Connect with us

Pakistan News

The Forgotten 804

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: In the long arc of global politics, some stories are not merely about one man or one nation, but about the deliberate removal of obstacles that could derail larger designs. The imprisonment of Imran Khan, referred to by many as the forgotten “Prisoner 804,” is not only a chapter in Pakistan’s turbulent democracy but part of a larger geopolitical strategy in which the United States, Israel, and their allies sought to ensure that no disruptive force could interfere with their unfolding project in the Middle East. His incarceration is not just a punishment for defiance at home; it is a calculated silencing of a leader whose stubborn refusal to obey foreign dictates could have unsettled the plan to reshape Palestine, neutralize resistance, and entrench the vision of a greater Israel.
The United States has long been accused of thinking not just about present crises but of planning far ahead, identifying potential threats to its policies and eliminating them before they can materialize. From Latin America in the 20th century to the Middle East after 9/11, the record is replete with instances of intervention, destabilization, and regime change to pave the way for American interests. Pakistan, with its nuclear arsenal and ideological centrality to the Muslim world, has always been watched with particular suspicion whenever a leader emerged who spoke of independence, dignity, or solidarity with oppressed Muslims abroad. Imran Khan, by the time he matured into a national statesman, fit this profile perfectly: a man too self-confident to obey and too popular to be ignored.
It was during one of his interviews that the world caught a glimpse of his defiance. Asked whether Pakistan would allow American bases on its soil, his answer was sharp, unequivocal, and without diplomatic varnish: “Absolutely not.” For Washington, such a response was more than a sound bite. It was a warning that when the time came to launch broader operations in the region, including in Gaza, Khan would be an unpredictable and dangerous obstacle. The United States and Israel were moving towards their long-prepared campaign to dismantle Hamas and, more brutally, to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. In that plan, Pakistan mattered. Its nuclear status, its army’s conventional strength, its historic role in the Muslim world, and the ability of its leader to mobilize opinion could all complicate the campaign. And so, before the bombs fell on Gaza, before the massacres of civilians filled the headlines, Pakistan’s loudest and most defiant voice was removed from the stage and locked in prison.
Khan’s removal was achieved through the time-tested formula of intrigue, betrayal, and manipulation. Once firmly established in power, his popularity was not eroded by scandal or economic collapse but by conspiracies spun from within, aided by external encouragement. He was stabbed in the back by allies, deceived by those he trusted, and undermined by the very establishment that should have protected him. His removal through a no-confidence vote in 2022 was presented as constitutional theater, but the timing and the subsequent unfolding of events revealed a deeper orchestration. He was expected, even by detractors, to return to power after elections. Yet the military establishment, in close alignment with U.S. preferences, ensured that even that possibility was closed off. For Washington, it was not enough to remove him once; they had to make sure he could never again return to disrupt the silence that was required when Gaza burned.
What followed was a demonstration of how external powers reward obedience and punish defiance. The civilian government led by Shehbaz Sharif and the military leadership under General Asim Munir quickly aligned themselves with Washington’s designs. Donald Trump himself revealed that both Sharif and Munir had been taken into confidence during the preparations for the U.S. strike on Iran and Israel’s onslaught on Gaza. The symbolism was unmistakable. For the first time in living memory, the president of the United States bypassed Pakistan’s civilian prime minister and held direct consultations with a serving general, elevating a subordinate servant of the state to the rank of geopolitical partner. The bypassing of the civilian chain of command spoke volumes: it was a reminder that power in Pakistan could be stabilized or destabilized at Washington’s will, depending on whether it complied or resisted.
The results were immediate and telling. When Israel unleashed its fury on Gaza and the West Bank, demolishing neighborhoods, bombing hospitals, and slaughtering women, children, and journalists, Pakistan’s response was muted. The country that had historically been among the loudest defenders of the Palestinian cause was suddenly silent. The same Pakistan whose leaders once thundered in international forums against Israeli occupation now mumbled routine statements while ensuring that no real action was taken. The silence was not accidental; it was the price paid for staying in power. Washington, in turn, ensured that Pakistan’s economy did not collapse entirely. IMF loans were eased, debt repayments were tolerated, and inflation was kept under some measure of control. The army and police were allowed to unleash brute force against protesters without fear of sanctions or reprimand. In exchange for obedience, the state was stabilized enough to carry out Washington’s commands.
Meanwhile, Prisoner 804 remained behind bars. Courts disregarded arguments by senior advocates and witnesses, not because the evidence was weak but because justice was never the point. The plan was clear: Imran Khan was to remain imprisoned until the Israeli project in Palestine was complete. His release, whether legally warranted or not, would have risked giving voice to the Muslim world at a moment when silence was most precious to Israel and its backers. His love for Islam, his admiration for the Prophet, his ability to galvanize millions of ordinary Pakistanis, and his influence across the Muslim world posed the very real danger of rallying states to oppose the genocide in Gaza. He could have called for collective action, perhaps even kinetic action, uniting Pakistan with Iran or other Muslim nations to confront Israeli aggression. That risk could not be taken, and so he was kept locked away, forgotten by the courts, ignored by the establishment, and silenced by force.
In this tragic arrangement, Pakistan has been reduced to a pawn. Its elected leadership lacks legitimacy, having been installed “by hook or by crook,” without genuine majority support. Its military leadership has overstayed retirements and rules with impunity, rewarded for obedience and secured by foreign approval. Together, they preside over a silenced population, cowed into submission by fear of the army and police, pacified by small economic concessions, and deprived of the leader who once embodied their aspirations for independence. The entire spectacle demonstrates how Washington’s leverage works: stabilize those who obey, destabilize those who defy.
The case of the forgotten 804, therefore, is not merely about one man’s imprisonment. It is about the systematic silencing of resistance in the Muslim world to clear the path for Israel’s project of ethnic cleansing and annexation. It is about the quiet submission of a nuclear-armed nation to foreign diktats, reduced from potential leader of an Islamic bloc to a bystander while atrocities unfold before the world’s eyes. It is about the reminder that in the theater of geopolitics, legality, democracy, and even human life itself are subordinated to the interests of the powerful.
Yet history has a way of proving that silence never lasts forever. Imran Khan’s imprisonment may achieve its short-term purpose, but the questions it raises will not vanish. How long can Pakistan endure the contradiction between its people’s convictions and its rulers’ obedience? How long can the Muslim world remain fragmented when the suffering of Palestinians continues to demand a collective response? And how long can any leader who bends too easily to foreign will sustain their own legitimacy at home? The forgotten 804 may one day emerge, and if he does, it will not only be as a man but as the embodiment of a suppressed nation’s voice. Until then, his silence echoes in every demolished home in Gaza, every unmarked grave in the West Bank, and every tear of those who still look to Pakistan for leadership and find only compliance.

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