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 : Scott Ritter is not an ordinary commentator on war, nuclear weapons, or international security. A former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer, United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, and one of the most recognizable voices in the global arms-control debate, Ritter has spent decades studying the relationship between military power, diplomacy, and nuclear deterrence. Speaking recently at a major international forum in Russia, often described as the Russian equivalent of Davos, Ritter delivered a stark warning that the world today may be closer to a nuclear disaster than at any time since the Cold War. Reflecting on the collapse of arms-control agreements and the growing militarization of international politics, he lamented what he described as the death of diplomacy in the field of disarmament. His message was both simple and alarming: humanity is moving backward, not forward, and unless the major powers rediscover the principles of restraint, rationality, and respect for human life, the world could enter an era of unprecedented danger.
His central argument was simple but profound: arms control represented the highest expression of human rationality. It was an acknowledgment by rival nations that despite political differences, ideological conflicts, and strategic competition, the survival of humanity required restraint. It reflected an understanding that the destructive power of modern weapons had reached a level where war could no longer be treated merely as an extension of politics. The stakes had become existential.
According to Ritter, that rationality began to erode during the Iraq crisis. He argued that disarmament became a pretext rather than a genuine objective and that geopolitical ambitions gradually replaced diplomacy as the primary instrument of international relations. Whether one agrees with his interpretation or not, his broader concern deserves serious attention. The international arms-control architecture painstakingly built over decades has weakened significantly. Major treaties have expired, been abandoned, or lost their relevance. Strategic trust between great powers has deteriorated. A new arms race is emerging, and the world appears increasingly polarized.
The tragedy is that the countries possessing the greatest power also carry the greatest responsibility. The United States and Russia remain the two most influential nuclear powers on earth. Together they possess the overwhelming majority of the world’s nuclear weapons. Their actions, policies, and strategic calculations shape the global security environment more than those of any other nations. Yet instead of leading the world toward renewed disarmament, both are increasingly engaged in geopolitical confrontations that reinforce insecurity and mistrust.
The war in Ukraine has become one of the most dangerous conflicts of the modern era. Russia views the conflict through the lens of security, strategic depth, and national interest. Critics, however, see it as an attempt to impose Russian influence over a neighboring state and undermine its sovereignty. Regardless of perspective, the war has revived fears of direct confrontation between nuclear powers and has accelerated military spending across Europe.
At the same time, tensions in the Middle East continue to intensify. The United States and its allies remain deeply engaged in regional conflicts and strategic rivalries, particularly involving Iran. Washington argues that preventing nuclear proliferation is essential for global security. Yet many observers point to an uncomfortable contradiction: the United States remains the only nation in history to have used nuclear weapons in warfare, when atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.
This historical reality continues to shape perceptions around the world. Critics argue that nuclear powers often demand restraint from others while maintaining vast arsenals of their own. Such perceptions, whether justified or not, contribute to a growing sense of double standards in international relations.
The debate becomes even more complex in the Middle East. Israel is widely believed to possess a significant nuclear capability, although it maintains a policy of strategic ambiguity. Iran, meanwhile, insists that its nuclear program is peaceful and points to religious rulings that reject nuclear weapons. Yet the distrust between regional actors remains profound. The result is a security dilemma in which every action taken by one side is viewed as a threat by another.
History demonstrates that military superiority often encourages competitors to seek counterbalances. When one state acquires overwhelming power, others search for ways to protect themselves. Sometimes that means conventional military expansion. Sometimes it means alliances. In the most dangerous circumstances, it means pursuing nuclear capabilities.
This dynamic helps explain why concerns about proliferation are growing. Many smaller states observe the international system and conclude that nuclear deterrence may be the ultimate guarantee of sovereignty. Whether that conclusion is correct or not, it is becoming increasingly influential. The lesson many countries draw from recent conflicts is that weakness invites pressure while strength commands respect.
The consequences extend far beyond the battlefield. As security fears rise, governments allocate larger portions of their budgets to military spending. Resources that might otherwise be directed toward education, healthcare, infrastructure, scientific research, and social welfare are diverted toward defense. The opportunity cost is enormous. Humanity’s greatest challenges—poverty, climate change, disease, food insecurity, and technological inequality—remain unresolved while nations invest trillions in preparing for conflicts they hope never occur.
The fundamental question is therefore not whether nations have the right to defend themselves. Every sovereign state possesses that right. The real question is whether security can ever be achieved through endless accumulation of weapons alone.
History suggests otherwise. True security emerges when power is balanced by responsibility, strength by restraint, and competition by diplomacy. Military capability may deter aggression, but it cannot create trust. It cannot generate legitimacy. It cannot build the stable international order necessary for long-term peace.
That is why disarmament remains an essential objective, even if it appears politically unrealistic today. The process cannot begin with weaker states alone. It must start with the nations possessing the largest arsenals and the greatest influence. The United States and Russia must eventually return to meaningful strategic dialogue. Other nuclear powers must be incorporated into broader frameworks of transparency and accountability. Regional security arrangements must address the fears that drive proliferation in the first place.
Most importantly, global leaders must rediscover the moral foundation that once underpinned arms-control efforts. The value of human life must once again become the central principle guiding security policy. Rationality must prevail over ideology, and diplomacy must take precedence over confrontation.
The alternative is deeply troubling. A world defined by perpetual military competition, expanding nuclear arsenals, collapsing arms-control agreements, and increasing geopolitical hostility is a world moving steadily toward greater danger. In such an environment, even a single miscalculation could have catastrophic consequences.
Humanity today stands at a crossroads. One path leads toward renewed diplomacy, strategic restraint, and gradual disarmament. The other leads toward an increasingly militarized international system where insecurity breeds further insecurity. The choice should not be difficult. In the nuclear age, disarmament is not merely an idealistic aspiration. It is an existential necessity.
The ultimate lesson is clear: nations may compete, disagree, and defend their interests, but they must never lose sight of a simple truth. There can be no winners in a nuclear catastrophe. If civilization is to endure, the pursuit of peace must once again become stronger than the pursuit of power.

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.