Connect with us

Pakistan News

The Epstein Files Set Imran Khan Apart

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 : When the latest waves of documents connected to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation began surfacing, most of the names that appeared followed a familiar and uncomfortable pattern. The references revolved around social proximity, elite networks, reputational damage, and questions of judgment. Against that backdrop, one name stood apart — not because of scandal, but because of how it was framed.
Imran Khan’s reported mention was different. According to summaries that emerged from the broader document releases, he was not linked to misconduct or impropriety. Instead, he was described in private correspondence as “really bad news” and a “greater threat.” The tone was political rather than personal, strategic rather than social. In a collection of files that cast shadows over many reputations, his distinction appeared to lie in geopolitical discomfort rather than scandal.
That difference matters because it shifts the conversation from morality to strategy. A leader described as a threat is not being accused of vice but of independence. The question then becomes: dangerous to whom, and for what reason? To understand why that framing resonates so strongly in Pakistan, one must revisit a moment that altered the country’s political trajectory. That moment arrived in early March 2022.
On August 9, 2023, The Intercept published a classified Pakistani diplomatic cable documenting a March 7, 2022 meeting between Pakistan’s ambassador to Washington and U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Donald Lu. The document, labeled “Secret,” recorded Washington’s displeasure with Khan’s visit to Moscow on February 24, 2022 — the very day Russia invaded Ukraine. According to the cable, Lu stated that if a no-confidence vote against Prime Minister Khan succeeded, “all will be forgiven in Washington.” Otherwise, he warned, it would be “tough going ahead,” and the prime minister could face “isolation” from Europe and the United States.
The language recorded in the cable is unmistakably conditional, tying bilateral warmth to a specific political outcome. Forgiveness if he is removed; difficulty if he remains.
The sequence that followed intensified scrutiny. The meeting took place on March 7, procedural steps toward a no-confidence vote began on March 8, and by April 10, Khan had been removed from office. Correlation does not prove orchestration, and political transitions are rarely explained by a single document. Nevertheless, the cable demonstrates that diplomatic pressure was applied at a sensitive moment. It also reveals that Washington viewed Khan’s neutrality on Ukraine as a personal policy choice rather than institutional consensus.
Khan’s foreign policy posture had consistently emphasized strategic independence. He refused to grant U.S. military basing rights after America’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, publicly declaring “Absolutely not” when asked about hosting foreign forces. He defended Pakistan’s abstention at the United Nations on Ukraine and rejected public pressure from European diplomats, asking pointedly at a rally whether Pakistan was expected to behave as a subordinate state. He argued that engagement with Russia was necessary to secure affordable energy and food for Pakistan’s struggling population.
Beyond Ukraine, Khan elevated the issue of Islamophobia on the global stage, pressing the United Nations to recognize anti-Muslim discrimination and urging respect for religious dignity. He framed Pakistan as a country that would engage with all powers without entering rigid alliances. Supporters viewed this as sovereignty in action, while critics considered it diplomatic miscalculation. What cannot be denied is that his posture disrupted established expectations about alignment in a polarized global environment.
Following his removal, Pakistan’s external positioning shifted noticeably. Military-to-military engagement with the United States regained momentum, and reports surfaced of Pakistani-manufactured ammunition appearing in Ukraine. Diplomatic warmth between Islamabad and Western capitals returned, and new defense cooperation frameworks were discussed. These developments do not conclusively prove that pressure determined political outcomes, but they align with the cable’s suggestion that a change in leadership would ease tensions and remove the “dent” in relations.
It is within this broader context that the contrast with the Epstein-related references acquires symbolic weight. Many powerful men whose names appeared in those documents faced reputational questions because of association with a disgraced financier. Imran Khan’s distinction, by contrast, was reportedly rooted in strategic apprehension rather than personal scandal. He was not depicted as compromised; he was characterized as disruptive.
The cable published by The Intercept reinforces that interpretation. Its “assessment” section records the Pakistani ambassador’s view that Lu could not have delivered such a strong message without approval from higher authorities. Whether or not that assessment was accurate, it underscores how the exchange was perceived inside Pakistan’s diplomatic apparatus. The document captures a moment when international expectations and domestic politics collided.
Since Khan’s removal, Pakistan has experienced deep polarization, economic strain, and intensified debate over the balance of civilian and military authority. His critics argue that his governance record warranted parliamentary removal and that institutional checks functioned as designed. His supporters argue that his defiance of geopolitical alignment invited external pressure that altered the course of domestic politics. The truth may reside in the interplay of both internal and external forces.
What the documentary record shows is not a signed directive of regime change, but evidence of diplomatic leverage. In international politics, leverage often operates through incentives and signals rather than commands. The phrase “all will be forgiven” is not an order; it is a conditional promise. Such language does not prove conspiracy, but it does demonstrate expectation.
That is why the distinction matters. The Epstein files, as publicly discussed, did not place Imran Khan among scandal-tainted elites. Instead, they appear to reflect concern about his independent trajectory. The March 7 cable then provides context for why that concern may have existed, showing that his policies generated friction at the highest levels of diplomacy. In a world structured around predictable alignments, independence can be unsettling.
Imran Khan’s story, therefore, is not merely about allegations or denial. It is about how sovereignty interacts with global power. He was not framed in those documents as morally compromised; he was framed as politically inconvenient. Whether that inconvenience contributed to his removal remains debated, but the documentary evidence confirms that it was noticed.
In the end, what set him apart was not scandal but stance. In a system accustomed to compliance, saying no can carry consequences. The documents do not resolve the debate over his ouster, but they illuminate the pressures surrounding it. And in doing so, they explain why, among many powerful names, one stood apart.

Pakistan News

Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded

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 : 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.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow

Published

on

By

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/

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed

Published

on

By

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.

Continue Reading

Trending