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: Israel is perhaps the only country on the planet that speaks a different language when it comes to words like independence, sovereignty, human rights, security, and good-neighbourly relations. It has stretched these terms so far that the mass killing of civilians in Gaza, the destruction of entire neighbourhoods, and the cutting-off of food, water and medicine are reframed as “self-defence.”
The International Court of Justice has already found it plausible that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide and ordered it to allow humanitarian relief and prevent further atrocities. The International Criminal Court has gone further still, issuing arrest warrants for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and others for alleged war crimes, including the use of starvation as a weapon. Yet Israel continues with near-complete impunity, striking Syria and Lebanon at will, clashing with Iran and ignoring UN resolutions and global outrage.
Into this already combustible environment, Israel has taken another extraordinary step. On 26 December 2025, it became the first country in the world to formally recognise Somaliland as an independent and sovereign state. For over three decades, the world refused to cross this line. Israel not only crossed it, but it also celebrated the moment.
To appreciate the shockwaves this created, one must understand Somaliland’s story. The territory in north-western Somalia declared independence in 1991 after the collapse of the Somali state. Since then, it has built working institutions, its own army and currency, and a relatively stable political system. On the surface, this stability strengthens its moral case for independent statehood. But no country recognised it — because African and international diplomacy rests on the principle of maintaining inherited borders to prevent separatist domino effects. Somalia, the African Union and regional organisations have always insisted that Somaliland remains a part of Somalia’s sovereign territory.
Israel’s move directly challenges this consensus. Somalia immediately condemned it as a “deliberate attack” on its sovereignty and vowed resistance through legal and diplomatic channels. The African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development backed Mogadishu, warning of severe destabilisation risks. The Arab League declared the recognition “illegal” and urged the UN Security Council to act. A broad coalition of Arab, Muslim and African states followed with their own condemnations. This is not simply solidarity with Somalia; it is a defence of the fragile rule-set that prevents Africa’s borders from unravelling.
So why would Israel knowingly walk into this storm?. The answer is written on the map. Somaliland sits on the Gulf of Aden, near the Bab el-Mandeb strait — one of the world’s most strategic maritime chokepoints. A substantial share of global trade and energy flows through this narrow corridor. The port of Berbera is effectively an observation post on the gateway to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal at a moment when Houthi attacks, piracy and great-power rivalry have turned the area into a contested arena.
Seen from this perspective, Israel’s recognition looks less like humanitarian sympathy and more like hard-nosed realpolitik. A friendly government in Somaliland offers intelligence, security and possibly — in time — military access opposite Yemen and on the maritime route that connects Asia, the Gulf and Europe. It gives Israel the opportunity to extend its rivalry with Iran and its allies into another theatre and deepen its maritime influence at a critical global artery. It also signals that international borders can be “re-interpreted” when they obstruct strategic goals — an irony not lost on those watching events in the occupied Palestinian territories.
African states understand this clearly — which is why their reaction has been so firm. Many already face separatist pressures of their own. If territorial integrity becomes negotiable here, it becomes negotiable everywhere. And once unilateral recognition is normalised, powerful states will be tempted to redraw other borders for their own advantage.
The Arab and Islamic world views the move with even deeper suspicion. For them, Israel’s record — from Gaza to Lebanon and Syria — suggests that Somaliland could become an outpost for surveillance, naval projection and long-term security schemes. Some even fear it may one day be linked to displacement or demographic engineering related to the Palestinian question. Whether those fears are justified or not, the political distrust they reflect is real — and volatile.
The United States, meanwhile, has chosen public caution. President Trump has said Washington is “not ready” to recognise Somaliland and reaffirmed support for Somalia’s unity. Yet, given the intimacy of U.S.–Israeli relations, few observers believe such a dramatic step was taken without at least a reading of American sentiment. It is entirely plausible that Israel is acting as a spearhead — testing reactions from African and Arab partners, many of whom hold trillions of dollars in U.S. assets — before Washington considers any shift toward de facto support.
If that interpretation holds, this is not merely an Israeli initiative but part of a broader divide-and-rule strategy in the Horn of Africa — a region already strained by Ethiopian-Egyptian tensions, Red Sea militarisation, Somali instability and Gulf rivalries. Rather than integration and development, the region gains another sovereignty dispute and another justification for military build-ups and strategic manoeuvring.
All of this comes at a time when Israel is already more diplomatically isolated than at any point in decades. It faces genocide proceedings in The Hague, ICC warrants against its leaders, and growing distance even from traditional partners. Opening an additional front of confrontation with Somalia, the African Union, the Arab League and the wider Islamic world only deepens the perception of Israel as a state willing to discard international norms whenever they obstruct strategic ambition. Even if Israel secures tactical advantages in Somaliland, the long-term political costs may significantly widen its circle of hostility and mistrust.
This development must therefore not be dismissed as a narrow legal gesture. It is a political shockwave at the heart of the Horn of Africa — detonated while Gaza still bleeds, Lebanon remains tense, Syria continues under intermittent bombardment, and Iran stands in permanent confrontation. If the world accepts the fragmentation of Somalia by unilateral recognition today, it should not be surprised when similar moves appear elsewhere tomorrow, cloaked in the language of “freedom” but dictated by power rather than law.
For Somalia and its partners, the response must be firm yet constructive. They should resist this precedent at the UN, AU, Arab League and OIC, while recognising that Somaliland’s grievances cannot simply be wished away. A credible federal settlement, fair resource-sharing and meaningful political inclusion remain the only sustainable alternatives to secession driven by external sponsorship.
Israel’s recognition of Somaliland is therefore not merely a diplomatic handshake. It is a calculated strategic gamble — one that deepens mistrust in an already fractured region and risks turning the Horn of Africa into yet another arena of proxy competition. Whether that gamble ultimately benefits Israel, or becomes another catalyst for instability and backlash, will depend on how the international community — and above all Somalia itself — responds in the months ahead.

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 : Christmas is one of the most cherished moments in the global calendar, marking the birth of Jesus Christ — one of the greatest prophets in human history. According to Christian belief, he was born in Bethlehem, a humble town in the West Bank that today remains under Israeli occupation. From that land emerged a message that still echoes across centuries: love your neighbor, seek truth, forgive freely, and show mercy even in hardship.
For Muslims, Jesus — Isa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him) — is not only respected but deeply revered. The Qur’an dedicates an entire chapter to his miraculous birth and to the purity and piety of his mother, Mary. Islam affirms that Mary conceived Jesus by the will of God, without a biological father, and that the infant Jesus spoke in her defense — a miracle highlighting divine power and mercy.
Islam teaches that God sent many prophets — Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and finally Muhammad (peace be upon them all) — as guides for humanity. Belief in all of them is a core Islamic principle. The foundational faith includes belief in all prophets, revealed scriptures, angels, the Day of Judgment, and God’s decree. This reflects Islam’s spiritual inclusiveness: a Muslim cannot reject Jesus or Moses and still claim faith. The Qur’an presents Jesus as a noble prophet who healed the sick, defended the weak, and called people to righteousness.
Christians and Muslims share deep respect for his moral example. Islamic tradition also teaches that Jesus will return near the end of time as a sign of God’s justice. That belief strengthens the spiritual connection between the two faiths rather than weakening it.
Across much of the Muslim world, Christmas is acknowledged with warmth and respect. In Malaysia, Indonesia, the Gulf states, and elsewhere, public spaces display Christmas decorations, and citizens of different faiths greet one another sincerely. That spirit of coexistence reflects the higher purpose of religion: to bring people closer to God and to one another.
Yet the world today stands painfully distant from the teachings of Jesus. The message of humility has been overshadowed by arrogance; compassion has been replaced with dominance; and the defense of the weak has too often yielded to the pursuit of wealth, territory, and power.
From Europe to the Middle East to Africa, wars continue to scar humanity. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has dragged on with staggering human cost — soldiers and civilians alike suffering displacement, injury, and death while entire cities are destroyed and generations traumatized.
In Gaza and the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict, tens of thousands of civilians have been killed or wounded, and families live under unimaginable loss and fear. The civil war in Sudan has unleashed famine, displacement, and brutality on a massive scale.
Tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh have uprooted communities and shattered lives. Border friction between Thailand and Cambodia periodically flares, affecting vulnerable border populations. And the Caribbean region is witnessing rising confrontation involving Venezuela and the United States — another reminder of how competition over resources and power can spiral toward conflict.
Looming over all of this is the dangerous and often-overlooked nuclear risk in South Asia. India and Pakistan — both nuclear-armed neighbors — have fought multiple wars and experienced repeated crises. Any future conflict between them, if it were ever to escalate to nuclear exchange, could kill millions in minutes and devastate the region for generations. It is a sobering reminder that war today carries consequences far beyond the battlefield — consequences that threaten the survival of entire nations.
Behind many of these conflicts lie the same driving forces: greed, the hunger for dominance, the thirst for hegemony, disrespect for international law, and a chilling indifference to human suffering. Power becomes a prize rather than a responsibility. Neighbors become enemies rather than fellow human beings. War, sanctions, and blockades punish ordinary people — the poor, the elderly, and especially children — while the powerful speak in cold language about strategy and national interest.
This reality stands in total contradiction to what Jesus taught. His message condemned arrogance. He challenged the tyranny of wealth over conscience. He uplifted the marginalized, called for humility, and insisted that the moral worth of a society is measured by how it treats the weakest among it.
Christmas should therefore be more than a seasonal ritual. It should be a moment of moral awakening. A time when Christians and Muslims — who together make up over half of humanity — reflect on their shared spiritual foundation: belief in one God, devotion to truth, compassion, justice, humility, and service to others.
Today, the sacred books that once guided civilizations often sit unread on shelves, gathering dust while nations prepare for war instead of peace. Christmas is the time to wipe away that dust — literally and symbolically — and return to the message inside: love your neighbor, protect the innocent, feed the hungry, forgive the offender, and speak truth to power.
If even a fraction of that message were followed, wars would not be waged for land, oil, minerals, or geopolitical advantage. The enormous resources consumed by conflict could instead lift millions out of poverty, build schools and hospitals, and restore dignity to forgotten communities. True greatness lies not in the size of a nation’s military, but in the depth of its compassion and the justice of its actions. This is the heart of the matter: Faith without justice is empty, worship without mercy is incomplete and peace without humility is impossible.

When humanity rediscovers this shared spiritual core — not as slogan, but as living practice — peace will no longer remain a distant ideal. It will become a real and achievable way of life. And perhaps then, Christmas will not simply mark the birth of a prophet. It will mark the rebirth of the values he taught — compassion over cruelty, humility over arrogance, and peace over war — lighting a path forward for all humanity.

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 : For nations blessed with oil, the central question is never geological. It is political. Oil can finance schools, hospitals, roads, dignity, and independence—or it can finance coups, client rulers, sanctions, wars, and broken states. The difference is not the size of the reserves under the sand. The difference is whether the owners of that oil are allowed to own it in practice.
Before 1953, Iran’s petroleum was not simply an export commodity. It was an imperial system. Britain’s Anglo-Iranian Oil Company dominated production and refining, and Iran’s share of value was widely viewed inside Iran as humiliating—wealth extracted from Iranian soil, feeding foreign prosperity while ordinary Iranians remained poor. In 1951, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh took the step that shook the entire post-war order: he pushed legislation to nationalize Iran’s oil industry.
That single principle—“Iranian oil is for Iranian people”—was treated in London and Washington not as a commercial dispute but as a strategic revolt. In August 1953, Mosaddegh was removed in a coup funded by the United States and the United Kingdom, and the Shah’s rule was restored. From the Iranian public’s perspective, this was not merely regime change; it was a message to every oil-producing nation: ownership is tolerated only until it threatens the architecture of Western control.
This is how the “oil curse” is manufactured. The curse is not oil itself. The curse is what happens when a nation tries to convert oil into sovereignty.
Look at the sheer scale of what is at stake. Venezuela sits on roughly 303 billion barrels of proven reserves; Saudi Arabia about 267 billion; Iran about 208.6 billion; Iraq about 145 billion; Kuwait about 101.5 billion; Libya about 48.4 billion; and even gas-rich Qatar holds about 25.2 billion barrels of proven crude reserves. In today’s prices, this is not “resource wealth.” It is civilizational leverage—trillions upon trillions of dollars in potential value across generations.
So the key fight is not only over barrels in the ground, but over the entire chain that converts those barrels into money: drilling technology, service contracts, shipping insurance, tankers, refining capacity, trading houses, dollar clearing, and finally the security umbrella that protects friendly producers and suffocates defiant ones.
That chain is where American and British power has historically lived.
In the Gulf monarchies, the relationship evolved into a bargain: security and survival in exchange for strategic alignment. The U.S. became the guarantor of maritime routes and regime stability, and in return the Gulf became the world’s most important energy reservoir within an American-led order. The United States itself is also a giant producer—about 21.91 million barrels per day in 2023, the largest share of world production—so “control” is not only about imports; it’s also about shaping global pricing, shipping lanes, sanctions enforcement, and who can sell to whom.
But when a producer refuses alignment, the logic flips: oil stops being “their national asset” and becomes “the world’s problem”—a justification for pressure.
Iran is the classic case. After the Shah was imposed back into power with Western backing, Iran became a central pillar of Western strategy—until popular resistance exploded into the 1979 revolution. The hostage crisis was a symptom, not the root: the deeper driver was the belief among millions of Iranians that their wealth had been managed for outsiders and for a domestic elite seen as subordinate to foreign interests. The revolution survived because it was not merely a government; it became a public identity—built on defiance and sacrifice. That is why decades of pressure did not dissolve it.
Then came the region’s great furnace: the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam Hussein was treated as a counterweight to revolutionary Iran; the result was catastrophic human loss and the militarization of the entire Middle East. Even when that era ended, the template remained: defy the Western order and you face isolation, sanctions, and, if the moment suits, destruction.
Iraq’s later destruction was sold to the public with dramatic claims. But the deeper strategic obsession was always the same: who commands the oil state, and whose system the oil state finances.
And now, in December 2025, the pattern is unfolding—loudly—in Venezuela.
Reuters reports that on December 20, 2025, the United States intercepted an oil tanker near Venezuela. The vessel was reportedly carrying 1.8 million barrels of Venezuelan crude bound for China. Reuters also reports that U.S. authorities are pursuing additional vessels, describing an expanding crackdown and blockade concept aimed at sanctioned flows.
This is not symbolic enforcement. It attacks the bloodstream of the Venezuelan economy, which relies heavily on oil revenue. Reuters notes exports falling sharply (from over 1 million bpd in September to an estimated ~702,000 bpd in December), implying severe fiscal strangulation.
And notice the exception that exposes the logic: even as “dark fleet” shipping is disrupted, Chevron continues operating under a U.S. license structure. The Wall Street Journal describes Venezuelan shipping largely stalling “except Chevron,” underscoring how sanctions enforcement can separate “illegal oil” from “licensed oil”—meaning the barrel is acceptable when it flows through approved channels. Reuters similarly describes Chevron’s continued role under restricted authorization.
This is the modern oil empire: not necessarily ownership of the wells, but command over the rules of extraction, trade, and cashflow.
Across the region, Western majors remain embedded where states permit them—often through partnerships, service contracts, or joint ventures. Iraq, for instance, is again signing major deals with U.S. and European firms; Reuters reports ExxonMobil’s return via an agreement tied to the giant Majnoon field. Libya’s National Oil Corporation is engaging BP and Shell to study major fields, a sign of how foreign expertise re-enters when political conditions allow. Qatar’s North Field expansion, the backbone of future global gas supply, includes partnerships with ExxonMobil and other Western companies. Even in the Saudi-Kuwait “Neutral Zone,” Chevron’s legacy role appears in joint operations alongside state entities.
So when the West “benefits,” it is not always by directly stealing national revenue in one crude transaction. It benefits by sitting at multiple toll booths: technology and services, project equity stakes, shipping and trading, refining margins, finance and insurance, and—most importantly—strategic power: the ability to punish a seller, freeze a buyer, choke a port, or seize a ship.
That is why oil becomes a curse precisely at the moment a nation tries to treat it as democratic wealth. The moment leaders say, “this belongs to our people,” the system asks: will you still obey? If yes, you are protected. If not, your “resource blessing” is recast as a reason you must be disciplined.
This is the real warning to oil nations—whether in the Gulf, in Africa, or in Latin America. Oil is wealth only if you are allowed to keep it wealth. If you attempt to convert it into independence against the priorities of great powers, oil becomes the trigger for destabilization, sanctions, and war.
And that is why the same barrel can build prosperity in one country and produce ruin in another. The difference is not the oil. The difference is who is permitted to command the oil.