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 : At the beginning of the Iran war, many observers believed that the greatest beneficiary would ultimately be Israel. The war was projected as the final chapter in a long strategic campaign to neutralize Iran, dismantle its regional influence, and reshape the Middle East under a new geopolitical order favorable to Tel Aviv and Washington. Israeli intelligence circles, supported by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and their allies in Washington, appeared convinced that the Iranian state was fragile, internally collapsing, economically exhausted, and politically isolated. According to that narrative, all that Iran needed was one decisive kinetic push from the United States and Israel for the entire regime to collapse like a house of cards.
The assumption was that once Tehran fell, a pro-Western puppet regime would emerge, Iranian resources would come under indirect American-Israeli influence, and the strategic dream of uncontested Israeli dominance in the Middle East would finally become reality. This was not merely about defeating Iran militarily; it was about transforming the entire political map of the region.
But history often humiliates those who confuse ambition with reality. Instead of collapsing, Iran resisted. Instead of surrendering, it retaliated. Instead of fragmenting, it unified. And in doing so, it may have fundamentally damaged Israel’s long-term strategic position more severely than any battlefield loss.
The first and perhaps most devastating consequence for Israel has been the erosion of its unquestioned political influence inside the United States. For decades, support for Israel in Washington operated almost as an untouchable doctrine. Congressional appropriations for Israel passed without scrutiny. Military aid flowed uninterrupted. Politicians from both parties competed to prove their loyalty to Israeli security interests. Criticizing Israel was politically dangerous, and opposing Israeli military actions was often portrayed as unpatriotic.
But the Iran war changed the atmosphere dramatically. For the first time in years, large segments of the American public, independent journalists, political commentators, and even lawmakers began openly questioning whether the United States had entered the conflict to defend America or merely to protect Israeli strategic ambitions.
Earlier congressional efforts to restrict presidential authority for war against Iran had failed overwhelmingly. Yet when a similar bipartisan initiative reappeared later, it was defeated by only a single vote. That shift was historically significant. It demonstrated that many lawmakers who once unquestioningly aligned with Israeli demands were now beginning to recognize the political cost of appearing subordinate to foreign strategic interests.
The second major failure for Israel was strategic miscalculation. Iran absorbed the initial attacks, maintained command cohesion, preserved national unity, and launched retaliatory strikes that shocked both Israel and the United States.
Instead of showcasing Israeli supremacy, the war exposed vulnerabilities. Iranian missile and drone operations damaged sensitive Israeli infrastructure and demonstrated that Israel could no longer operate with total impunity. The myth of invulnerability was shattered. When the United States entered directly to support Israel, American bases themselves became targets, expanding the conflict beyond Israel’s borders and increasing the risks for Washington.
The broader geopolitical consequences may prove even more damaging for Israel. One of the hidden strategic goals behind pressure on Iran was to accelerate normalization between Israel and major Sunni Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia. Israeli strategists believed that weakening Iran would frighten Gulf monarchies into deeper dependence on Israeli military and intelligence cooperation. Once Saudi Arabia fully normalized relations with Israel, Tel Aviv hoped to cement its hegemony across the Middle East.
Yet the opposite occurred. Most Middle Eastern states avoided direct participation in the war. Rather than joining a regional offensive against Iran, Gulf countries emphasized diplomacy, negotiation, coexistence, and regional stability. Their leaders repeatedly signaled that they understood how to manage relations with Iran through political engagement, religious ties, and pragmatic diplomacy rather than total confrontation.
More importantly, Iran’s military and strategic resilience has now altered the balance of power in the region. Instead of being weakened into submission, Iran has emerged as what many analysts increasingly describe as the new strategic sheriff of the Middle East. Its demonstrated offensive and defensive capabilities have created a new deterrence equation. For decades, Israel relied on the doctrine of absolute military superiority and total impunity. That doctrine has now been challenged openly and visibly.
With Iran’s strategic credibility strengthened, its allied movements and ideological partners across the region are also expected to gain renewed confidence and momentum. Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iran-aligned groups are likely to receive a psychological and political boost from Tehran’s survival and resistance. The perception that Iran successfully stood against both Israel and the United States will energize many of its supporters throughout the region. At the same time, the broader influence of Shiite political and religious movements may expand significantly across the Middle East. This could gradually reshape the religious and political balance of power in the region.
Ironically, the very war designed to establish “Greater Israel” may now accelerate the opposite outcome. Instead of expanding Israeli influence from the Euphrates to the Nile, the conflict has exposed the limits of Israeli and American power. The dream of uncontested territorial and military expansion has collided with the reality of regional resistance and shifting geopolitical dynamics. As a consequence, the future may increasingly move not toward a greater Israel, but toward an Israel forced back within more internationally recognized and defensible boundaries.
Equally significant is the perception that the United States itself no longer possesses unlimited willingness or capacity to impose Israeli strategic objectives across the region. The costs of war, domestic political backlash, economic strain, and military overstretch have all weakened Washington’s appetite for open-ended confrontation. That realization alone changes the calculations of every regional power.
Perhaps most importantly, the war transformed global narratives surrounding Israel itself. Around the world, criticism of Israeli policies intensified dramatically. Independent media, social platforms, academics, and even former Western officials increasingly challenged long-standing assumptions about Israeli exceptionalism and impunity. Questions once considered taboo entered mainstream political discourse: Was Israel manipulating American foreign policy? Were American soldiers and taxpayers paying the price for another nation’s ambitions? Had exaggerated intelligence assessments pushed Washington into unnecessary confrontation?
These questions would have been politically unthinkable only a few years ago. Today, they dominate public debate across many societies.
In the end, the greatest lesson of the Iran war may be that military superiority alone cannot guarantee geopolitical victory. Nations endure through legitimacy, resilience, diplomacy, and the ability to command genuine trust among allies and populations. Israel entered the conflict hoping to reshape the Middle East in its favor. Instead, it may have triggered a historic reassessment of its role in the region and its relationship with the United States itself.
The war that was meant to establish permanent Israeli dominance instead exposed strategic overreach, weakened political consensus in Washington, strengthened Iran’s regional standing, and revived resistance movements across the Middle East. Far from inaugurating a new age of “Greater Israel,” the conflict may ultimately be remembered as the moment when the limits of Israeli power were finally exposed before the entire world.

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 recent escalation surrounding Donald Trump and Iran has unfolded not only on battlefields and in diplomatic corridors, but also in the realm of narratives—carefully constructed, strategically deployed, and globally amplified. At the center of this evolving geopolitical drama lies a striking contradiction: while Washington projects Iran as fractured, leaderless, and internally conflicted, Tehran continues to demonstrate operational cohesion, strategic resilience, and an ability to withstand immense external pressure. This divergence between narrative and reality is not accidental; it is a calculated instrument of psychological warfare.
The claim that Iran’s leadership is divided—torn between moderates, hardliners, and military elites—has become a recurring theme in American political and media discourse. Statements suggesting “confusion,” “infighting,” and “lack of clear leadership” are designed to create an image of instability. The strategic objective is clear: weaken Iran’s negotiating position, sow doubt within its governance structure, and signal to the international community that Tehran is incapable of functioning as a coherent state actor.
However, a closer examination reveals a more complex reality. While differences in political approach undoubtedly exist within Iran—as they do in any political system—these divisions have not translated into strategic paralysis. On matters of national security, sovereignty, and external threats, Iran has historically demonstrated a unified posture. Its ability to respond swiftly to military challenges, reorganize leadership structures after targeted strikes, and maintain continuity in decision-making underscores a system that, while diverse in internal viewpoints, remains cohesive in its core objectives.
This contrast becomes even more significant when placed alongside the internal dynamics of the United States itself. American political life is currently marked by deep partisan polarization, legislative gridlock, and public disagreement over foreign policy decisions. Debates in Congress regarding military engagement, economic sanctions, and executive authority reflect a nation grappling with its own internal divisions. Yet, despite this visible discord, the United States continues to function as a powerful, centralized actor on the global stage.
The parallel is instructive. Internal disagreement does not equate to institutional weakness—neither in Washington nor in Tehran. In both systems, debates, rivalries, and competing perspectives coexist with mechanisms that ultimately produce unified external action. The difference lies in perception: while U.S. internal divisions are often framed as democratic discourse, similar dynamics in Iran are portrayed as signs of systemic collapse.
This asymmetry in narrative serves a broader strategic purpose. By projecting Iran as unstable, the United States seeks to justify its own actions—whether military, economic, or diplomatic—as necessary responses to a dysfunctional adversary. At the same time, it aims to influence international opinion, encouraging allies and neutral states to view Iran as an unreliable partner.
Beyond rhetoric, the conflict has increasingly shifted toward economic warfare. Control over critical global chokepoints, particularly the Strait of Hormuz, has emerged as a central lever of influence. Any disruption in this vital waterway—through blockades, seizures, or military presence—has immediate and far-reaching consequences for global energy markets. The mere threat of instability can drive oil prices upward, disrupt supply chains, and place immense pressure on economies worldwide.
In this context, actions targeting maritime routes are not merely tactical maneuvers; they are strategic signals. They demonstrate the capacity to influence global economic stability and underscore the interconnected nature of modern geopolitics. Both the United States and Iran understand that control over energy flows translates into leverage—not just over each other, but over the entire international system.
At the same time, military posturing continues to play a critical role. The sustained deployment of forces, the reinforcement of regional bases, and the accumulation of advanced weaponry all contribute to an atmosphere of heightened tension. Yet, despite this buildup, both sides appear cautious about crossing the threshold into full-scale war. The costs—economic, human, and political—are simply too high.
Instead, what has emerged is a prolonged contest of endurance. Economic sanctions, cyber operations, proxy engagements, and information campaigns have replaced direct confrontation as the primary tools of conflict. Each side is testing the other’s resilience, seeking to determine who will yield first under sustained pressure.
Within this framework, the narrative of Iranian “infighting” takes on additional significance. It is not merely a description; it is a tactic. By emphasizing division, the United States attempts to accelerate internal stress within Iran, hoping that economic hardship and political uncertainty will lead to concessions at the negotiating table. Conversely, Iran counters this narrative by projecting unity, resilience, and defiance—reinforcing the message that external pressure will not fracture its core.
The interplay between these competing narratives highlights a fundamental truth about modern conflict: perception is as important as reality. In an era of instantaneous communication and global media reach, shaping how events are understood can be as decisive as the events themselves.
Looking ahead, the path toward de-escalation remains uncertain but not impossible. Both nations have strong incentives to avoid a prolonged, destructive conflict. Economic stability, regional security, and global market confidence all depend on a reduction in tensions. However, any meaningful progress will require a shift in approach—from coercion and confrontation to dialogue and mutual recognition.
Crucially, such dialogue must be grounded in parity. Durable agreements are rarely achieved when one side seeks dominance over the other. Instead, they emerge when both parties recognize each other’s core interests and negotiate as equals. This principle is particularly relevant in the current context, where attempts to impose unilateral terms have repeatedly led to stalemate.
In the end, the narrative of division—whether in Iran or the United States—should be understood for what it is: a strategic tool, not an objective reality. Both nations possess complex political systems, internal debates, and competing factions. Yet both also retain the capacity to act decisively when national interests are at stake.
The challenge, therefore, is not to eliminate internal differences, but to ensure that they do not escalate into external conflict. If managed wisely, these differences can coexist with stability. If exploited recklessly, they can become catalysts for deeper confrontation.
As the world watches this high-stakes standoff, one conclusion becomes increasingly clear: the future of U.S.–Iran relations will be determined not by narratives of weakness, but by the ability of both sides to move beyond them—and engage in a process that recognizes strength, sovereignty, and the necessity of coexistence.

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.