Connect with us

Pakistan News

Pakistan From Isolation to Admiration

Published

on

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 : It is often said that victory has many fathers, while defeat is an orphan. This timeless phrase was never more accurate than in the aftermath of the brief yet decisive war between Pakistan and India from May 5 to May 10, 2025. Unlike previous battles, this was not a victory proclaimed solely by Pakistan’s own narrative—but affirmed by Indian analysts, Western media, and global leaders. For the first time in decades, Pakistan stood tall on the global stage, not only as a victor in a military sense, but as a dignified and responsible actor in regional and global affairs.
The superiority of Pakistan’s kinetic response during the short war was overwhelming, not only in tactical execution but also in strategic restraint. That success has rekindled honor, pride, and confidence among the Pakistani people—qualities once buried under the weight of a long global narrative shaped by poverty, extremism, and political instability.
For years, Pakistani citizens traveling abroad—especially to Muslim-majority nations—were often received with caution or outright disregard. The legacy of terrorism, weak governance, and financial crises placed an invisible burden on every Pakistani passport holder. Even I, having traveled extensively and now living in the United States, felt the stigma. Saying one was from Pakistan often led to polite avoidance if they knew the name—or a complete lack of recognition if they didn’t. Both were equally damaging.
Today, Pakistanis arriving in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, China, or even distant African and Central Asian states are met with respect, recognition, and reverence. The May 2025 war, and Pakistan’s dignified response, elevated the nation’s image globally. Victory didn’t just secure territorial integrity—it repaired reputations, reversed perceptions, and rekindled pride.
On the other side of the spectrum lies India, whose myth of military superiority was crushed. The image of an emerging global superpower collapsed under its own arrogance and miscalculation. Despite commanding far greater economic and human resources, India failed to secure even a moral high ground in the conflict. This defeat, inflicted by a country it considered inferior, was not just military—it was psychological and diplomatic.
With its illusions shattered, India finds itself increasingly isolated. Once hailed as a strategic ally by the West, especially the United States and European powers, India is now being quietly distanced from. No longer is it the rising tiger of Asia; it is now a nation whose recklessness threatens regional stability. The ship of Indian ambition appears to be sinking—and many of its allies are already swimming toward Pakistan’s calmer shores.
For the first time in modern history, American leaders—from President Donald Trump to Senators Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth—acknowledged Pakistan’s significance in shaping South Asia’s future. Trump publicly praised Pakistan’s technological innovations, including advancements in missile systems. He spoke positively about Pakistani leadership and vowed to strengthen trade relations. In diplomatic circles, Pakistan was no longer an afterthought—it became a priority partner.
This shift was not just about the war—it was about how Pakistan handled victory. No chest-thumping, no jingoism. Just quiet, composed strength. That restraint earned Pakistan credibility. And credibility, in diplomacy, is worth more than arms or trade deals.
This newfound confidence was visible in the conduct of Pakistan’s high-level diplomatic delegation visiting the United States and later Europe. Led by former Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, and joined by seasoned diplomats and parliamentarians including Hina Rabbani Khar, Khurram Dastgir, Musaddiq Malik, Sherry Rehman, and former foreign secretaries Jalil Abbas Jilani and Tehmina Janjua, the delegation projected a coherent and confident message.
Bilawal, in particular, struck a powerful tone at the Middle East Institute in Washington. Speaking with calm urgency, he warned that India’s latest decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)—in the wake of the April 22 Pahalgam attack—was tantamount to laying the foundation for the first nuclear war over water.
“In the age of climate challenges, water scarcity and water wars were once theories,” he said. “India shutting off Pakistan’s water supply is laying the foundations for the first nuclear water war. We’ve said it before and say it again: cutting off our water is an act of war. We don’t say it with jingoism. We say it as a matter of existential threat.”
He was not exaggerating. The IWT is a cornerstone treaty, brokered with World Bank oversight in 1960, and has survived multiple wars. By unilaterally suspending it, India has crossed a red line. In response, Pakistan too has placed all bilateral agreements, including the Simla Agreement, in abeyance, shut down the Wagah border, and suspended trade.
But unlike the Indian leadership, Bilawal did not adopt a confrontational tone. Instead, he underscored Pakistan’s desire for dialogue, diplomacy, and peace—not just for its own sake, but for the prosperity of the entire region. “Surely, India and Pakistan working together can create that conducive environment in Kashmir where people can live free from oppression and suffocation,” he said.
He added, “This is not about damning our youth to endless wars—first over Kashmir, now over water. I refuse to damn the future generations of Pakistanis—and I bear no ill will to the people of India.”
His statements were echoed by other members of the delegation during meetings on Capitol Hill, where they met with lawmakers including Ilhan Omar, Jack Bergman, Tom Suozzi, and Ryan Zinke. They emphasized that sustainable peace depends on restraint, adherence to international law, and resolution of long-standing issues like Kashmir—not unilateralism and coercion.
Bilawal also thanked President Donald Trump for his role in de-escalating tensions and supporting ceasefire efforts, a diplomatic breakthrough not seen in years.
What makes this chapter in Pakistan’s history remarkable is not just the victory—it’s the humility, the dignified assertion, and the ability to convert a military success into diplomatic capital. Pakistan’s leadership is now being heard in London, Brussels, and Washington—not as a crisis nation, but as a nation with solutions.
And it all began with a war that Pakistan neither sought nor celebrated with arrogance. Victory was accepted with grace, and defeat dealt without mockery.
In just six days, the regional and global perception of power shifted. Pakistan, once seen as fragile, is now viewed as strategic, stable, and mature. India, once seen as the rising giant, now appears unsteady, aggressive, and cornered.
This is the power of responsible leadership. This is what victory can bring—a seat at the table, a voice in global forums, and most of all, the respect of allies and rivals alike.
Pakistan has been humbled by victory, and through this humility, it has won something far greater than a battlefield: diplomatic dignity. Meanwhile, India, abandoned by its allies and exposed by its own arrogance, is learning the hard lesson that power without wisdom leads not to greatness—but to isolation.

Pakistan News

Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded

Published

on

By

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 : Geopolitics has never been governed by sentiment. Not religion, not shared history, not cultural brotherhood—only interests. The unfolding realignments across South Asia and the Middle East illustrate this truth with striking clarity. Alliances are shifting, rivalries are recalibrating, and Pakistan finds itself increasingly positioned at the intersection of competing strategic designs.
The roots of today’s complexity stretch back to 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Pakistan became the frontline state in a U.S.-backed campaign to counter Moscow. Billions of dollars in American and Saudi assistance flowed through intelligence networks to arm and train Afghan fighters. The mobilization of religious ideology was not incidental—it was strategic. Fighters from across the Muslim world converged in Afghanistan. By 1989, the Soviet withdrawal marked a Cold War victory for Washington and its partners.
But militant infrastructures rarely dissolve once their immediate utility ends. The Taliban emerged in the 1990s from the ashes of war, establishing control over Kabul in 1996. Pakistan was among the few nations to recognize their regime. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the same Taliban became the primary target of American military intervention. The subsequent 20-year war cost over $2 trillion and claimed more than 170,000 lives before the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021.
The Taliban’s return to power reshaped the region yet again. Instead of ushering in stability for Pakistan, however, cross-border militancy intensified. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), operating from Afghan soil, escalated attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Islamabad responded with cross-border airstrikes against militant sanctuaries. While tactically decisive, these actions strained relations with Kabul and risked civilian backlash.
Instead, Pakistan with its deep intelligence roots in Afghanistan, had the option to adopt the same tactics which Afghanistan is using by infiltrating Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan and killing innocent people mostly by detonating human bombs in Mosque. This could have been a more discrete way to weed out the menace of TTP. History suggests that purely kinetic responses can produce unintended strategic consequences. Airstrikes may eliminate immediate threats, but they can also deepen mistrust and create diplomatic openings for rival powers.
In geopolitics, tactical victories can sometimes yield strategic setbacks. By intensifying overt military pressure, Islamabad may have inadvertently accelerated Kabul’s search for diversified partnerships.
That diversification is perhaps the most striking development. The Taliban government, ideologically committed to Islamic governance, has increasingly explored diplomatic and economic engagement beyond traditional Islamic partners. India reopened diplomatic channels in Kabul and expanded humanitarian assistance. Israel has pledged billions of dollars of aid to Kabul in alignment with India. This is a profound geopolitical entanglement: an Islamic Emirate seeking expanded engagement with a Hindu-majority India and a Jewish-majority Israel, even as tensions simmer with neighboring Muslim Pakistan.
This underscores a fundamental principle of realpolitik: states pursue survival and leverage, not theological alignment. Religious brotherhood and shared culture matter, but only when they coincide with national interest calculations. Facing economic collapse, frozen reserves, and diplomatic isolation, Kabul seeks diversification. India offers infrastructure and access. Israel offers technological cooperation and strategic outreach. Ideology yields to necessity.
For Pakistan, however, the optics intensify concerns of encirclement. On its eastern border, India remains a strategic competitor, particularly over Kashmir. On its western frontier now stands an Afghanistan willing to engage Islamabad’s rivals. To the southwest lies Iran, itself navigating tense relations with the United States. This evolving geometry fuels perceptions of a tightening strategic ring.
An additional dimension complicates matters further: Bagram Airbase. During the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, Bagram served as the largest American military installation in the country, with dual runways capable of handling heavy aircraft and advanced surveillance platforms. Its geographic location—approximately 500 kilometers from China’s Xinjiang region—made it strategically significant.
U.S. President Donald Trump publicly criticized the abandonment of Bagram in 2021, arguing that retaining the base would have preserved American leverage, particularly in the context of intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. Bagram’s proximity to Central Asia, Iran, and western China positions it as more than a counterterrorism platform—it is a potential springboard in great-power competition.
While direct American military reentry into Afghanistan appears unlikely in the near term, evolving regional alignments could create indirect pathways of influence. The strengthening of India’s presence in Kabul, combined with Israel’s strategic engagement in broader Asian geopolitics, introduces analytical possibilities. Washington maintains deep defense partnerships with both New Delhi and Tel Aviv. If Afghanistan continues diversifying toward these actors, space may gradually reopen for U.S. strategic leverage—without formal troop deployments.
Interestingly, geopolitics often unfolds through indirect channels. For Washington, containing China remains a central strategic priority. For India, Afghanistan offers westward strategic depth. For Israel, expanded regional engagement broadens diplomatic influence. For Kabul, diversified partnerships reduce isolation. For Pakistan, however, these convergences heighten strategic anxiety.
For Israel, extending its engagement with Kabul through India would provide a strategic foothold in South Asia and enhance its capacity to deter Pakistan from aligning with Turkey and Saudi Arabia in any configuration perceived as intimidating to Israel. Such cooperation could be viewed as a counterweight to a potential alignment involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and nuclear-armed Pakistan, which some analysts argue might aim to exert strategic pressure or encirclement against Israel.
Simultaneously, the Persian Gulf remains heavily militarized. The U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain deploys advanced naval assets, while Iran has invested in ballistic missiles, drones, and anti-ship systems designed to offset conventional asymmetry. China, importing substantial Gulf energy supplies, and Russia, expanding ties with Tehran, both observe carefully.
Any escalation between Washington and Tehran would reverberate in Pakistan. The country already hosts approximately 1.3 million registered Afghan refugees. A major Iran conflict could trigger further displacement, compounding economic strain amid IMF-backed reforms and domestic political polarization.
Internally, Pakistan faces political turbulence, including debates surrounding the incarceration of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and federal-provincial tensions. External pressure combined with internal division magnifies vulnerability.
Yet one broader truth emerges from this complex web: strategic encirclement is not solely a product of adversarial design. It can also arise from miscalculation, overreliance on hard power, and insufficient diplomatic agility. States that rely exclusively on military tools risk narrowing their strategic options.
This is a defining moment. Great-power rivalry, regional insecurity, and ideological contradictions intersect at fragile fault lines. Afghanistan’s outreach beyond traditional religious alignments demonstrates the primacy of interest over identity. Bagram symbolizes the enduring shadow of great-power competition. India and Israel’s evolving engagement in Kabul reflects the fluidity of modern alliances.
But history offers a sobering lesson. From the Soviet-Afghan war to the U.S. intervention, military campaigns have reshaped borders without resolving deeper grievances. Stability requires not merely deterrence but diplomacy.
Encirclement strategies may promise leverage. Hybrid doctrines may promise precision. Yet sustainable security demands cooperation grounded in mutual recognition of vulnerabilities.
Geopolitics may be ruthless in its calculations, but peace remains the only enduring strategic victory.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow

Published

on

By

Monitoring Desk: The Moscow–Islamabad Media Forum will be held on February 27, 2026, to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow, scheduled for the first week of March 2026.
The forum will serve as a platform for journalists, political experts, and diplomats from Pakistan and Russia to discuss the current state of bilateral relations, explore future opportunities, and analyze how the Russia–Pakistan partnership impacts global politics, the economy, and the contemporary media landscape.

Cooperation between Russia and Pakistan is of particular importance in the context of the transformation of international relations and the formation of a new system of global interaction. In recent years, contacts between the two countries have intensified at inter-parliamentary, expert, and media levels, while practical cooperation in the humanitarian and socio-political spheres continues to expand.
Within the framework of the forum, Russian and Pakistani journalists, political scientists, and representatives of diplomatic circles will discuss the current state and future prospects of bilateral relations, as well as the role of the Russia–Pakistan partnership in political, economic, and information processes shaping the modern world.
The event is timed to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow from March 3 to 5, 2026.
Admission for media representatives will be granted only through prior accreditation upon presentation of a passport and a valid editorial certificate confirming the journalist’s affiliation with the accredited media organization.
MSPC “Russia Today” reserves the right to refuse accreditation without providing an explanation.
This News is taken from
https://dnd.com.pk/pakistan-and-russia-deepen-media-and-diplomatic-dialogue-ahead-of-pm-sharifs-visit-to-moscow/328726/

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed

Published

on

By

Pakistan has carried out multiple overnight air strikes on Afghanistan, which the Taliban has said killed and wounded dozens of people, including women and children.

Islamabad said the attacks targeted seven alleged militant camps and hideouts near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and that they had been launched after recent suicide bombings in Pakistan.

Afghanistan condemned the attacks, saying they targeted multiple civilian homes and a religious school.

The fresh strikes come after the two countries agreed to a fragile ceasefire in October following deadly cross-border clashes, though subsequent fighting has taken place.

The Taliban’s defence ministry said the strikes targeted civilian areas of Nangarhar and Paktika provinces.

Officials in Nangarhar told the BBC that the home of a man called Shahabuddin had been hit by one of the strikes, killing about 20 family members, including women and children.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said it had carried out “intelligence based selective targeting of seven terrorist camps and hideouts”.

In a statement on X, it said the targets included members of the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, which the government refers to as “Fitna al Khawarij,” along with their affiliates and the Islamic State-Khorasan Province.

The ministry described the strikes as “a retributive response” to recent suicide bombings in Pakistan by terror groups it said were sheltered by Kabul.

The recent attacks in Pakistan included one on a Shia mosque in the capital Islamabad earlier this month, as well as others that took place since the holy month of Ramadan began this week in the north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

Pakistan accused the Afghan Taliban of failing to take action against the militants, adding that it had “conclusive evidence” that the attacks were carried out by militants on the instructions of their leadership in Afghanistan.

The Taliban’s defence ministry later posted on X condemning the attacks as a “blatant violation of Afghanistan’s territorial integrity”, adding that they were a “clear breach of international law”.

It warned that “an appropriate and measured response will be taken at a suitable time”, adding that “attacks on civilian targets and religious institutions indicate the failure of Pakistan’s army in intelligence and security.”

The strikes come days after Saudi Arabia mediated the release of three Pakistani soldiers earlier this week, who were captured in Kabul during border clashes last October.

Those clashes ended with a tentative ceasefire that same month after the worst fighting since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.

Pakistan and Afghanistan share a 1,600-mile (2,574 km) mountainous border.

Continue Reading

Trending