Pakistan News
Pakistan’s Diplomatic Gambit: A Nobel Bid for Donald Trump
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 has announced its decision to nominate former U.S. President Donald Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, citing his critical role in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan during their recent four-day conflict. According to Islamabad, Trump’s diplomatic intervention prevented what could have been a devastating war between two nuclear-armed nations, whose combined population nears 1.7 billion people. The risk of escalation was not merely regional—it threatened global catastrophe. A full-blown nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would have killed millions instantly, left countless more suffering from radiation poisoning, and potentially polluted vast areas of the planet with radioactive fallout.
In the eyes of Pakistani leadership, the ceasefire was not a result of bilateral understanding alone, but rather the outcome of behind-the-scenes pressure from Washington, led by Trump himself. His influence, they argue, tipped the strategic balance in Pakistan’s favor. The fact that India has not made a similar nomination, nor endorsed Pakistan’s proposal, suggests New Delhi may have been compelled by external pressure to agree to de-escalation—an arm-twisting it now hesitates to acknowledge. Pakistan, by contrast, sees Trump’s role as decisive, crediting him for giving diplomacy a chance and stabilizing one of the world’s most volatile flashpoints.
For Trump, this marks yet another moment where he seeks to define himself as a peacemaker. Since returning to office, he has claimed involvement in a range of peace efforts, including attempting to defuse tensions between Russia and Ukraine, proposing controversial solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and more recently, trying to mediate between Israel and Iran as hostilities in the Middle East escalate. In each of these cases, Trump has framed himself as a man of peace rather than war, a statesman who prefers deals over destruction.
However, the Nobel Peace Prize is governed by very specific criteria outlined in Alfred Nobel’s will. The prize is intended for those who have, in the preceding year, contributed most to fostering fraternity between nations, advancing disarmament or the abolition of standing armies, or organizing peace congresses. While Pakistan’s government is qualified to make the nomination, the question remains whether Trump’s actions align sufficiently with these core requirements.
Trump’s role in halting the India-Pakistan conflict may well qualify under the category of fostering fraternity between nations, at least in the narrow sense of preventing immediate escalation. However, critics argue that his interventions tend to be tactical rather than structural. The ceasefire, while significant, did not involve formal peace talks, demilitarization, or the establishment of long-term conflict-resolution mechanisms. It was a pause in hostilities, not a transformation of the underlying tensions. Similarly, his other diplomatic efforts have often lacked follow-through, institutions, or treaties that would make peace durable.
Still, Trump’s posture as a peacemaker has found fresh ground in the Middle East. As the war between Israel and Iran escalated in June 2025, Trump initiated a series of back-channel efforts to contain the conflict. He publicly called for calm, pressured both sides to explore negotiation, and sought Turkish mediation to open discreet dialogue with Iranian officials. Though Tehran initially refused to participate unless Israel halted its bombing campaign, Trump remained hopeful that diplomacy could still win the day. At the G7 summit, he reiterated his plea for restraint, urging both parties to “make a deal” and avoid dragging the region into a full-scale war.
Unlike many past U.S. presidents, Trump has taken a nuanced stance on NATO, pushing European allies to shoulder more financial responsibility. His reduced emphasis on U.S. military interventionism is consistent with his larger strategy of avoiding entanglements while leveraging diplomatic pressure. Whether this is pragmatism or isolationism is open to debate, but Pakistan clearly sees in Trump a leader who intervenes only when strategic interests and peace align.
Yet Trump’s foreign policy record is fraught with contradictions. While positioning himself as a man of peace in one region, he has actively emboldened militarism and expansionism in others. His unwavering support for Israel, despite the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and the West Bank, has been widely condemned.
His administration’s backing of Israeli military operations—framed by many as acts of genocide against Palestinians—has undermined his peace credentials. Furthermore, his support for Israel’s continued assault on Iran and refusal to condemn aggressive preemptive strikes has placed the United States squarely on one side of an increasingly dangerous regional war.
Beyond the Middle East, Trump’s assertions to annex Canada as the 51st state, his plan to rebrand the Gulf of Mexico under American identity, his proposal to take over Greenland from Denmark, and his ambitions to militarize and control the Panama Canal and adjacent lake regions signal an aggressive geopolitical posture. These positions paint him not as a global peacemaker but as an opportunistic expansionist, eager to rewrite borders and extend American dominance through threats, deals, or force.
Despite these criticisms, Trump’s ability to stall a potential war between India and Pakistan gives him a strong talking point in the context of Nobel nominations. It adds weight to his self-characterization as a statesman who, even if unconventional, gets results. Whether the Nobel Committee shares that view is far from certain. Historically, the committee has favored leaders whose efforts culminate in formal agreements, institutional reforms, or significant steps toward disarmament—criteria that Trump has yet to meet fully.
There is, of course, a deeply political dimension to Pakistan’s nomination. By recognizing Trump in this way, Islamabad gains soft power leverage and potentially earns goodwill from one of the most powerful and polarizing leaders on the global stage. In contrast, India—smarting from what many see as a military setback—has remained diplomatically muted. Its reluctance to echo Pakistan’s praise of Trump may be born out of resentment or embarrassment. By moving first, Pakistan has repositioned itself as a diplomatic ally to the United States under Trump’s leadership, while casting India in a defensive, unresponsive role.
In conclusion, Pakistan’s nomination of Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize is both a diplomatic strategy and a symbolic gesture. It serves to highlight Trump’s influence in regional stability and underscores Pakistan’s gratitude for averting a disastrous conflict. While the nomination is procedurally sound, whether it gains traction with the Nobel Committee depends on how they interpret Trump’s peace initiatives. If short-term conflict prevention is deemed sufficient, Trump could emerge as a serious contender. If the bar remains high—demanding enduring peace through institutions, disarmament, and treaties—then his efforts may fall short. Regardless of the outcome, the move places Pakistan on Trump’s radar and subtly shifts the narrative of South Asia’s security calculus in Islamabad’s favor.
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 News9 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?
