Pakistan News
Pakistan’s Voice of Conscience at the United Nations
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 the crowded halls of diplomacy, where words often drown in endless speeches, moments arise that define not only the speaker but the nation behind him. Such a moment recently came when Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Asim Iftikhar, stood before the world and dismantled Israel’s attempt to misuse Pakistan’s sacrifices in the fight against terrorism to justify its indiscriminate assault on Gaza. His intervention not only forced an unprecedented apology from Israel’s ambassador, Danny Danon, but also reaffirmed Pakistan’s moral authority as the voice of conscience for the Muslim world and for oppressed people everywhere.
For me, this triumph was not just a matter of national pride but also personal reflection. Two years ago, while waiting for an audience with President Arif Alvi in Islamabad, I met Ambassador Asim Iftikhar as he prepared to assume his responsibilities as Pakistan’s envoy to France. In those quiet minutes, I found him to be articulate, deeply thoughtful, and radiating professionalism. There was in his demeanor a rare blend of intellectual precision and quiet confidence, qualities that I felt would take him far in representing Pakistan. That impression, formed in the corridors of the presidency, has since been vindicated in the most remarkable way, culminating in his recent performance at the United Nations where he shone not only as Pakistan’s voice but as the spokesperson of the Muslim world.
The confrontation that revealed his strength of character unfolded when the Israeli ambassador attempted to draw an analogy between Israel’s bombardment of Gaza and the U.S. operation in Abbottabad, Pakistan, which killed Osama bin Laden. It was a deliberate distortion, intended to cloak genocide in the language of counterterrorism, and it invoked Pakistan’s history in a way that was both misleading and offensive. Ambassador Iftikhar rose with words that pierced the façade. He reminded the world that Pakistan had been a frontline state in the global fight against terrorism, losing more than seventy thousand men, women, and children, dismantling terror networks, and rendering sacrifices unmatched by any other nation. “Pakistan’s record,” he declared, “is bright, recognized worldwide, and written in the blood of its martyrs.” He then turned the analogy on its head, pointing out with clarity that invoking Pakistan’s sacrifices to justify the mass killing of innocents in Gaza was “outrageous, incoherent, and morally indefensible,” for what Israel was doing was not counterterrorism but genocide, ethnic cleansing, and the conversion of Gaza into a slaughterhouse.
The chamber fell silent. Rarely does rhetoric give way to truth so powerfully, and rarely is propaganda so effectively exposed. The weight of his words left Israel’s representative cornered, and in a rare act of contrition, Danny Danon publicly apologized to Pakistan, admitting that invoking its name had been inappropriate. It was more than a diplomatic win; it was a narrative triumph, a moment where Pakistan’s honor was defended, its sacrifices acknowledged, and Israel’s distortion dismantled. For Pakistan, it was a reminder of the power of words when spoken with conviction, and for the Muslim world, it was proof that a principled voice could still rise above the noise of power politics.
This intervention was not an isolated act but part of a larger continuum of Ambassador Iftikhar’s work. Again and again at the United Nations, he has projected the suffering of Gaza and the West Bank with unflinching clarity. In June this year, he declared before the General Assembly that “the situation in Gaza is a stain on our collective conscience. Over fifty-five thousand lives have been lost, including eighteen thousand children and twenty-eight thousand women. Infrastructure has been razed—homes, hospitals, schools, cultural heritage, places of worship. Famine looms. Humanitarian workers and UN personnel are being attacked with impunity. This is not just a humanitarian catastrophe; it is a collapse of humanity.” These were not the words of a man speaking only for Pakistan. They were the words of a diplomat mobilizing the conscience of the world, urging not only the Muslim community but all of civilization to act, to recognize that without justice there can be no peace. He has repeatedly called for the only viable solution: the realization of a two-state solution on pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif as the capital of a sovereign, independent, and contiguous State of Palestine.
By vividly describing demolished schools, destroyed hospitals, displaced families, starving children, and the blockade of humanitarian aid, he has carried the Palestinian tragedy from the rubble of Gaza to the chambers of the United Nations, where it cannot be ignored. He has mobilized not just the Muslim world but also neutral states, civil society, and even hesitant Western capitals to rethink their silence. His interventions have contributed to the momentum behind resolutions in the General Assembly, including Pakistan’s pivotal role in the historic vote affirming the two-state solution, a success story of multilateral diplomacy where Pakistan once again played a leading role.
His diplomacy is marked by dignity. In confronting Israel, he did not descend into anger or hyperbole. Instead, he marshaled facts, invoked moral clarity, and exposed propaganda with surgical precision. He reminded the world that the fight against terrorism cannot be equated with the slaughter of innocent civilians, and in doing so, he not only defended Pakistan’s honor but also gave voice to the millions of Palestinians trapped under bombardment and occupation. His words carried the weight of truth, and truth compelled even Israel, often shielded by its allies, to apologize.
This was Pakistan at its finest—firm, dignified, principled. It was not just defending its own history but championing the cause of justice for Palestine, exposing tyranny, and mobilizing the conscience of the world. For me, watching this unfold brought back that first impression I had of him in Islamabad, a man destined to leave his mark. He has not only fulfilled that promise but exceeded it, standing tall as a diplomat whose words moved nations and whose voice gave hope to the oppressed.
The United Nations may often be a theater of speeches with little consequence, but sometimes, words alter the moral landscape. Through Ambassador Asim Iftikhar, Pakistan has shown that truth, when spoken with conviction, can silence distortion, compel apologies, and remind the world that dignity and justice still matter. In that chamber, Pakistan’s voice was heard and respected. It was the voice of a nation that has suffered and sacrificed, yet continues to stand for justice—not only for itself but for all oppressed peoples. And in that moment, Pakistan reminded the world that diplomacy, at its best, is not about power but about conscience, and that conscience, when articulated with courage, can still shake the foundations of injustice.
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?
