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 : At a moment when the world stood dangerously close to a catastrophic regional war capable of dragging humanity toward economic collapse and even nuclear confrontation, Pakistan accomplished something that few nations in modern history have ever achieved. Through persistence, strategic wisdom, diplomatic resilience, and calculated engagement with opposing powers simultaneously, Pakistan helped prevent the Middle East from falling into total destruction and the world economy from sliding into chaos.
What military alliances, aircraft carriers, sanctions, missile strikes, assassinations, cyber warfare, and diplomatic threats failed to accomplish was ultimately challenged through dialogue, persuasion, trust-building, and geopolitical balance.
Pakistan emerged not as a military conqueror, but as a stabilizing force capable of influencing some of the world’s most dangerous rivalries at a critical historical moment.
The war began with overwhelming momentum in favor of the United States and Israel. Under what Washington called “Operation Epic Fury,” Iran faced unprecedented military, financial, and geopolitical pressure. Israel’s strategic planners believed they were approaching the realization of a long-term objective: permanently weakening Iran, dismantling its missile and drone capability, reducing its regional influence, and reshaping the Middle East in Israel’s favor.
At the beginning of the conflict, nearly every major analyst believed Israel would emerge as the biggest strategic winner.
Iran was isolated, Gulf states were anxious, energy markets were panicking, and the Strait of Hormuz — through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s energy supplies transit — became the focal point of global fear.
Oil prices surged, shipping insurance costs exploded, inflation intensified worldwide, and stock markets across continents became unstable. Governments feared a global recession deeper than the financial crisis of 2008.
My own analysis during the early phase of the conflict was that everybody was losing, but only Israel was winning.
Yet history often changes because of one unexpected factor — strategic wisdom exercised at the right moment. Pakistan emerged as that factor.
Pakistan understood something many world powers failed to fully appreciate. This conflict was not merely about Iran’s nuclear ambitions or Israel’s security concerns. It was about the future geopolitical architecture of the Middle East, control of global energy routes, strategic domination, and the possibility of dragging the world toward a wider confrontation involving nuclear-capable states.
The danger was real. The United States possesses enormous nuclear arsenals. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear capability. Iran was being accused of moving closer to nuclear threshold status. If the war had continued to escalate uncontrollably, the possibility of mutually assured destruction could no longer have been dismissed as theoretical.
Pakistan recognized that danger earlier than many others. In that atmosphere, Pakistan chose diplomacy over silence.
Field Marshal Asim Munir’s statement became symbolic of Pakistan’s commitment when he reportedly declared with conviction that Pakistan would not allow Iran to fall. At the time, many dismissed the statement as political rhetoric.
Yet Pakistan gradually transformed those words into strategic action. Quietly, carefully, and persistently, Islamabad built trust simultaneously with Tehran, Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Ankara, Riyadh, Doha, and other key capitals, effectively bypassing Israel, reducing it to inconsequential in the mediation process and frustrating all its objectives of starting the war.
Despite repeated attempts by influential Israeli circles and hardline lobbies in Washington to sideline Pakistan from the mediation process, Islamabad remained central because all parties eventually recognized one reality: Pakistan possessed credibility with opposing camps simultaneously.
Iran trusted Pakistan’s intentions. Gulf countries trusted Pakistan’s balance. China and Russia trusted Pakistan’s strategic judgment. Even Washington eventually realized Pakistan had become indispensable in preventing total escalation.
The emerging 60-day framework agreement reflects that diplomatic achievement. Instead of discussions centered exclusively on dismantling Iran, the negotiations shifted toward reopening the Strait of Hormuz, reducing naval confrontation, ending hostilities across multiple fronts including Lebanon, and establishing timelines for broader future understandings.
This represented a dramatic reversal of battlefield realities.
At the beginning of the war, Iran reportedly faced enormous pressure to surrender key elements of its uranium enrichment capability, missile program, drone infrastructure, and regional strategic influence. Israeli strategic thinking envisioned a transformed Middle East where Iran’s long-term deterrence capability would be permanently dismantled.
Discussions even emerged regarding alternative regional energy corridors bypassing the Strait of Hormuz through routes linked to Israeli-controlled infrastructure and the Red Sea. The dream of “Greater Israel” appeared increasingly visible through expanding buffer zones in Gaza, southern Lebanon, Syria, and potentially beyond.
Today, much of that strategic vision lies shattered.
Instead of negotiating surrender, Iran is negotiating from resilience. The focus has shifted away from total dismantlement toward maritime management, phased arrangements, timelines, and future diplomatic understandings.
Iran emerged bloodied but strategically unbroken. Lebanon was spared the scale of destruction inflicted upon Gaza. A wider regional war was paused. Most importantly, the world economy was protected from what could have become the largest energy and financial collapse in modern history.
The economic implications of this diplomatic intervention are staggering.
Had the Strait of Hormuz remained blocked for a prolonged period, global oil prices could have reached catastrophic levels. Energy-importing countries across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America would have suffered devastating inflationary shocks.
Food prices, electricity costs, transportation expenses, fertilizer production, and industrial manufacturing costs would all have surged simultaneously. Hundreds of millions of vulnerable people — potentially more than a billion globally — could have been pushed below the poverty line.
At the same time, Gulf desalination plants, ports, oil facilities, refineries, shipping infrastructure, and industrial zones worth trillions of dollars stood exposed to destruction. The war was already costing the United States tens of billions of dollars while shaking global financial confidence.
Pakistan’s diplomacy helped prevent that nightmare.
This explains the visible anger and panic among hardline supporters of the war in Washington and Israel. Republican figures such as Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Roger Wicker, Tom Cotton, Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton openly criticized the emerging framework because they believed the war should continue until Iran was strategically crushed.
Lindsey Graham described the arrangement as a “nightmare for Israel.” Ted Cruz warned that Iran could emerge stronger. Roger Wicker argued that everything achieved through “Operation Epic Fury” could become meaningless. Mike Pompeo compared the emerging framework to what he considered the failures of the Obama-era nuclear agreement.
Their outrage itself reflects the scale of Pakistan’s diplomatic success.
For decades, Pakistan was often portrayed internationally through the narrow lenses of instability, extremism, economic weakness, or political crisis. Yet this conflict revealed another Pakistan — a nuclear-armed middle power capable of balancing global contradictions and preventing a catastrophic war involving some of the world’s most dangerous rivalries.
Pakistan demonstrated that strategic intelligence, diplomatic patience, resilience, and credibility can sometimes achieve what overwhelming military power cannot.
At the same time, Israel’s global image has suffered unprecedented damage. The destruction in Gaza, the deaths of thousands of civilians and children, devastation in Lebanon, accusations of ethnic cleansing, and growing criticism from Europe and international institutions weakened Israel’s moral standing globally. Countries that once remained silent increasingly questioned Israeli actions. Public sympathy that once overwhelmingly favored Israel significantly eroded.
The United States also realized that unlimited military escalation carried unbearable economic and political costs. The conflict exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains, energy security, military overstretch, and domestic political stability.
But Pakistan’s accomplishment goes far beyond being merely its greatest diplomatic success. In terms of geopolitical significance and prevention of global destruction, this achievement stands comparable to — and in some respects exceeds — many celebrated diplomatic breakthroughs in modern history. The Camp David Accords prevented another Arab-Israeli war. The Cuban Missile Crisis diplomacy pulled the United States and Soviet Union back from the brink of nuclear annihilation. The Dayton Accords ended the Bosnian conflict. The historic rapprochement between China and the United States in the 1970s transformed two hostile powers into diplomatic partners and reshaped the global balance of power.
Yet even that historic opening was significantly facilitated through Pakistan’s quiet diplomacy, when Islamabad served as the trusted bridge between Beijing and Washington at a time when both countries lacked formal diplomatic relations and viewed one another as ideological enemies. Pakistan quietly helped create one of the most important geopolitical transformations of the twentieth century.
Today, decades later, Pakistan has once again demonstrated a diplomatic capability of historic magnitude.
Unlike superpowers that imposed outcomes through military occupation, coercion, or economic domination, Pakistan achieved influence through trust, strategic balance, credibility, and dialogue. This time, Pakistan helped prevent a conflict involving multiple war fronts, nuclear-capable states, collapsing energy routes, and a possible global economic meltdown.
History often celebrates nations for conquering territories and winning wars. Pakistan may ultimately be remembered for something far greater: helping prevent a regional conflict from evolving into a catastrophe capable of destabilizing the entire international system.

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 : For the third time in a single week, Pakistan’s military and political leadership entered Tehran carrying not weapons, but messages—messages that may determine whether the Middle East steps back from catastrophe or plunges once again into a devastating regional war. On May 22, 2026, Field Marshal Asim Munir, accompanied by Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi and senior officials, intensified Islamabad’s mediation efforts between the United States and Iran, signaling what many now see as the final and perhaps most serious diplomatic push to preserve the fragile ceasefire that halted the U.S.-Iran war on April 8.
What makes this moment extraordinary is not merely the diplomacy itself, but the dramatic shift in geopolitical reality behind it. Only weeks ago, Washington and Tel Aviv appeared determined to continue military escalation against Iran. Today, the same United States that once spoke the language of “maximum pressure” is desperately searching for an exit strategy. Even U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged “slight progress” in negotiations while publicly pinning hopes on Pakistani mediation efforts. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump reportedly delayed planned strikes, reflecting mounting political, economic, and strategic fatigue inside the United States itself.
Pakistan’s role has become indispensable because both Tehran and Washington trust Islamabad more than any other intermediary currently available. China supports the effort quietly from the background, Gulf states fear another wave of destruction, and Europe lacks both leverage and unity. Pakistan alone maintains deep strategic relations with the United States while preserving credible diplomatic and security ties with Iran. That balance has elevated Islamabad from a regional actor into perhaps the single most important mediator in the world’s most dangerous crisis.
The atmosphere surrounding the mediation effort has generated cautious optimism across much of the world—especially in oil-importing economies already devastated by soaring energy costs. In Africa, South Asia, and parts of Latin America, inflation has exploded as oil prices surged following the partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Fertilizer prices, shipping costs, food supply chains, and industrial production have all suffered severe disruptions. Even in the United States, gasoline prices and inflationary pressures have intensified political pressure on the White House.
The American public increasingly sees the conflict as an unnecessary war that delivered enormous costs but little strategic gain. Billions of dollars were spent, advanced ammunition stockpiles were depleted, global markets were shaken, and yet Iran’s political system survived. Instead of regime collapse, Tehran emerged more hardened, more nationalistic, and more determined to leverage its geographic advantages.
That reality has created visible cracks between Washington and Tel Aviv. Reports emerging from diplomatic circles suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been aggressively lobbying the White House to continue military operations against Iran. However, for the first time in years, there appears to be a serious divergence between American and Israeli strategic objectives. Israel still seeks decisive military confrontation, while Washington increasingly seeks controlled de-escalation.
This shift reflects hard battlefield and economic realities. Iran not only survived the war but also demonstrated its ability to disrupt the global economy through strategic control of maritime and digital chokepoints. Tehran’s tightening grip over Hormuz has become the central issue overshadowing all negotiations. Iran has introduced toll systems and expanded maritime enforcement mechanisms, effectively transforming the waterway into a geopolitical pressure point. Roughly one-fifth of global oil and major LNG shipments normally pass through the strait, making prolonged disruption economically unbearable for much of the world.
Even more alarming for Western strategists is Iran’s influence over critical undersea fiber-optic infrastructure connecting Asia, the Gulf, and Europe. Any large-scale disruption in those networks could paralyze communications, financial transactions, and global digital systems. The war has therefore transformed from a purely military confrontation into a broader contest over economic arteries, energy flows, and technological infrastructure.
Yet amid this dangerous environment, Pakistan continues attempting to bridge the divide. Islamabad reportedly conveyed revised Iranian proposals to Washington while simultaneously narrowing differences over sanctions, nuclear oversight, and maritime security guarantees. Sources close to negotiations indicate that a second round of direct U.S.-Iran talks in Islamabad is increasingly likely.
Pakistan’s diplomatic effort is not purely altruistic. A destabilized Iran would severely threaten Pakistan’s own security. Militancy along Pakistan’s western frontier could intensify, sectarian tensions could rise, and regional proxy wars could spill into already fragile border regions. Islamabad also understands that another prolonged Gulf conflict could devastate Pakistan’s economy through energy shortages, inflation, and collapsing regional trade.
But beyond national interests, Pakistan also recognizes the historic opportunity before it. If Islamabad successfully brokers a sustainable agreement between Tehran and Washington, it would fundamentally elevate Pakistan’s international standing. A country often viewed through the lens of instability would instead emerge as the architect of one of the most important ceasefires of the modern era.
Meanwhile, the scars of war remain deep and painful. Iranian infrastructure suffered severe damage from American and Israeli strikes. Military facilities, industrial centers, and civilian infrastructure were heavily hit. Iranian leadership figures were assassinated. Civilian casualties reportedly included hundreds of innocent children, including students killed during missile strikes that shocked much of the world. Lebanon, Gaza, and parts of the broader Middle East also endured renewed devastation as regional proxy fronts reignited simultaneously.
Israel itself suffered unprecedented pressure from continuous missile, drone, and ballistic attacks that disrupted civilian life and exposed vulnerabilities previously unseen. Lebanese displacement reached catastrophic levels, while Palestinians in Gaza continued facing massive casualties amid ongoing Israeli operations.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s recent remarks about war financing triggered fresh controversy. His assertion that Venezuelan resources had effectively covered the cost of military operations fueled accusations that the conflict was driven by resource exploitation rather than genuine security concerns. Critics argue the war achieved little except global instability, rising inflation, diplomatic isolation, and public anger.
That public anger now shapes American politics. Ordinary Americans increasingly question why taxpayer money was spent on another Middle Eastern conflict while domestic economic pressures intensify at home. The political appetite for endless war has sharply declined. Washington’s current search for a face-saving diplomatic exit reflects not only military realities but also electoral calculations.
This is precisely where Pakistan’s mediation becomes critical. Islamabad appears to be offering both Tehran and Washington a pathway toward compromise without humiliating either side. Iran can claim strategic resilience and recognition of its regional leverage, while the United States can present diplomacy as a responsible effort to stabilize global markets and prevent wider catastrophe.
The coming days may therefore prove decisive. If Pakistan succeeds in bringing both parties back to direct negotiations in Islamabad, the world could witness the beginning of a broader regional reset. If talks fail, however, the consequences could be devastating—not only for the Middle East, but for global trade, energy markets, food security, and international stability itself.
For now, one reality has become undeniable: after months of destruction, threats, sanctions, missile strikes, and global economic pain, diplomacy—led unexpectedly by Pakistan—has become the world’s last and best hope.

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 June war between Israel and Iran revealed a frightening new reality of modern warfare: nations are no longer defeated only by armies crossing borders or fighter jets bombing cities. Increasingly, wars are prepared from within. The real battlefield now lies inside societies, intelligence networks, covert safe houses, cyber systems, recruited insiders, and hidden operational bases quietly established years before conflict begins.
What shocked military analysts during the June conflict was not merely the intensity of Israeli airpower, but the astonishing precision with which Iran’s top military commanders, nuclear scientists, IRGC leadership, missile batteries, and strategic facilities were targeted. According to multiple international investigations published by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Times of Israel, many of these attacks were enabled through covert Israeli operational networks functioning deep inside Iran itself.
Reports suggest that Mossad had spent years cultivating Iranian dissidents, smugglers, contractors, and covert assets near strategic locations such as Tehran, Natanz, Isfahan, and other sensitive military and nuclear sites. Through these embedded networks, Israeli intelligence reportedly obtained precise coordinates, movement patterns, communication details, and even internal meeting schedules of senior Iranian officials.
The result was devastating. Nuclear scientists were assassinated with pinpoint precision. Missile launchers were neutralized before activation. Air-defense systems were disabled from within. Underground command centers were reportedly identified and struck with astonishing accuracy. Even senior Iranian military gatherings were allegedly tracked through cyber deception operations and internal informants.
Iran later admitted the scale of internal infiltration by launching mass arrests across the country. Thousands were detained on accusations of espionage, treason, and collaboration with foreign intelligence services. Iranian authorities claimed that many individuals had shared coordinates of military sites and strategic locations with Israeli operatives. Tehran’s response reflected a painful realization: much of the war had already been prepared inside Iran long before the first missile was fired. But the most alarming development emerged later.
International media reports revealed that Israel had allegedly established covert operational bases inside Iraq as well. According to these reports, hidden facilities in Iraq’s western desert were used for reconnaissance, logistics, emergency pilot support, intelligence gathering, and preparation for attacks deep inside Iran. Some reports suggested these installations dated back to 2024 and were operational during both the 2025 and 2026 conflicts.
The implications are enormous. If covert Israeli infrastructure could function inside countries openly hostile to Israel, then no regional state can assume immunity from similar penetration.
This is where the danger becomes particularly serious for Pakistan.
Pakistan today faces a highly sensitive strategic environment. The growing convergence between India, Israeli strategic interests, and evolving Taliban-controlled dynamics inside Afghanistan creates a deeply concerning security equation for Islamabad. Afghanistan’s geography alone makes it an ideal staging ground for intelligence operations targeting both Pakistan and Iran. Its porous borders, fragmented governance structures, smuggling networks, militant corridors, refugee movements, and weak centralized intelligence oversight create an operational environment where covert infrastructure can potentially be established with relative ease.
Israel’s operational doctrine, as demonstrated in Iran and Iraq, appears increasingly dependent on first creating hidden operational ecosystems inside or near adversarial states before open conflict begins. Such ecosystems may start as small reconnaissance cells, logistics hubs, communications nodes, safe houses, drone launch sites, cyber relay stations, or intelligence listening posts. Over time, they mature into fully operational covert bases capable of supporting sabotage, surveillance, targeted assassinations, and precision military operations.
This is precisely why Pakistan must now view Afghanistan not merely through the lens of terrorism or border security, but through the broader framework of strategic intelligence warfare.
The danger is compounded by the existing instability in regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Long-running insurgencies, political polarization, smuggling routes, militant financing channels, ethnic grievances, and cross-border trafficking networks create fertile ground for foreign intelligence agencies seeking recruitment opportunities or covert operational access. Such environments are vulnerable to exploitation by any sophisticated intelligence service capable of leveraging local actors, financial desperation, ideological divisions, or anti-state sentiments.
If covert Israeli networks could allegedly penetrate the heavily monitored security structure of Iran, then Pakistan cannot afford complacency.
The warning is clear and urgent: Pakistan and Iran must immediately strengthen their counterintelligence cooperation regarding Afghanistan. Both countries need to activate deep intelligence monitoring systems capable of detecting even rudimentary efforts to establish covert operational infrastructure near their borders. Intelligence operations can no longer remain reactive. They must become aggressively preemptive.This requires several immediate strategic measures.
First, Pakistan and Iran must significantly expand intelligence penetration inside Afghanistan itself. Monitoring militant networks alone is no longer sufficient. Greater focus must now be placed on suspicious logistics activities, foreign funding channels, unexplained infrastructure projects, covert aviation activity, encrypted communications networks, and unusual movements near sensitive border regions.
Second, Pakistan’s intelligence agencies must intensify scrutiny over recruitment pipelines operating through financial networks, NGOs, smuggling channels, technology firms, cross-border trade routes, and ideological organizations. Modern intelligence warfare rarely begins with soldiers; it begins with local facilitators.
Third, sensitive military, nuclear, communication, and leadership infrastructure inside Pakistan must undergo a complete security reassessment. The Iranian experience demonstrated that covert targeting becomes possible only after years of surveillance, infiltration, and mapping. Preventing such penetration requires constant internal vetting, cyber monitoring, communication discipline, and aggressive counterespionage measures.
Fourth, strategic coordination between Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and other regional states must expand beyond diplomacy into active intelligence-sharing frameworks focused specifically on covert foreign operational networks.
The reality of modern warfare is brutal. By the time airstrikes begin, the enemy may already have spent years building the battlefield from inside your territory.
This is why the June war should not merely be studied as a military confrontation between Israel and Iran. It should be understood as a case study in how intelligence penetration, covert bases, recruited insiders, cyber deception, and hidden logistics networks can cripple even powerful states from within.
For Pakistan, the lesson is existential. The greatest threat may not come from visible armies massing at the border, but from invisible networks silently embedding themselves within vulnerable spaces long before conflict erupts. Afghanistan’s instability, combined with emerging India-Israel strategic alignment, creates precisely the type of environment where such covert infrastructure could potentially take root.
Time, therefore, is not on the side of complacency. Pakistan, Iran, and other regional powers must act now — before covert operational ecosystems mature into irreversible strategic threats. Once such networks become deeply entrenched, the cost of dismantling them becomes extraordinarily high, and the damage they can inflict may already be beyond repair.