Pakistan News
Pakistan Stood with the West in Their Wars—But Stood Alone in Its Own
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 : In a series of explosive interviews reverberating across global platforms, President Donald Trump has delivered blunt and consequential assessments—targeting the moral failures of Western military interventions in Iraq, Lybia and Syria.
While the comments triggered controversy, they also revealed long-suppressed realities—particularly for Pakistan, a country that has endured the consequences of wars it neither initiated nor benefited from. From being America’s front-line ally in proxy wars to becoming a scapegoat in the global terrorism narrative, Pakistan’s story now demands a re-examination in light of Trump’s candid revelations.
Trump’s opening salvo dismantled the rationale behind U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya. These were nations which—despite their authoritarian regimes—had made considerable economic, social, and institutional progress. “There was no terrorism in Iraq or Libya until we bombed them into dust,” Trump declared. Those bombings created stateless regions, collapsing governance and birthing extremist safe havens. Yet, conveniently omitted from this critique was Pakistan—also a victim of the West’s reckless policies.
Like Iraq and Libya, Pakistan became collateral damage—dragged into conflicts it never initiated but was coerced into supporting. In the 1980s, Pakistan was designated the frontline state in the U.S.-led effort to push Soviet forces out of Afghanistan. Under Western direction, it welcomed foreign fighters—Mujahideen—from across the Islamic world, trained and armed by the CIA, and turned its tribal belt into a launchpad for a geopolitical war.
Then came 9/11. Once again, Pakistan was strong-armed into supporting the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan—providing intelligence, military bases, airspace, and logistical support. But instead of receiving gratitude, Pakistan was met with terrorist blowback. Al-Qaeda and Taliban remnants redirected their wrath toward Pakistan, branding a foe. The country paid dearly—losing over 70,000 civilians and military personnel, suffering more than $150 billion in economic damage, and enduring immeasurable social trauma. Yet, far from being acknowledged as a victim, Pakistan was branded a “sponsor of terror.”
The very powers that created, funded, and armed these extremist elements walked away from the destruction they helped unleash, leaving Pakistan to fight alone. The terrorism that still haunts the nation—particularly in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—stems directly from this legacy. Almost daily, security personnel and innocent civilians lose their lives combating these Western-manufactured monsters.
Trump’s implicit recognition of this betrayal is momentous. But acknowledgment alone is not enough. The West has a moral and political obligation to help Pakistan dismantle the terrorist networks it helped create. These factions were never organically rooted in Pakistan—they are the offspring of CIA and NATO experimentation, now deeply embedded due to Western negligence and duplicity.
The most recent demonstration of this hypocrisy occurred in May 2025. The Indian government blamed Pakistan for an attack in Pahalgam without offering any credible evidence. Rather than seeking investigation or international mediation, India launched a barrage of missile strikes into Pakistani territory on May 5—targeting civilian areas, killing innocents, and flagrantly violating international law.
This aggression was not an isolated incident. It was the latest installment in India’s longstanding propaganda campaign falsely portraying Pakistan as a hub of global terrorism. Tragically, this narrative found traction in Western capitals—built on distorted post-9/11 rhetoric rather than fact. To mask their own failures, the West vilified Pakistan, giving India a free pass to act as both executioner and accuser.
But why was India allowed to behave with such impunity? Because it did not act alone.
India’s actions were tacitly enabled by the same Western powers that once turned Pakistan into a breeding ground for Mujahideen fighters. These powers, possessing vast propaganda machines, absolved themselves of blame for financing, training, and deploying terrorists—transferring that blame onto Pakistan. They left Pakistan isolated, forcing it to confront the very threats they helped create, while also branding it as the problem.
The hypocrisy was staggering. Rather than helping Pakistan rehabilitate its image, rebuild its economy, and reconstruct its war-torn infrastructure, the U.S., UK, and broader Western alliance shifted their investments and strategic favor to India. In an effort to contain China, they propped up India diplomatically, militarily, and economically—turning a blind eye to its human rights abuses, its illegal occupation of Kashmir, and its aggressive posturing in the region. India was transformed into a regional bully—handed a license to kill under the false pretense of counter-terrorism.
Had the West fulfilled its moral responsibility and stood by Pakistan when it was wrongly accused of harboring terrorists—just as Pakistan stood with the U.S. during the Cold War and the War on Terror—perhaps the war of May 2025 could have been averted. Had the U.S. sent a clear message that Pakistan’s sovereignty was inviolable, India might have hesitated. Instead, the West’s silence emboldened India to unleash indiscriminate destruction on civilians, women, children, and the elderly.
The blame, therefore, is not India’s alone. It must be shared by those who passively endorsed its aggression—who allowed falsehoods to dictate policy and stood silently as Pakistan was attacked without cause.
The damage to Pakistan goes beyond physical destruction. A generation has grown up under siege—traumatized, militarized, and misunderstood. Extremism and violence were not born in Pakistan; they were seeded through foreign interventions. Pakistan sacrificed its image, its economy, its culture, and its people to fight proxy wars on behalf of others. And in return? Abandonment, blame, and betrayal.
President Trump’s revelations must now be followed by action. The West must assist Pakistan with the same urgency and resources it once devoted to nurturing militancy. This includes intelligence sharing to detect and destroy cross-border training camps, economic aid and debt relief, technological assistance for border surveillance and counter-terrorism, and an end to the false narrative linking Pakistan with terror.
Most crucially, it requires standing with Pakistan during crises—not passively observing or, worse, aligning with its aggressors.
Trump’s truth bombs are more than a historical reckoning—they are a moral wake-up call. The West created this quagmire. It must now take responsibility for helping Pakistan escape it. India’s false narrative can no longer dictate Western policy. Pakistan must be recognized not as a suspect, but as a victim—and above all, a partner in the pursuit of peace.
Pakistan stood with the West when it mattered most. Now it is time for the West to stand with Pakistan—not with hollow rhetoric, but with tangible support and principled solidarity.
Only then can we say that justice—long delayed—is no longer denied.
Pakistan News
Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded
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.
Pakistan News
Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow
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/
Pakistan News
Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed
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.
-
Europe News1 year agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News1 year agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
American News1 year agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
Pakistan News8 months agoComprehensive Analysis Report-The Faranian National Conference on Maritime Affairs-By Kashif Firaz Ahmed
-
American News1 year agoZelensky bruised but upbeat after diplomatic whirlwind
-
Art & Culture1 year agoThe Indian film showing the bride’s ‘humiliation’ in arranged marriage
-
Art & Culture1 year agoInternational Agriculture Exhibition held in Paris
-
Pakistan News12 months agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?
