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 : During the height of the Israel–Iran confrontation, Benjamin Netanyahu once again returned to his most familiar refrain: that peace in the Middle East—and by extension global stability—requires “regime change” in Iran. It was not a new idea, nor even a new sentence. It was the same narrative he had relentlessly promoted against Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, and Palestinian leaders such as Ismail Haniyeh.
In every case, the promise was identical: remove the leader, and peace will follow. In every case, the result was the opposite—state collapse, prolonged civil war, regional destabilization, mass displacement, and the rise of extremism. Iraq did not become peaceful after Saddam Hussein; it descended into sectarian violence that killed hundreds of thousands. Libya did not stabilize after Gaddafi; it fractured into rival militias and became a transit hub for arms and human trafficking. Syria’s attempted regime change ignited one of the worst humanitarian disasters of the 21st century. Gaza, after repeated leadership assassinations, remains trapped in endless cycles of war.
Yet Netanyahu now repeats the same formula for Iran—this time targeting not merely political leadership but the entire ideological structure of the Islamic Republic, including its supreme leadership and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
At one critical moment, even Netanyahu himself acknowledged that Israel’s military apparatus had Iran’s leadership “locked in.” According to public statements later echoed in Western media, Israeli intelligence and strike capabilities were ready, awaiting only political clearance. That final authorization, however, never came. Donald Trump, despite his otherwise confrontational posture toward Iran, reportedly withheld the green light. Whether due to fear of uncontrollable escalation, economic consequences, or intelligence assessments predicting catastrophic regional blowback, the decision spared Iran’s leadership—and possibly the region—from immediate catastrophe.
Today, however, the situation appears far more dangerous. Protests inside Iran—some organic, some amplified—are now being framed internationally as the prelude to regime collapse. Western intelligence narratives increasingly mirror those seen before Iraq in 2003 or Libya in 2011. The Central Intelligence Agency has historically played such roles before, and Iran itself is no stranger to this pattern.
The first modern regime change in Iran occurred in 1953, when the CIA and Britain’s MI6 overthrew Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after he nationalized Iran’s oil industry, expelling Anglo-American corporate control. The result was the installation of the Shah, whose authoritarian rule—backed by Western security services—lasted until 1979. When the Shah later attempted to reclaim economic sovereignty and assert independence, he too became expendable. The Islamic Revolution that followed did not emerge in a vacuum; it was the direct outcome of decades of foreign manipulation.
Since 1979, hostility between Iran and Israel has remained constant, driven by ideology, regional rivalry, and competing security doctrines. But the current moment feels different. It is not merely about Iran. It is about a global order unraveling.
The second term of President Trump has accelerated this breakdown dramatically. In just over a year, Washington has openly undermined the United Nations, weakened NATO, and normalized threats of territorial acquisition—from Greenland to Venezuela. The seizure of assets, the weaponization of sanctions, and the use of military force outside UN authorization have become routine rather than exceptional.
Recent U.S. naval seizures in the Caribbean—targeting vessels carrying oil allegedly destined for China, some flying Russian or Chinese flags—represent a dangerous escalation. This is not law enforcement; it is strategic provocation. By intercepting energy supplies linked to China and Russia, Washington is signaling willingness to internationalize conflict zones and draw both powers into kinetic confrontation.
This shift reflects a deeper reality: the United States has failed to contain China economically and has been unable to decisively defeat Russia militarily through proxy war in Ukraine. As economic and diplomatic leverage erodes, kinetic power becomes the last remaining tool. The danger is that military reach replaces strategic wisdom.
Europe, meanwhile, stands weaker than at any time since World War II. Decades of dependency on U.S. security guarantees have hollowed out independent defense capacity. If Washington chooses to act unilaterally—whether in the Arctic, Greenland, or beyond—Europe has little capacity to resist or even influence outcomes. The old alliance-based order is being replaced by raw power politics.
What we are witnessing is not isolated crises but a systemic transformation. Venezuela, Gaza, Iran, Somalia, Nigeria, Ukraine, Greenland—these are not disconnected flashpoints. They are symptoms of a collapsing rules-based system. International law, once imperfect but functional, is being abandoned openly. The very institutions designed to prevent global war are being sidelined by the powers that created them.
This trajectory is unsustainable. A world governed by regime change, sanctions warfare, naval seizures, and unilateral military action is not a stable world. It is a prelude to catastrophe. A third world war—if it comes—will not resemble the first two. It will be faster, more technologically devastating, and far less controllable.
History has already delivered its verdict on regime change as a strategy. It does not produce peace. It produces chaos, radicalization, and endless war. Iran will not be the exception. Nor will the Middle East be pacified by repeating the same failed experiment under a different banner.
There remains only one rational path forward: diplomacy, restraint, and the revival of international institutions—not as tools of dominance, but as platforms for collective survival. The alternative is a world governed by force alone, where no nation, however powerful, remains immune from the consequences.
Let us hope sanity prevails—before repetition becomes annihilation.

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

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

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