war
Iran War: The Energy Trap for China and Russia
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 : This war may be presented as a fight over nuclear fear, missiles, or regime behavior, but beneath the headlines lies a far larger strategic contest: who will command the chokepoints through which the lifeblood of the global economy flows.
Wars are often sold to the world in moral language, but fought for strategic outcomes. The ongoing confrontation centered on Iran is no exception. To the United States, Israel, Britain, France, and much of the Western media, the war is projected as a campaign of necessity: a preemptive effort to stop an alleged nuclear threat, weaken Iranian missile power, and restore security to a volatile region. In that narrative, Western force is disciplined, purposeful, and increasingly successful, while Iran is portrayed as cornered, degraded, and losing ground.
But from Tehran, and from those across the world who reject the Western reading of the conflict, the war appears entirely different. There, it is seen as a story of one nation, battered yet unbowed, resisting the most powerful military coalition on earth and still retaining the capacity to impose pain, uncertainty, and strategic cost. In this second narrative, Iran’s endurance itself becomes a kind of victory. A nation under siege is not expected to dominate the skies, but merely to survive, retaliate, and deny its enemies a clean triumph. That denial carries military, political, and moral weight.
Both sides choose facts that flatter their case. Both highlight only those developments that fit their desired conclusion. Yet when the smoke of propaganda begins to clear, a deeper question emerges: what, in truth, is this war really about?
The official Western justifications do not fully satisfy the scale of the conflict. Iran has long been accused of standing only days or weeks away from weaponization, yet no public evidence has shown an actual nuclear test, a declared bomb, or the unmistakable operationalization of such a weapon. If Tehran had already crossed that threshold, the world would likely have seen far clearer proof by now. The gap between nuclear capability and an actual deliverable bomb is vast, and it is precisely within that gap that political narratives are often built.
The second argument, that Iran must be attacked because of its ballistic missile capability, has greater strategic logic but also exposes a double standard. Yes, Iran’s missiles threaten U.S. bases, allied infrastructure, shipping routes, and Israel. But many states possess missile capabilities without becoming targets of such an overwhelming multinational military design. North Korea, for example, is more isolated, more repressive, and openly nuclear-armed, yet it has not been subjected to this kind of sustained Western-Israeli military pressure. Why? The answer is not found in moral principle. It is found in geography.
Iran sits beside the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most critical energy chokepoints in human history. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration data you provided, about 20.9 million barrels per day of oil moved through Hormuz in the first half of 2025. That amounts to roughly one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption and about one-quarter of globally traded maritime oil. In the same period, around 11.4 billion cubic feet per day of LNG also transited the strait, representing more than one-fifth of global LNG trade. These are not marginal figures. They are the circulatory system of the industrial world.
That is what makes Iran categorically different from North Korea. Iran does not merely possess missiles, a controversial nuclear program, or an adversarial ideology. Iran sits astride a waterway through which the economic oxygen of Asia and much of the wider world must pass. China, India, Japan, and South Korea together accounted for nearly three-quarters of Hormuz crude and condensate flows in the first half of 2025. In other words, the great Asian engines of growth remain heavily dependent on the uninterrupted movement of Gulf energy through waters adjoining Iran.
Now consider the wider maritime map. The Strait of Malacca handled 23.2 million barrels per day in the first half of 2025, even more than Hormuz, making it the largest oil chokepoint in the world by volume. It is the shortest and most efficient route connecting Middle Eastern energy suppliers with East and Southeast Asia. China alone accounted for 48% of the import volumes passing through Malacca in that period. Meanwhile, the Cape of Good Hope, though not a chokepoint, carried 9.1 million barrels per day as rerouted shipping avoided attacks and instability around the Red Sea. Bab el-Mandeb and the Suez-SUMED route, once central arteries to Europe, saw their flows nearly halved from 2023 levels due to insecurity and rerouting. The global energy system is therefore not merely about production; it is about maritime passage, route vulnerability, insurance cost, naval reach, and the ability to protect or disrupt the channels through which supply moves.
If the United States, through military presence, alliance architecture, naval supremacy, and regional basing, were able to dominate the security environment around Hormuz while retaining influence across the broader chain of maritime corridors stretching toward Bab el-Mandeb, the Red Sea, the Cape route, and onward to Asia’s receiving lanes, then Washington would possess extraordinary leverage over the global energy order. It would not legally “own” these waterways, nor permanently command every vessel that crosses them, but it could shape the conditions under which oil moves, slows, detours, becomes more expensive, or becomes politically hostage to security calculations.
And that leverage would be immense. The United States today is itself a top oil producer and far less dependent on Gulf imports than in previous decades. By contrast, Asia remains far more exposed to disruptions in Gulf exports. This asymmetry matters. A power less dependent on a chokepoint but more capable of militarily policing it enjoys a structural advantage over powers whose economies rely heavily on its uninterrupted use. Such an arrangement would allow Washington to pressure adversaries not necessarily by stopping every cargo physically, but by raising risk, insurance, delay, and uncertainty to levels that alter trade behavior. In global energy markets, fear itself is a weapon.
Venezuela adds another layer to this picture. It possesses the world’s largest proven crude reserves, and while sanctions, infrastructure decay, and underinvestment have kept production far below its potential, the country remains a massive latent energy asset in the Western Hemisphere. If Washington can tighten its grip over western supply sources while also exerting naval and strategic influence over eastern chokepoints, then it is not difficult to imagine a future in which energy becomes an even sharper geopolitical instrument. That would not mean total American control of global oil, but it would mean an ability to influence supply routes, pricing pressure, and economic vulnerability in ways few empires in history have ever possessed.
Such a scenario would place China in particular under long-term strategic stress. Its factories, transport networks, petrochemical industries, and export machines all depend on steady access to imported energy. Russia too would face increasing pressure if maritime and sanctioned routes became narrower, longer, costlier, or more politically constrained. Even U.S. allies would not be immune. Any state that disobeyed Washington on key matters could face indirect coercion through a security system that determines how safely and cheaply energy reaches world markets.
That, then, is the terrifying possibility hidden beneath the daily headlines. The war on Iran may not simply be about uranium enrichment, missiles, democracy, or the suffering of the Iranian people. It may be about who commands the valves of the global economy. It may be about transforming maritime geography into a mechanism of strategic obedience. It may be about giving one power the ability, in moments of crisis, to squeeze rivals, discipline allies, and bend energy-dependent economies toward submission.
And that is why this conflict is so dangerous. If Russia and China conclude that Iran is not merely a regional partner but the front line of a broader struggle over the future control of Eurasia’s energy lifelines, then the war may not remain confined to Iran at all. It could widen not because anyone desires world war, but because the consequences of inaction may appear even more catastrophic than the risks of confrontation.
The world therefore stands before a historic choice. Either the major powers step back and preserve a plural, negotiated, and open energy order, or they continue down a path in which chokepoints become instruments of domination and commerce becomes a hostage of force. If the second path prevails, then the attack on Iran will be remembered not as a regional war, but as the opening move in a far larger campaign to place the world’s economic bloodstream under strategic command. And if that day comes, nations will discover too late that oil was never just a commodity. It was power, mobility, sovereignty, and survival. Whoever controls its pathways does not merely influence the market. They hold a hand on the throat of the modern 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 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.
Navruz & Timur’s Empire: A Kaleidoscope of Cultures Blooms at Uzbekistan’s University of Journalism
How Iran War Is Grounding the World Economy
Trump’s Shadow War Against China
-
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