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 latest political storm surrounding Pakistan and its mediation role between the United States and Iran did not emerge in isolation. It erupted after Lindsey Graham openly questioned senior American military leadership during congressional hearings over reports that Iranian aircraft had temporarily used Pakistani facilities after the April 7 ceasefire.
Addressing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and senior military officials, Graham insinuated that Pakistan could no longer be trusted as a neutral mediator if it maintained cooperative understandings with Iran. The implication behind his remarks was unmistakable: Pakistan’s sovereign foreign-policy decisions should somehow require approval from Washington or Tel Aviv before Islamabad could legitimately maintain relations with Tehran.
Soon afterward, Benjamin Netanyahu intensified the campaign by accusing Pakistan of running “bot farms” and social-media influence operations designed to weaken relations between the United States and Israel. Netanyahu claimed anti-Israel sentiment among younger Americans was being amplified by coordinated foreign manipulation rather than emerging organically within American society itself.
Yet the timing of these accusations reveals something far deeper. The real crisis today is not Pakistan’s diplomacy with Iran. The real crisis is the growing political and intellectual rebellion inside the United States itself against the long-standing assumption that Israel should receive unconditional military, diplomatic, and financial backing regardless of consequences.
One of the most extraordinary developments came from Jonathan Pollard — the former American intelligence analyst imprisoned for spying for Israel. In a dramatic interview with i24NEWS, Pollard declared that the U.S.-Israel alliance was “finished” and described President Donald Trump as “dangerous.” Pollard accused both American and Israeli leadership of strategic failure after October 7 and argued that Israel no longer possessed dependable allies in Washington. Coming from a figure long associated with pro-Israel advocacy, the remarks reflected the growing fractures within the alliance itself.
At the same time, voices across the American political spectrum are increasingly demanding that the United States begin treating Israel like any other sovereign state rather than granting it exceptional status beyond normal scrutiny. Tucker Carlson has repeatedly argued that America must detach itself from endless Middle Eastern wars fought in the name of Israeli security.
Jeffrey Sachs has warned that unconditional support for Israel is damaging America’s global credibility and strategic interests. Mehdi Hasan, Jeremy Scahill, Chris Hedges, and Norman Finkelstein have all criticized what they view as extraordinary protection and political privilege granted to Israel within American politics and media.
Even more remarkable is that this reassessment is no longer confined to progressive circles. Figures such as Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter from anti-interventionist and conservative circles increasingly argue that American foreign policy has become excessively shaped by Israeli strategic calculations.
On the progressive side, Ana Kasparian and Cenk Uygur have openly questioned whether the United States is sacrificing its own sovereignty and reputation in pursuit of policies benefiting another state.
Simultaneously, lawmakers such as Peter Welch and Chris Van Hollen have demanded greater scrutiny of military aid to Israel, including discussions surrounding the Leahy Law and NSM-20 reviews over alleged human-rights violations. What was politically unimaginable in Washington a decade ago is now openly debated in Congress, universities, mainstream media, podcasts, and digital platforms.
This is the real context behind Netanyahu’s accusations against Pakistan. The erosion of unquestioned support for Israel inside the United States is not created by Pakistan, Iran, or foreign “bot farms.” It is increasingly emerging from American citizens themselves — journalists, students, veterans, academics, influencers, religious leaders, podcasters, and ordinary voters questioning decades of war, instability, civilian casualties, and endless military entanglements across the Middle East.
The digital revolution has accelerated this transformation. Traditional gatekeepers no longer control political narratives. Millions of Americans now receive information through podcasts, livestreams, independent media, and social platforms where alternative perspectives circulate freely. Images from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran have profoundly shaped public opinion, especially among younger generations who increasingly reject unconditional support for war.
Against this backdrop, attempts to blame Pakistan for changing American attitudes appear politically convenient but strategically hollow.
At the same time, the controversy over Pakistan’s mediation role raises a much larger legal and diplomatic question: the sovereignty of states under international law. The Charter of the United Nations explicitly recognizes the sovereign equality of all member states under Article 2(1). Article 2(4) further prohibits coercion or threats against the political independence of states.
Beyond the Charter itself, UN General Assembly Resolution 2131 on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States clearly declares that no country has the right to intervene directly or indirectly in the political, economic, or external affairs of another sovereign state. Likewise, Resolution 36/103 reaffirmed that every nation possesses the right to freely develop political, economic, diplomatic, and strategic relations according to its own national interests without outside interference.
Under these principles, Pakistan has every legal right to maintain relations simultaneously with Iran, the United States, China, Gulf countries, or any other nation. If Islamabad chose under bilateral understanding to temporarily facilitate Iranian aircraft during a ceasefire period, that falls within sovereign bilateral relations between two independent UN member states. No third country possesses automatic authority to interfere with or dictate those relationships unless binding international sanctions exist.
Therefore, Pakistan should not appear apologetic, nervous, or defensive if it has allowed Iranian aircraft temporary logistical arrangements under bilateral understandings. Sovereign states act according to national interests, geography, strategic necessity, diplomacy, and regional realities. Pakistan’s historic, cultural, religious, and geographic ties with Iran are well known and entirely legitimate under international law.
Nor should Pakistan become intimidated by the insinuations of Israeli-aligned political figures in the U.S. Senate or Congress who now appear determined to downgrade Islamabad’s status as a mediator. Much of this criticism reflects frustration that Pakistan succeeded where many others failed: helping facilitate the April 7 ceasefire that prevented a potentially catastrophic regional war.
That ceasefire, now indefinitely extended, likely saved the global economy trillions of dollars in losses, prevented massive disruptions to oil supplies and maritime trade, and protected countless civilian lives across the Middle East and beyond.
Instead of acknowledging Pakistan’s diplomatic contribution, sections of the Israeli political establishment and its supporters continue attempting to poison perceptions of Pakistan in Washington. Their objective increasingly appears not merely to criticize Pakistan, but to create suspicion around Islamabad’s neutrality and undermine the confidence that President Trump himself has repeatedly expressed toward Pakistan’s leadership.
Yet despite these pressure campaigns, Trump has publicly praised Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir for facilitating diplomacy and helping reduce regional tensions. His administration clearly recognizes that Pakistan’s communication channels with all sides made meaningful mediation possible.
Ultimately, this controversy reflects a larger geopolitical transformation underway across the world. The debate is no longer simply about Pakistan, Iran, or Israel alone. It is about sovereignty, international law, independent foreign policy, and whether powerful lobbying networks can continue dictating global narratives indefinitely despite changing political realities inside the United States itself. And increasingly, that debate is being driven not by outsiders, but by Americans themselves.

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 : When President Donald Trump warned that the United States could “destroy the civilization of Iran,” few in Washington imagined that Iran would respond not merely with missiles, drones, or naval blockades, but by exposing a terrifying reality to the world: modern civilization does not only run on oil. It runs on data. And much of that data passes through the same narrow waterway that carries the world’s energy lifeline — the Strait of Hormuz.
For decades, the Strait of Hormuz was viewed primarily as the world’s most critical oil chokepoint connecting the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea. Every crisis in the region triggered fears of soaring fuel prices, economic collapse, and shipping paralysis.
But the 2026 Iran-USA-Israel conflict has revealed something even more consequential hidden beneath those waters: the digital nervous system of the modern world.
Beneath the seabed of Hormuz lie at least seven major undersea fiber-optic cable systems, including FALCON, AAE-1, TGN-Gulf, and several Asia-Europe communication routes. These cables carry enormous volumes of global internet traffic, cloud computing operations, banking transactions, military communications, GPS synchronization signals, AI data flows, financial clearing systems, media broadcasts, and commercial operations linking Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and beyond. These are not ordinary cables. They are the arteries of modern civilization.
More than 95 percent of international internet traffic travels through undersea fiber-optic networks. Gulf nations such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain rely heavily on these cables for everything from oil trading and banking to aviation control and national security communications.
India depends on these routes for connectivity to Europe and the Middle East. Global tech giants such as Google, Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft either own, lease, or operate major portions of the world’s subsea cable infrastructure. In reality, the modern internet is not floating in the clouds. It lies vulnerable at the bottom of the ocean.
Iran recognizes this vulnerability and is keeping the option open to impose licensing fees, regulations, and even operational control over the fiber-optic cables passing through Hormuz. Tehran has reportedly explored legal mechanisms to treat the underwater infrastructure as part of Iran’s sovereign jurisdiction within the strait. While the world initially dismissed these statements as propaganda, the strategic implications are staggering.
The closure or disruption of the Strait of Hormuz already pushed oil prices sharply upward, increasing fuel costs for ordinary Americans and consumers worldwide. Many households experienced thousands of dollars in additional annual expenses due to inflation, rising transportation costs, food prices, and energy shocks. But a disruption of the digital cables beneath Hormuz would unleash a crisis far beyond inflation. It would paralyze civilization itself.
The modern financial system depends on millisecond communication between banks, stock exchanges, SWIFT systems, trading platforms, and cloud servers. Trillions of dollars in financial transactions pass daily through these networks. A major cable disruption could halt real-time banking operations, freeze financial markets, delay international transfers, and disrupt payment systems globally. The consequences would not stop there.
Commercial aviation relies heavily on digital communication networks for navigation, weather coordination, GPS synchronization, and air traffic management. Shipping industries use constant data exchanges for cargo tracking, maritime safety, navigation routing, and port logistics. Modern agriculture depends on satellite-linked irrigation systems, weather forecasting, fertilizer supply coordination, commodity exchanges, and precision farming technologies. Hospitals rely on cloud databases and communication systems. Governments rely on encrypted defense communications. Artificial intelligence systems depend on uninterrupted data exchange between global data centers.
If these cables were severely disrupted, much of the modern world could slow to a standstill within hours. Even temporary outages are catastrophically expensive. Studies estimate that major internet disruptions can cost millions of dollars per hour. IT outages alone can cost corporations over $33,000 per minute. Repairing damaged subsea cables can cost between $1.5 million and $8 million depending on the scale of the disruption. But the indirect economic losses are far greater — potentially reaching hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars if outages persist.
The world received a warning in 2006 when an earthquake damaged nine undersea cables near Taiwan. Connectivity disruptions lasted for weeks across parts of Asia, affecting banking systems, communications, and trade flows. Eleven repair ships required nearly 50 days to fully restore operations. Now imagine a deliberate geopolitical confrontation centered around Hormuz.
Unlike oil tankers, these cables cannot easily be replaced or rerouted overnight. They lie in shallow, vulnerable seabeds where anchors, sabotage operations, or military activity can sever them. Even a few coordinated disruptions could force global internet traffic into severe congestion, creating massive latency, communication failures, and digital blackouts. This is why Iran’s leverage now extends beyond missiles and naval power.
For the first time in modern history, a regional power has demonstrated the ability to influence both the world’s energy bloodstream and its digital nervous system simultaneously.
Iran’s strategic posture has evolved dramatically during this conflict. Initially, Tehran refused discussions on nuclear limitations, missile restrictions, or reopening Hormuz until hostilities ceased permanently and reparations for infrastructure damage, assassinated leadership figures, and civilian casualties were addressed. Iran’s leadership appears convinced that the closure of Hormuz — and the fear surrounding it — forced the world to recognize the limits of American and Israeli power projection.
Now Tehran possesses another negotiating card: the digital cables. The implications for the United States are profound. American military power depends heavily on global communication networks. Command-and-control systems, intelligence sharing, satellite synchronization, drone operations, logistics coordination, and cloud-based defense infrastructure all rely on resilient international data routes. If Iran can influence, disrupt, or regulate these networks near Hormuz, it creates a new layer of strategic vulnerability for Washington.
Even more alarming for Western policymakers is that disruption can occur through hybrid warfare methods. A cable cut caused by “accidental” anchor dragging or proxy sabotage creates plausible deniability while still inflicting enormous damage. Such attacks are harder to deter than conventional missile strikes.
This is why President Trump’s upcoming visit to China carries extraordinary significance. Beyond discussions about trade, tariffs, and geopolitics, one of the most urgent priorities will likely involve restoring stability to the Strait of Hormuz and ensuring the uninterrupted flow of both energy and digital communications.
The reality now confronting the world is sobering. Oil was once considered the single jugular vein of modern civilization. But the 2026 conflict has exposed a second jugular vein hidden beneath the oceans: the global fiber-optic communication network. Together, these two systems power the modern world. And today, Iran sits astride both.
Whether Tehran ultimately uses this leverage for negotiation, deterrence, or economic pressure remains uncertain. What is certain is that the world has entered a new era where wars are no longer fought only with bombs, tanks, and missiles. They are fought through shipping lanes, data cables, cloud infrastructure, financial networks, and communication systems that sustain every aspect of modern life.
If these systems collapse simultaneously, humanity would not simply face recession or inflation. Large parts of civilization could be pushed temporarily into digital darkness — a modern form of the Stone Age in the age of artificial intelligence.

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 most important geopolitical question emerging from the recent Middle East conflict is not merely why Israel continues to act with what many describe as total impunity, but why the broader Muslim world, despite possessing immense economic, military, and strategic power, has remained fragmented, hesitant, and largely ineffective in confronting it. The answer to this question exposes not only the changing balance of power in the Middle East, but also the deep contradictions within the global Muslim political order itself.
The recent war transformed many assumptions that had shaped international politics for decades. For the first time in modern history, Iran demonstrated that even the combined military, diplomatic, and economic pressure of the United States and Israel could be resisted.
Few analysts imagined that Tehran would withstand months of military confrontation, survive economic pressure, absorb attacks on its infrastructure and leadership, and still emerge politically stronger.
Yet that is exactly what happened. Militarily, Iran preserved its command structure, maintained its deterrence capability, and continued projecting power through both direct and indirect means. Diplomatically, Tehran achieved something equally remarkable: it prevented the complete isolation that Washington and Tel Aviv had sought to impose upon it.
In the United Nations and other international forums, the United States failed repeatedly to secure the level of consensus it once commanded effortlessly. China and Russia openly resisted Western pressure and challenged American narratives surrounding maritime security, sanctions, and military escalation.
Even many countries traditionally aligned with Washington adopted cautious or neutral positions rather than joining a wider anti-Iran coalition. Instead of appearing isolated, Iran suddenly appeared resilient, composed, and increasingly influential.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi embarked on an aggressive diplomatic campaign across the Middle East and beyond, reassuring neighboring countries that Iran did not seek war against Arab states.
Tehran repeatedly argued that its attacks on military bases in the region were not aimed at host governments themselves, but at facilities being used by the United States to conduct operations against Iran.
From Tehran’s perspective, if a country thousands of miles away could claim a “perceived threat” as justification for military action against Iran, then Iran also possessed the right to neutralize launch points and operational hubs being used against it.
This argument, controversial as it may be, resonated with many observers who increasingly viewed the conflict through the lens of double standards.
Iran’s leadership emphasized that collateral damage from its strikes was minimal compared to the widespread destruction caused in Gaza, Lebanon, and elsewhere. Whether one agrees with Tehran or not, the diplomatic effect was undeniable: most Middle Eastern states refused to join the offensive side of the war. They remained defensive, cautious, and unwilling to openly participate in direct confrontation with Iran.
At the same time, the United States suffered a severe erosion of political influence across Europe. Washington’s increasingly confrontational posture toward European allies, combined with pressure campaigns and threats of troop withdrawals, accelerated growing resentment inside the European Union.
Germany and other European states began openly discussing strategic autonomy and reducing dependency on American military dominance. What was once framed as a protective alliance increasingly started being viewed by many Europeans as an unequal arrangement driven by American interests rather than mutual respect.
Yet despite this massive geopolitical shift — despite Iran surviving, despite American prestige declining, despite Israel facing unprecedented military and diplomatic pressure — Israel continued its aggressive posture toward Lebanon and Gaza.
This contradiction raises an even deeper question: why did the burden of confronting Israel fall disproportionately upon Iran, a Shia-majority state, while many powerful Sunni-majority countries remained passive?
This is the uncomfortable reality that now confronts the Muslim world. Iran, despite sectarian differences and historical rivalries, positioned itself as the most aggressive defender of Palestinians and Lebanese civilians.
Meanwhile, many Sunni-majority states possessing enormous wealth, advanced weaponry, and strategic leverage limited themselves largely to statements, summits, condemnations, and symbolic diplomacy.
Saudi Arabia, which has long claimed leadership of the Sunni Muslim world, possessed the economic influence to impose severe pressure through oil policy, trade restrictions, and regional coordination.
Turkey frequently projects military strength and strategic ambition, yet during the height of the crisis it remained largely rhetorical. The United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Jordan, and other regional powers similarly avoided meaningful confrontation.
Even countries with immense populations and military capabilities — including Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and influential African Muslim states — did not collectively mobilize to impose serious economic or diplomatic costs upon Israel.
Ironically, some European countries and international institutions appeared more vocal in defending Palestinian rights than many Muslim governments themselves. European public opinion increasingly shifted against Israeli military operations.
Humanitarian agencies, civil society groups, and even segments of Western political establishments openly criticized the scale of destruction in Gaza and Lebanon. The United Nations repeatedly warned about humanitarian catastrophe.
Yet the Muslim world, despite possessing the strongest emotional, religious, and historical connection to the issue, remained deeply divided and strategically paralyzed.
If Israel justifies its actions in southern Lebanon by claiming it seeks a “buffer zone” for security, then the logic becomes limitless and dangerous. By that reasoning, any powerful state could justify occupying neighboring territory indefinitely under the pretext of future threats.
Security concerns cannot become a permanent license for territorial expansion, demographic displacement, or endless military operations.
Critics increasingly argue that what is unfolding reflects not merely defensive policy, but a broader strategic ambition to dominate surrounding regions politically and militarily.
The tragedy is that the Muslim world still possesses immense leverage if it chooses to act collectively. It controls critical trade routes, energy supplies, air corridors, ports, and markets.
Coordinated restrictions on airspace access, shipping routes, commercial cooperation, and strategic logistics could dramatically alter the regional balance without requiring direct military confrontation. Economic isolation, diplomatic unity, and strategic pressure could impose significant costs while avoiding catastrophic war.
Instead, many governments continue offering rhetorical solidarity while avoiding meaningful sacrifice or risk. This gap between public emotion and state policy has created widespread frustration across Muslim societies.
The lesson emerging from the Iran confrontation is not necessarily about ideology or sectarianism, but about political will. Iran demonstrated that a nation prepared to absorb pressure, endure hardship, and act with strategic determination can challenge even vastly superior powers.
Whether one supports or opposes Tehran’s policies, the symbolism of its resilience has transformed regional psychology. It shattered the belief that resistance is impossible. It exposed the limitations of overwhelming military superiority when confronted by national resolve and strategic patience. Most importantly, it revealed the weakness of states that possess wealth and power but lack collective courage and unity.
The broader lesson for the Muslim world is stark. Fear of retaliation, dependency, and political caution may preserve short-term stability, but they also perpetuate long-term humiliation and strategic irrelevance.
Nations that continuously avoid risk eventually lose both influence and dignity. Courage alone does not guarantee victory, but the absence of courage guarantees submission.
The crisis in Gaza and Lebanon has therefore become more than a regional conflict. It has become a mirror reflecting the political fragmentation, contradictions, and moral paralysis of the Muslim world itself.
Until Muslim nations move beyond symbolic rhetoric and develop coordinated, principled, and strategic policies, Israel will continue acting with confidence and impunity. The future balance of power in the Middle East will ultimately not be determined only by weapons or technology, but by which nations possess the unity, resilience, and political courage to stand firmly behind their convictions.