of Ali Khamenei as “justice for the world,” calling him “one of the most evil people in history,” while declaring the Iranian regime “decimated, destroyed—they’re all dead.” He dismissed subsequent leadership tiers as “mostly dead,” suggesting that Iran’s governing structure had been “wiped out” and replaced by something more “reasonable.”
Meanwhile, Secretary Hegseth adopted a tone that stripped away even the last remnants of diplomatic civility, remarking that the remaining Iranian leaders were “toast,” boasting that “Trump got the last laugh,” and repeatedly describing the campaign as one in which targets were “hunted down and killed.” He went so far as to characterize this approach as “negotiating with bombs.” Secretary Rubio reinforced this posture, referring to Iranian leaders as “religious fanatic lunatics” and stating that those who once engaged diplomatically with the United States were now “no longer on planet Earth.”
When these remarks are placed in the broader equation of diplomacy, commerce, and international order, they reveal something far deeper than policy—they expose a mindset. A mindset in which the elimination of leadership is celebrated, where human beings are reduced to targets, and their deaths to rhetorical victories. The language—“wiped out,” “toast,” “hunted,” “no longer on planet Earth”—is not merely undiplomatic; it is profoundly cruel, shockingly heartless, and reflective of an extraordinary level of hubris. It suggests a worldview in which power grants the right not only to kill, but to celebrate killing.
Yet, strikingly, Iran’s official responses have largely avoided descending into similar linguistic hostility. While firm and assertive, Iranian leadership has generally refrained from using overtly dehumanizing language against American or Israeli leaders. This asymmetry in discourse reveals another dimension of the paradox: the side with overwhelming military superiority often adopts the most aggressive rhetoric, while the targeted state attempts to retain diplomatic restraint.
Another dimension of this conflict lies in the proportionality of violence, and here the numbers tell a far more revealing story than rhetoric. In Iran alone, approximately 3,486 people have been killed, including 1,568 civilians and at least 236 children and more than 20,000 wounded, Lebanon has reported over 1,200 deaths, including at least 124 children, as Israeli strikes intensified across its territory. In stark contrast, Israel reports 19 civilian deaths, alongside a small number of military casualties, while the United States has recorded 13 military deaths and no significant civilian losses on its own soil. Elsewhere, countries such as Iraq have reported around 100 deaths, with additional casualties scattered across Gulf states, Syria, and other affected regions.
If terrorism is defined as violence against civilians to achieve political objectives, then the clarity of labeling becomes increasingly blurred. Can a state responsible for large-scale civilian destruction still claim exclusive moral authority? Or does power itself redefine morality?
Historically, legitimacy has often been shaped not by actions alone, but by control over narrative. The ability to define terms, to repeat them through global media, and to embed them into public consciousness has allowed powerful nations to position themselves as arbiters of justice—even when their actions are contested.
The war has also exposed the strategic use of information. From the outset, claims that Iran’s capabilities had been “90 percent degraded” were widely circulated. Yet, continued retaliatory strikes and sustained operational capacity challenge these assertions. The gap between declared success and observable reality highlights how information itself has become a weapon of war.
Iran, by contrast, has maintained a relatively consistent message: that any attack on its territory would be met with reciprocal force. Whether through threats to energy routes, regional strikes, or broader escalation signals, its actions have largely aligned with its stated doctrine. This consistency stands in contrast to the shifting narratives and evolving justifications presented by its adversaries.
The Iran conflict is therefore not merely a military confrontation—it is a battle over definitions: of terrorism, legitimacy, and morality. It forces the world to confront uncomfortable truths about power and perception, and to question whether moral authority truly lies with those who possess the greatest force.
In the end, the paradox remains unresolved. A nation labeled as a terrorist state asserts its right to defend itself, while those waging war in the name of security claim moral superiority. Between these competing narratives lies a complex and often uncomfortable reality—one that cannot be reduced to slogans or labels.
The true measure of humanity is not in the ability to dominate, but in the capacity to uphold dignity even in conflict. If the language of war continues to strip away that dignity, then the line between justice and aggression will fade into obscurity. And perhaps that is the most dangerous truth of all.
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