Connect with us

Pakistan News

Pakistan Saves Middle East and Iran and Shatters Israel Invincibility

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 : 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.

Pakistan News

New Chapter for Dragon Boating in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial associations officially set up with sights locked on national competitions and international representation.

Published

on

By

Dragon Boat Associations Established in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
PSHAWAR/LAHORE: Dragon boat associations have been established in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, marking a step towards organising and promoting the sport across Pakistan.
Prominent political and social figure Ameer Bahadur Khan Hoti will serve as president of the Punjab Dragon Boat Association (PDBA), while a notification has been issued confirming the election of former bureaucrat Javed Marwat as president of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Dragon Boat Association (KPDBA). At a meeting in Lahore, prominent sports journalist Muhammad Yousuf was elected secretary general of the Punjab association. Uzma Zaidi will serve as senior vice president and Naveed Akhtar Malik as treasurer.
At a separate meeting in Peshawar, Javed Marwat, who previously held several senior administrative positions in the province, was unanimously elected president of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa association, while renowned sports organiser Naeem Gul was elected secretary general. Shamim Akhtar Jadoon will serve as senior vice president, Junaid Khan vice president and Bilal Aslam as treasurer. Newly elected Punjab association president Ameer Bahadur Khan Hoti said Pakistan’s first dragon boat festival and competitions on the Kabul River had opened new avenues for the sport’s development. He said the enthusiasm shown by participants and the sport’s promising prospects had highlighted the need to establish a Pakistan Dragon Boat Federation to coordinate training, organise competitions and support athletes. Dragon boat associations would be established in all four provinces and the federal capital, Islamabad, before the formal announcement of the national federation, he added.
Newly elected Khyber Pakhtunkhwa association president Javed Marwat said efforts would focus on introducing the sport at the provincial level and providing athletes with opportunities to compete nationally and demonstrate their abilities. Teams would also be sent to represent Pakistan in international competitions. He said the sport would help strengthen people-to-people exchanges and further promote Pakistan-China friendship. Marwat expressed confidence that dragon boat racing would soon gain popularity throughout Pakistan.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan’s Yemen Dilemma

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 : Pakistan’s military commitment to Saudi Arabia raises a question that cannot be answered simply by identifying where its soldiers are stationed. Modern warfare allows forces to attack through aircraft, missiles, drones and targeting support without sending infantry across a border. The decisive issue is whether Pakistani personnel and capabilities will participate in hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis—and what consequences could follow.
Scott Ritter, renowned American podcaster, military and geopolitical analyst captures the central danger: Saudi Arabia could obtain through collective defence the Pakistani involvement in Yemen that Islamabad previously resisted. An initially limited commitment could expand through casualties, retaliation and demands for reinforcement, leaving Pakistan responsible for a war whose objectives it does not control.
CNN reported on October 7 that Pakistani troops were already stationed in Saudi Arabia. In the interview, Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, director general of Inter-Services Public Relations, declined to disclose their numbers or capabilities. Asked about operations across the Yemeni border, he invoked military confidentiality, explaining that participating countries do not publicly disclose how and where they will employ their forces. His response offered no categorical exclusion of ground operations or offensive action inside Yemen, even as he described Pakistani involvement as defensive.
That distinction matters. Operational secrecy may protect military personnel, but it also leaves the public without clear answers about the mission’s boundaries. The description “defensive” cannot establish those boundaries by itself. Governments routinely invoke defence to justify attacks beyond their territory; the relevant questions concern what forces actually do, whom they target and under whose authority.
Pakistani forces operating from Saudi territory could potentially support or conduct attacks inside Yemen without deploying infantry there. Air operations and targeting assistance could carry substantial consequences. If Pakistani personnel participate in attacks against Houthi positions, Ansarullah could regard Pakistan as belligerent. Tehran could interpret the same activity as participation in a campaign against Iranian regional interests.
The Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, signed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye on August 7, 2026, reportedly treats an attack against one member as an attack against all three. Its deterrent promise is substantial, but so is the danger of importing one member’s confrontation into the security calculations of the others.
An October 5 statement published by Türkiye’s Foreign Ministry committed the partners to implement collective defence arrangements and rapidly deploy agreed military forces and capabilities to Saudi Arabia, subject to national legislation. Türkiye therefore shares the deployment commitment. However, the evidence reviewed does not establish a Turkish ground combat commitment against the Houthis or an equal distribution of operational risks.
For Islamabad, the unanswered questions are fundamental. Who authorizes Pakistani involvement in cross-border attacks? Can Pakistan refuse a particular operation? Who finances a prolonged deployment, and what conditions permit withdrawal? Confidential operational details need not be published to explain the political mandate governing the use of force.
Pakistan brings potential strengths to the alliance: experienced personnel, established military institutions and longstanding cooperation with Riyadh. Saudi infrastructure and financing could support a substantial deployment. Islamabad’s relationships with both Riyadh and Tehran might also create diplomatic opportunities, provided military involvement does not undermine its credibility as an intermediary.
Yet those strengths do not resolve the weaknesses of an extended campaign. Destroying particular weapons or positions is different from ending an adversary’s ability and determination to fight. Dispersed forces, local networks and adaptation can frustrate superior firepower. Tactical gains could therefore coexist with an expanding mission and an elusive political settlement.
Ritter’s warning is strongest when understood in these terms. Predicting inevitable Pakistani defeat is less useful than asking what victory would require. Protecting defined facilities offers measurable objectives. Permanently eliminating the Houthi threat could entail commitments far beyond what Pakistan initially intended—and costs that additional military capability cannot necessarily overcome.
Saudi financial assistance complicates Islamabad’s freedom of choice. The State Bank of Pakistan confirmed that a $3 billion Saudi deposit maturing in December 2025 was extended for another year. Such support gives Pakistan a substantial interest in maintaining Saudi confidence.
Saudi’s financial influence does not require an explicit threat. A government facing external financing pressures may find it difficult to reject security requests from an important creditor. The danger is that short-term economic reassurance encourages military obligations carrying much greater long-term costs.
Iran introduces a further risk. Pakistani attacks against an Iranian-supported movement could damage relations with a neighbouring country and generate security pressures closer to home. The Houthis also possess their own Yemeni objectives, and attacking them is not automatically equivalent to attacking Iran. Political escalation, however, can advance through perceptions and retaliation before governments agree on legal distinctions.
International law offers no reliable assurance that this confrontation would remain contained. Legal obligations persist, but their enforcement is uneven, and states may invoke self-defence while pursuing military objectives beyond their borders. Pakistan therefore cannot assume that legal distinctions between defending Saudi territory and attacking Houthi positions would restrain retaliation. If Tehran perceives Pakistani operations as threatening its interests, the danger would turn on strategic calculations, perceived threats and the risk of escalation—not simply on competing interpretations of the UN Charter. Shared religion and geographical proximity would offer no dependable protection against that outcome.
Pakistan’s domestic divisions make a widening conflict especially consequential. The supporters of imprisoned former prime minister Imran Khan began marching from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa toward Islamabad on October 4, demanding his release, hospital treatment and family access. An overseas campaign would impose additional demands on resources and political legitimacy amid an already polarized environment.
Parliament’s April 2015 resolution remains relevant. It supported neutrality in Yemen alongside solidarity against threats to Saudi territorial integrity and the holy sites, while urging diplomacy through the United Nations and Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. That distinction deserves renewed parliamentary examination before military commitments overtake political debate.
Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye should pursue an emergency OIC initiative linked to UN diplomacy, involving Iran and meaningful Yemeni participation. Reciprocal de-escalation, civilian protection and humanitarian access should take priority. Their collective influence should also sustain action for Palestinian rights rather than dissipate through another prolonged regional confrontation.
The Makkah Pact’s credibility will depend on whether it improves security. Secrecy about military methods cannot replace clarity about political objectives. Before Pakistan’s commitment deepens, its leaders must explain what they are defending, how far that obligation extends and how they intend to prevent it from becoming an open-ended war.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan Reaffirms Commitment to Multilateralism, Peace and International Cooperation at the Executive Board of UNESCO

Published

on

By

Paris ( Imran Y. CHOUDHRY):- Advisor to the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Representative of Pakistan to UNESCO, Syed Tauqeer Hussain Shah, delivered Pakistan’s national statement at the 225th Session of the UNESCO Executive Board in Paris, France, reaffirming its steadfast commitment to multilateralism, international cooperation and the promotion of peace through dialogue and mutual understanding.

In his statement,

  • Underscored Pakistan’s firm support for multilateral institutions, South-South cooperation and collaborative efforts to address global challenges, particularly those confronting developing countries;
  • Highlighted the urgent need to protect human life, educational institutions and cultural heritage amid conflicts and crisis, especially in Gaza;

-Called for an international action plan to confront the challenge of out-of-school children;

  • Stressed the importance of equitable access to scientific knowledge, international scientific collaboration and reducing technological inequalities;

-Underlined the need to combat racism, misogyny, Islamophobia, disinformation and hate speech, while encouraging responsible and ethical governance of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies; and

  • Expressed support for institutional reform of UNESCO to enhance its effectiveness and impact worldwide.

Continue Reading

Trending