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 temporary suspension of “Project Freedom” by President Donald Trump on May 5–6, 2026, may ultimately be remembered not merely as a tactical military pause, but as an admission that diplomacy had succeeded where overwhelming force had failed. After months of escalating confrontation in and around the Strait of Hormuz, the sudden halt of the U.S.-led naval escort operation reflected a changing geopolitical reality: the battlefield had reached its limits, the global economy was bleeding, and quiet diplomacy—much of it facilitated through Pakistan—had become the only viable path forward.
Within hours of the announcement, Brent crude fell sharply to nearly $108 a barrel while U.S. crude dropped toward $100. Global stock markets surged in relief. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq reached new highs, Asian markets rallied, and the immediate fear of catastrophic maritime losses eased. The world economy, which had been standing at the edge of another massive inflationary shock, suddenly regained a measure of stability.
According to the emerging narrative from regional diplomacy, Pakistan worked continuously behind the scenes to maintain communication channels between Washington and Tehran after the fragile ceasefire that began on April 7, 2026. Islamabad reportedly urged restraint on all sides and advocated a formula that combined de-escalation in Hormuz with renewed negotiations on sanctions, maritime access, and regional security guarantees.
Whether acknowledged publicly or not, Pakistan’s role appears to have been crucial in preventing the conflict from crossing the point of no return. The irony of the entire episode is impossible to ignore. The war itself began with immense confidence from the United States and Israel. “Epic Fury,” the military campaign launched with promises of crushing Iran’s strategic capabilities, was presented as a short and decisive operation that would allegedly force Tehran into submission within weeks. Regime change, rollback of nuclear ambitions, destruction of military infrastructure, and strategic surrender were all openly discussed as attainable goals.
None of those objectives materialized. Instead, Iran absorbed the pressure, maintained internal cohesion, preserved much of its command structure, and demonstrated a capacity for resilience that surprised even many seasoned observers. What was expected to become a demonstration of overwhelming Western military supremacy gradually evolved into a prolonged strategic stalemate.
The same pattern repeated itself with “Project Freedom.” The initiative was introduced with great fanfare as a bold U.S.-led naval effort to escort commercial vessels safely through Hormuz and break Iran’s effective control over maritime movement. Yet the operation quickly encountered practical realities. Shipping companies hesitated. Insurance providers warned of extreme wartime risk exposure. Several commercial vessels reportedly complied with Iranian maritime instructions rather than rely entirely on foreign military escorts. What was intended to project dominance instead exposed the limitations of power in a multipolar world. Ultimately, Project Freedom itself was paused without fully achieving its declared objectives.
That decision alone speaks volumes. For decades, Washington operated under the assumption that military superiority automatically translated into geopolitical compliance. The Iran conflict has challenged that assumption. A country under sanctions, facing combined pressure from the United States and Israel, managed not only to survive but to negotiate from a position far stronger than many anticipated.
Now the balance of leverage has visibly shifted. Even President Trump’s own remarks about energy exports inadvertently revealed another dimension of the conflict. During recent comments about upcoming discussions with Xi Jinping, Trump openly spoke about encouraging China and Asian economies to purchase greater quantities of American oil and gas from Alaska, Texas, and Louisiana. He described satellite images showing lines of ships moving toward American energy terminals like “highways at sea.”
Reading between the lines, many analysts see a broader economic motive behind the prolonged instability in Hormuz. As Middle Eastern exports became constrained by war, insecurity, and naval restrictions, U.S. energy producers gained unprecedented opportunities to capture global market share. Asian consumers who traditionally relied heavily on Gulf oil increasingly turned toward American supplies.
In effect, the disruption of Gulf energy routes redirected enormous revenue streams toward the United States. Meanwhile, Gulf economies paid a heavy price. Infrastructure damage, declining investor confidence, soaring insurance premiums, interrupted exports, and prolonged regional insecurity weakened economies that had once depended on stable maritime commerce. Even when some production capacity remained intact, the uncertainty surrounding Hormuz severely constrained the movement of energy resources.
Yet another remarkable transformation emerged during this crisis: Washington’s rediscovery of international institutions. Only months earlier, senior American officials had openly dismissed the relevance of the United Nations, criticizing multilateral systems as ineffective and outdated. The United States had reduced participation in several international bodies and increasingly emphasized unilateral power.
But as the Hormuz crisis intensified, the rhetoric changed dramatically. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently emphasized the importance of the United Nations and suggested that maritime disputes surrounding Hormuz should be addressed through international mechanisms and peaceful diplomacy. The same system previously dismissed as ineffective suddenly became essential once military escalation failed to deliver decisive outcomes.
This reversal illustrates a deeper truth about the emerging global order: even superpowers ultimately require rules, institutions, and diplomacy when raw force reaches its limits.
The conflict also exposed extraordinary contradictions in international conduct. Iran was repeatedly described as an aggressor for restricting maritime access in Hormuz, while many across the world pointed to previous unilateral military actions carried out elsewhere without international authorization. Competing narratives dominated global media every day. One day the war was about nuclear weapons, the next day about regional security, then about maritime freedom, and later about protecting commerce. The justifications evolved constantly because the realities on the ground kept changing.
Amid this confusion, Pakistan quietly positioned itself not as a military actor but as a stabilizing diplomatic bridge. A country often underestimated in global power calculations emerged as one of the few states capable of communicating credibly with all major stakeholders—Washington, Tehran, Beijing, and the Gulf capitals simultaneously.
That achievement carries enormous significance. Had the conflict continued escalating unchecked, the consequences could have become catastrophic. A fully closed Hormuz Strait might have triggered oil prices well beyond previous crisis peaks, devastated global transportation systems, collapsed fragile supply chains, and pushed multiple economies into recession simultaneously. The trillions potentially saved through de-escalation cannot be measured only in stock market rebounds or lower fuel costs; they include avoided unemployment, avoided inflationary spirals, avoided industrial shutdowns, and perhaps even avoidance of a broader regional war.
Today, the world stands at a fragile crossroads. The ceasefire remains conditional, mistrust remains deep, and no permanent agreement has yet been finalized. Risks continue to hover over the Gulf, and shipping companies still view the region as dangerous. But for now, diplomacy has temporarily succeeded where confrontation failed.
And in that diplomatic success, Pakistan’s role has emerged as one of the most consequential and least acknowledged developments of the entire crisis.
The world may eventually recognize that while great powers fought for dominance, it was careful diplomacy from an unexpected mediator that helped prevent economic disaster and pulled humanity one step back from the edge of a far wider war.

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 most striking development in the unfolding U.S.–Iran crisis is not the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, nor the sudden emergence of overland trade corridors—it is the calculated silence of Donald Trump. When directly asked whether he was aware that Pakistan had opened land routes enabling Iran to bypass the naval blockade and continue trade with China and other partners, the President did not deny it, condemn it, or even express concern. Instead, he acknowledged that he knew “everything” about the arrangement and pivoted to praise Pakistan’s leadership. No warning, no sanctions threat, no diplomatic protest—just silence wrapped in approval. In geopolitics, such silence is never accidental; it is policy in its most refined form.
This tacit acceptance has now become the central fact shaping the narrative. Pakistan’s decision to activate six overland trade corridors into Iran on April 25, 2026, is no longer just a regional economic maneuver. It is a move taking place with the full awareness—and arguably the quiet consent—of Washington. The implications are profound. What was initially portrayed as a logistical workaround to clear more than 3,000 stranded containers at Karachi and Port Qasim has evolved into a strategic reconfiguration of global trade flows under the shadow of great-power competition.
The corridors, linking Pakistan’s ports of Karachi, Port Qasim, and Gwadar to Iranian border crossings at Gabd and Taftan, have effectively neutralized the immediate economic impact of the U.S. naval blockade. By shifting cargo from sea to land, Pakistan has created a parallel supply chain that cannot be intercepted by naval forces. Travel time from Gwadar to the Iranian border has been reduced to just a few hours, and transport costs have dropped significantly. In practical terms, the blockade’s ability to strangle Iran’s economy has been diluted, if not outright undermined.
Yet the deeper question is why Washington has chosen not to act against this development. The answer lies in the complex web of interdependencies that define the current global order. At the center of this web is China. As one of the largest consumers of Iranian oil, China’s economic stability is closely tied to uninterrupted energy supplies. Any attempt by the United States to fully enforce the blockade by targeting overland routes through Pakistan would risk triggering a broader confrontation with Beijing.
China’s leverage is not theoretical. Its dominance in the production and export of rare earth minerals—critical components for advanced electronics, defense systems, and renewable technologies—gives it the capacity to inflict significant economic pain on the United States. A disruption in these supply chains would directly impact American industries, particularly at a time when defense production is operating at full capacity. In this context, the U.S. President’s silence can be interpreted as a strategic compromise: allow limited economic flows to continue through Pakistan rather than provoke a retaliatory response from China that could destabilize the global economy.
Pakistan, meanwhile, has emerged as the pivotal actor in this evolving scenario. Under the leadership of Shehbaz Sharif and with the strategic backing of Asim Munir, Islamabad has positioned itself at the intersection of competing interests. It is simultaneously mediating between Washington and Tehran, facilitating trade that sustains Iran’s economy, and enabling energy flows that support China’s growth. This is not a contradiction; it is a deliberate strategy.
Critics have labeled Pakistan’s approach as duplicity, accusing it of playing a “double game.” But such assessments overlook the sophistication of Pakistan’s balancing act. In a world increasingly defined by multipolarity, survival depends on the ability to engage with multiple power centers without becoming subordinate to any single one. Pakistan’s actions reflect an understanding that rigid alignment is less valuable than strategic flexibility.
Iran’s response to the blockade further underscores this shift. Confronted with maritime restrictions, Tehran has accelerated its pivot toward overland connectivity. The visits of Abbas Araghchi to Islamabad, Moscow, and other regional capitals are part of a broader effort to construct an alternative economic architecture. By integrating with Pakistan’s transport networks and leveraging Chinese infrastructure under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Iran is building resilience against external pressure.
This transformation is not occurring in isolation. Russia’s engagement, particularly through frameworks like the International North-South Transport Corridor, adds another layer of complexity. Together, these initiatives are creating a lattice of overland routes that challenge the dominance of traditional maritime trade. The Strait of Hormuz, once the uncontested artery of global energy flows, is no longer the sole gateway. Geography is being reimagined, and with it, the balance of power.
The United States, despite its formidable naval capabilities, finds itself constrained by these emerging realities. The blockade, while effective in raising costs and disrupting shipping, cannot fully contain a network that extends across land borders and sovereign territories. Each new corridor, each new partnership, erodes the efficacy of coercive measures. The question is no longer whether the blockade can pressure Iran, but whether it can be sustained in the face of adaptive resistance.
Pakistan’s role in this process has also altered regional dynamics. By providing a direct land bridge to Iran, Islamabad has reduced its reliance on routes through Afghanistan, where relations have deteriorated. This shift not only enhances Pakistan’s strategic autonomy but also redefines its economic geography. It is becoming a conduit not just for trade, but for influence—linking South Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, and China in a single, interconnected framework.
At the same time, the risks are significant. Security challenges in Balochistan, tensions along the Afghan border, and the broader volatility of the region could threaten the stability of these corridors. Moreover, the exclusion of Indian-origin goods from transit routes highlights the enduring impact of geopolitical rivalries. Connectivity, while transformative, is not immune to conflict.
Nevertheless, the broader trajectory is clear. The opening of overland routes into Iran represents a shift from a unipolar system, where maritime dominance dictated outcomes, to a more complex, multipolar landscape where adaptability and connectivity determine success. Pakistan’s actions, far from being a mere logistical adjustment, are emblematic of this transition.
In this context, the silence of the U.S. President takes on even greater significance. It is not simply a lack of response; it is an acknowledgment of limits. It reflects an understanding that in a world of interdependent powers, absolute control is neither feasible nor desirable. By choosing not to confront Pakistan’s initiative, Washington is implicitly accepting a new equilibrium—one in which influence is negotiated rather than imposed.
For Pakistan, this moment represents a culmination of strategic foresight and opportunism. By leveraging its geography, infrastructure, and diplomatic relationships, it has carved out a role that extends beyond its traditional boundaries. It is no longer a peripheral player but a central node in the evolving global order.
The story of these corridors, therefore, is not just about trade or transport. It is about the redefinition of power in the 21st century. It is about how nations adapt to constraints, exploit opportunities, and navigate the complexities of a world where alliances are fluid and interests intersect. And above all, it is about how a single moment of silence—from the most powerful office in the world—can reveal more than a thousand words ever could.

Paris ( Imran Y. CHOUDHRY):- A delegation of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) led by its President Rana Azeem today met the Ambassador of Pakistan to France Mumtaz Zahra Baloch.
The Ambassador welcomed the journalists and said that PFUJ has a responsible role to play, as journalism is a life line for any democratic society. The media has a significant part to play in promoting a positive image of the country, she added.

Ambassador Baloch briefed the delegation on Pakistan-France relations and the key role of the Embassy in promoting cooperation in the areas of trade, culture, academics and media. She also briefed the delegation on UNESCO’s role in communication and information and Pakistan’s initiatives in this regard at UNESCO.

PFUJ President briefed the Ambassador on the Centenary Congress of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) which is being attended by more than 300 journalists’ unions and associations’ representatives from 5th – 7th May 2026 to celebrate the 100 years of international solidarity for strong journalism and trade unionism in order to shape common strategies for future challenges.

The delegation also briefed the Ambassador on the PFUJ’s 5-year strategic plan. It also appreciated the contribution of Pakistani diplomats highlighting Pakistan’s narrative around last year’s war with India and the diplomatic efforts of Pakistan for mediation during the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Members of the delegation included: Rana Azeem, Shakeel Ahmed, Tariq Usmani, Javeria Siddiqui, G. M. Jamali, Abdur Razzaq Sial, Saima Siddique, Asmat ullah Hashwani, Ashraf Majeed, Ahtsham-ul-Haq, Syed Sana Zahra, Mazhar Amanat and Namrah Nadir.