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 : These are momentous times, not only for the region but for the shifting power dynamics of the world. On July 7 and 8, 2025, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump convened in Washington, D.C., amid a rapidly evolving crisis. At the White House, flanked by their cabinets, both leaders addressed the media following back-to-back meetings where they discussed the ongoing war in Gaza, indirect ceasefire talks with Hamas, and their joint military action against Iran. The press conference that followed was revealing—not just for what was said, but for what was admitted, evaded, and conspicuously ignored.
The Israeli Prime Minister, emboldened by U.S. backing, described recent joint military actions in strikingly clinical language, declaring that Israel and the United States had “removed two tumors”—Iran’s Nuclear Program and its missiles machines. These were not metaphors of diplomacy or deterrence; they were declarations of conquest, affirmations of a doctrine Netanyahu proudly called “peace through strength.” He praised the B-2 American pilots who dropped massive ordnance on Iran’s underground nuclear facility, and the Israeli soldiers who, in his words, “fought like lions” and “struck like lightning.” President Trump echoed these sentiments, confirming that the Atomic Energy Commission had verified the destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. “It is obliterated,” he stated, while adding, “They flew for 37 hours with zero problems… carrying the biggest bombs we’ve ever dropped on anybody—non-nuclear, and we want to keep it non-nuclear.” What was presented as victory, however, was also a sobering admission of escalation.
But while both leaders stood united in the language of military strength, they diverged sharply when the conversation turned to Iran’s future. Netanyahu maintained an aggressive stance, affirming that Israel would never tolerate the re-emergence of Iranian power in Syria or the region at large. Trump, however, struck a noticeably different chord. He praised the Iranian people as “very smart, energetic people” and reiterated his desire to lift sanctions “at the right time,” suggesting a path of economic reintegration rather than perpetual war. He spoke of Iran’s “great oil power” and its “potential for peace,” offering a glimpse of a strategy built on diplomacy rather than annihilation. This contrast revealed a fundamental divide between the two leaders: one seeking permanent suppression, the other seeking calculated engagement.
Syria also emerged as a critical part of the broader plan. Netanyahu was clear that prior to their operations, “Iran was essentially running Syria.” Now, he claimed, “Iran is out of the picture.” President Trump reinforced this position, explaining that sanctions were lifted to give the post-Iranian Syrian government a chance to rebuild. “I met the new leader… I was very impressed,” he said, signaling American willingness to reconfigure the region—so long as Iran remained on the sidelines. This transformation of Syria from Iranian stronghold to Western-aligned state was offered as both a strategic victory and a sign of shifting alliances.
But amid the triumphalism, the most conspicuous silence surrounded Gaza. President Trump spoke passionately about the tragedy unfolding in Ukraine, lamenting, “These are souls… it’s appalling, it’s unforgivable.” Yet when it came to the civilian deaths in Gaza—where tens of thousands have been killed, injured, or displaced—he said nothing. No mention of the humanitarian catastrophe, the flattened hospitals, the water crisis, or the lost children. Not even a token expression of sorrow. This absence revealed a dangerous truth: that even amid international condemnation of Israel’s actions as collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, or genocide, the President of the United States dared not speak a word of dissent. This wasn’t just political—it was systemic. The silence was deafening.
The contradictions deepened further when the issue of Hamas entered the discussion. On one hand, Netanyahu framed Hamas as a terrorist entity that must be eradicated completely. “We still have to finish the job in Gaza… eliminate and destroy Hamas’s military and governance capabilities,” he declared. And yet, in the same breath, he revealed that negotiations were ongoing. “We accepted a proposal that came from the mediators… I think that we’ve gotten closer to it.” This paradox defies logic. If Hamas has been militarily decapitated, why is Israel still negotiating with it? Why does Hamas still hold hostages? Why is it still dictating terms at the table?
The answer lies in a reality neither leader wanted to fully admit: that despite two years of siege and destruction, despite the combined might of Israeli and American forces, Hamas still remains a central political and military actor. Netanyahu acknowledged that “on the way over here and on the way from here” discussions with Hamas and intermediaries continued. This was not a sign of weakness from Hamas—it was proof of endurance. That even after half of Gaza was reduced to rubble, Hamas still holds hostages, still retains command, and still holds diplomatic leverage, exposes the failure of Israel’s total war doctrine. Far from being eradicated, Hamas has become the de facto representative of the Gazan people in any future settlement.
What’s more telling is that the negotiations themselves are being shaped by the United States, Qatar, and other regional players, all of whom recognize Hamas as a negotiating partner. This tacit legitimacy undermines Netanyahu’s claims of destroying Hamas’s governance capacity. It affirms that any future framework for Gaza and the West Bank will, by necessity, involve Hamas—not just as a spoiler, but as a stakeholder. And if Hamas holds that space now, after facing the wrath of both Israel and the United States, it only underscores its strategic depth and societal roots in the Palestinian landscape.
In the final moments of the press conference, Netanyahu was asked about declining U.S. public support for Israel, especially among Democrats. He blamed it on “vilification and demonization on social media,” insisting, “Nothing defeats lies like the truth.” But the truth remains painfully visible. It is in the refugee camps, in the aerial footage of destroyed neighborhoods, in the buried children and grieving mothers. It is in the contradictions between rhetoric and reality, between the promise of peace and the daily grind of occupation, siege, and military dominance.
The Trump-Netanyahu meeting, though billed as a peace coordination summit, was something altogether different. It was a show of strategic triumphalism built on the ashes of diplomacy. It revealed a dual policy of war and negotiation—bombing one day, talking the next. It praised military supremacy while denying humanitarian suffering. It treated displacement as peace, and coercion as choice. It silenced Gaza while discussing Ukraine. It admitted the centrality of Hamas while vowing its extinction. It was a performance of contradictions, wrapped in ceremony, delivered with pride, and protected by silence.
If there is one thing the summit achieved, it is clarity. The clarity that this is not a war to destroy Hamas. It is a war to redefine Palestine. And in doing so, the United States and Israel have made one thing clear to the world: power is the process, peace is the packaging. And the people—their pain, their dignity, their future—remain secondary to strategic calculus.

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 : President Donald J. Trump’s return to office in January 2025 triggered swift, sweeping action. Armed with the same defiance and unfiltered confidence that defined his first term, Trump immediately reimposed the America First doctrine, introducing tariffs and demanding stricter compliance from allies. Predictions of economic collapse, rising inflation, and diplomatic backlash flooded the media. But within six months, reality tells a different story: the U.S. economy is gaining strength, international alliances are being redefined, and old taboos—particularly around America’s unconditional support for Israel—are being questioned as never before.
Recent economic data shows a striking rebound. According to the June 2025 jobs report, the U.S. added 139,000 private sector jobs in May alone, exceeding expectations for the third consecutive month. Unlike the previous two years, when foreign-born workers accounted for much of the labor force growth, the gains since January have been entirely among native-born Americans. Key industries such as leisure and hospitality, construction, and transportation are experiencing consistent growth, while private sector job creation stands at 99.8% of total employment expansion—marking a decisive shift away from government-led hiring trends under the previous administration.
Wage growth is equally notable. Real average hourly earnings have increased by nearly 4% over the past year, with real disposable personal income rising at an annualized rate of 7.5%—a sharp contrast to the 2.3% pace during President Biden’s final year. Inflation has cooled, with the May 2025 CPI showing a year-over-year increase of just 2.4%, the lowest in recent memory. Meanwhile, falling gas prices and stable food costs have contributed to rising consumer confidence. The Nasdaq Composite reached a record high of 20,273 points in late June, driven by renewed optimism in the technology sector and AI-driven investments.
Yet, this domestic optimism is set against a complex and evolving foreign policy backdrop. In April, a 12-day exchange of missile strikes between Israel and Iran raised fears of a broader war. Though conflict was narrowly avoided, the global response—particularly in Europe—marked a turning point. For the first time in decades, the European Union began publicly signaling discomfort with Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The European Council, in its official conclusions dated June 26, 2025, called for an immediate ceasefire and expressed alarm at the dire humanitarian situation. It also acknowledged that Israel may be violating human rights obligations under its existing EU trade agreement. Separately, 17 out of 27 EU member states have supported initiating a formal review of the EU–Israel Association Agreement—a move that underscores rising European frustration with Israel’s military policies.
These developments represent a profound shift in the EU’s position. While not formalized through a European Parliament resolution, the coordinated statements by EU leaders and ministers signal an emerging consensus across the continent. No longer content to follow Washington’s diplomatic lead, Europe is carving out its own space—politically, economically, and morally. This divergence has been accelerated by Trump’s aggressive demands that NATO countries not only increase defense spending to 5% of GDP but also prioritize the purchase of U.S.-manufactured arms. While this has bolstered the U.S. defense industry, it has strained alliances and created room for greater European independence in foreign policy decisions.
In the United States, debates over Israel’s actions have intensified. Senator Bernie Sanders introduced two resolutions—one to suspend military aid to Israel, the other to impose economic sanctions in response to what he described as collective punishment of civilians in Gaza. Both were overwhelmingly defeated in Congress, gaining only 15 and 20 votes respectively. Sanders blamed the pro-Israel lobbying establishment, arguing that most lawmakers fear political retaliation for any stance that challenges the Israeli government. Although President Trump did not endorse these measures, his administration has allowed such debates to surface without obstruction—a contrast to the traditionally unified bipartisan defense of Israel in past decades.
At the local level, symbolic shifts are also taking place. The election of Zoran Mamdani, a progressive Muslim, as mayor of New York City was a milestone. Mamdani’s unapologetic criticism of Israeli airstrikes and his pledge not to host Prime Minister Netanyahu in the city represent a growing undercurrent of opposition, particularly among younger, urban voters. These sentiments, once considered fringe, are increasingly part of mainstream political discourse.
Despite these changes, Trump’s approach to Israel has remained tactically cautious. He has not imposed sanctions or formally suspended aid, but he has made rare and significant public criticisms of Israel’s conduct. He openly expressed frustration when Israel violated a ceasefire that his administration had helped broker, signaling a clear deviation from traditional U.S. deference to Israeli actions. Now, with growing international condemnation of Israel’s military operations—characterized by many as genocidal and ethnically targeted—the moment is ripe for decisive American leadership.
European allies have begun distancing themselves from Israel, and public opinion within the United States has shifted dramatically in favor of a two-state solution. Increasingly, Americans are rejecting unconditional support for Israeli policies and calling for a just and lasting peace.
In this climate, Trump possesses both the leverage and the opportunity to use his influence to bring the involved parties—Israel, the Palestinian leadership, and regional stakeholders—toward a viable two-state solution. Such a move could restore hope to the Middle East, break the cycle of violence and displacement, and lay the foundation for long-term stability and prosperity across the region, benefiting not only those directly affected but also the broader global community.
Domestically, Trump’s approval ratings have benefited from the perception of economic strength. With job creation up, wages climbing, and inflation under control, even some of his skeptics acknowledge the effectiveness of his economic management. At the same time, his reluctance to intervene forcefully in foreign conflicts has earned him rare support from both anti-war conservatives and segments of the progressive left.
Six months into his second term, Trump has demonstrated that shock and disruption, when channeled effectively, can yield both economic and political gains. However, the defining challenge of his presidency may still lie ahead.
The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is deepening, and the chorus of global voices demanding justice is growing louder. If Trump chooses to leverage America’s unparalleled influence to mediate peace and push for a two-state solution, he could reshape not only his legacy but the trajectory of the Middle East. If he fails to act, the current window for diplomatic progress may close, leaving future generations to reckon with the consequences.
As 2025 unfolds, the defining test of Trump’s leadership may not be measured in job numbers or trade balances, but in whether he can guide the world’s most powerful nation toward a more balanced and just role in global peacebuilding. With public opinion aligned, Europe asserting independence, and Israel under scrutiny, the opportunity is not only present—it may be historic.

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 : It is one of the greatest ironies of the American political system that the President of the United States wields near-unchecked power on the international stage—able to bomb foreign nations, greenlight wars, broker ceasefires, and tip the global balance of power without even consulting Congress. Yet, when it comes to domestic policymaking—specifically, delivering on economic promises like tax reform or welfare restructuring—the same president often appears as powerless as a ceremonial figurehead.
President Donald J. Trump now faces this paradox head-on as his much-hyped “Big Beautiful Bill” stalls in the U.S. Senate. This sprawling legislative package—central to his campaign and populist economic vision—was supposed to be signed into law on July 4, 2025. But despite controlling the White House and a slim Senate majority, Trump faces intense resistance not from Democrats alone, but from inside his own party.
The bill, estimated at nearly $4 trillion, was introduced as a sweeping effort to reduce taxes, boost consumer income, strengthen border security, and overhaul federal entitlement spending. It includes generous income tax exemptions for military, veterans, police, and firefighters, as well as deductions on tips ($25,000) and overtime pay ($12,500) through 2028, part of Trump’s promise to “put more money in the hands of working Americans.”
But where would this money come from? Trump’s answer: tariffs. By taxing foreign imports, the bill aims to fund domestic tax cuts and infrastructure investments. In theory, it’s a bold nationalist formula: tax the world, enrich America. But critics—many of them conservative—say this strategy is deeply flawed.
One of the most vocal critics is Elon Musk, once Trump’s trusted ally and now his most formidable tech-world adversary. In a firestorm of posts on X, Musk slammed the bill as “insane,” “destructive,” and “political suicide,” arguing that it favors outdated industries at the cost of clean energy and future innovation. “It puts America in the fast lane to debt slavery,” Musk warned, pointing to projections that the bill will inflate the national deficit by $2.8 trillion by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Musk’s criticism cuts deep because it reflects growing unease within Trump’s own base. A recent NBC News poll shows that 40% of Republican voters now view reducing the national debt as their top priority, while a majority believe existing spending on programs like Medicaid must be preserved. These concerns have led GOP Senators like Rand Paul, Thom Tillis, Lisa Murkowski, and Susan Collins to express opposition to various provisions of the bill—ranging from Medicaid cuts and the debt ceiling hike to restrictions on Planned Parenthood funding.
And therein lies Trump’s domestic dilemma: while the international stage presents him as a unilateral powerhouse—stopping wars in Pakistan and India, halting Iranian retaliation after the bombing of the Fordow nuclear facility, or reshaping global alliances—he finds himself cornered and constrained in the democratic trenches of Capitol Hill.
Even elements of Trump’s own “America First” coalition are rebelling. Farmers and agribusinesses recently forced the administration to roll back immigration-related work restrictions on undocumented workers in agriculture. Without these migrants, they warned, the entire U.S. food supply chain would collapse, bringing economic shockwaves across rural America and driving food prices through the roof. This public pressure forced Trump to carve out exceptions—a rare reversal that underscores how little space even the President has when facing economic realities and political mobilization.
Simultaneously, America’s political diversity is rising in ways Trump did not anticipate. The election of Zohran Mamdani—a young, South Asian, progressive voice—as Mayor of New York City marks a cultural and political counterpoint to Trumpism. A vocal critic of Israeli aggression in Gaza and a staunch advocate for Palestinian rights, Mamdani represents a rising class of elected officials who openly oppose Trump’s policies—from tax cuts for the rich to full-throated support for Netanyahu’s war machine.
Trump labeled Mamdani a “communist lunatic,” but the new mayor’s confident, smiling response reflected something deeper: a generational shift that even presidential authority cannot reverse. Mamdani has pledged to arrest Netanyahu if he ever visits New York—citing the International Criminal Court’s genocide charges—and has blasted Modi’s Gujarat massacre record. These bold declarations indicate just how much the grassroots of American politics is diverging from the executive narrative.
Back in Washington, Trump’s bill faces another challenge: the gutting of essential safety nets. Proposed Medicaid cuts, totaling hundreds of billions, would strike at the very heart of American welfare—affecting the elderly, disabled, veterans, and low-income families. The Senate Parliamentarian has already ruled against parts of the bill that tried to remove funding for gender-affirming care and limit coverage for undocumented immigrants. But the damage to public perception has been done.
And what about Social Security? While Trump promised to make its payouts tax-free, the bill also tightens eligibility and introduces new scrutiny provisions, leaving many fearing future erosion of benefits. This comes at a time when 67 million Americans—across class, race, and party lines—depend on Social Security as their financial lifeline.
Ironically, Trump’s economic record gives him some legitimacy. Inflation, which soared to nearly 8% under President Biden, has now stabilized at 2.4%–2.6% under Trump’s second term. That’s no small feat. However, if the price for that stabilization is a massive increase in the deficit, reduced healthcare access, and shrinking consumer protections, the political costs could outweigh the economic gains.
This complex reality is what Trump now faces: he campaigned on a promise to “raise incomes, cut taxes, and build America.” But the mechanisms to fulfill that promise—tariffs, spending cuts, and partisan loyalty—are faltering. He is now encountering what every president eventually faces: domestic politics is far messier than foreign policy.
The President may yet pull off a miracle and get the bill passed—perhaps with revisions, compromises, or brute-force pressure. But the real question is: what kind of America will emerge from this legislative gamble? One that is economically revitalized? Or one that is politically fractured, strategically weakened, and fiscally unbalanced?
Only time—and the Senate—will tell.