war
Trump Begs Global Help Against Iran
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 : Wars between unequal adversaries often begin with certainty. The stronger power assumes that victory is inevitable, while the weaker opponent is expected to collapse under overwhelming force. Military superiority, economic dominance, and technological advantage create a powerful belief that resistance will be short-lived. Yet history repeatedly shows that when confidence turns into overconfidence, wars rarely unfold according to the plans of the stronger side. The ongoing confrontation between the United States, Israel, and Iran appears to be unfolding along exactly this trajectory.
At the outset of the conflict, the United States projected absolute confidence in its military strength. With a defense budget approaching nine hundred billion dollars, eleven aircraft carriers, hundreds of advanced fighter aircraft, and the most sophisticated intelligence network ever assembled, Washington believed that it possessed the ability to overwhelm any adversary. Iran, by contrast, was portrayed as economically exhausted and strategically isolated. Decades of sanctions had strained its economy, and it lacked the type of conventional naval and air power that defines Western military dominance.
This imbalance shaped the early expectations of the war. The assumption in Washington and Tel Aviv was that Iran would not be able to sustain a prolonged confrontation against the combined military capabilities of the United States and Israel. The expectation was not merely victory but rapid victory. In the early hours and days of the conflict, official statements emphasized that Iranian defenses had been destroyed and that Western forces had achieved decisive superiority in the air.
This early confidence was reflected in repeated public statements made by President Donald J. Trump and senior U.S. defense officials during the opening phase of the war. Within the first hours and days of the conflict, Washington announced that Iranian military infrastructure had been severely damaged. Statements claimed that Iran’s air force capability had been neutralized, its missile and defensive systems crippled, and key commanders eliminated in precision strikes. The impression presented to the world was that Iran’s ability to conduct either defensive or offensive operations had been largely destroyed. Only much later in the conflict—nearly two weeks into the fighting—did Trump issue another dramatic statement following new airstrikes on Iran’s Kharg Island oil export facilities, declaring that Iran had “no ability to defend anything that we want to attack.”
Yet the battlefield soon began to contradict these declarations. Instead of collapsing, Iran responded with a strategy that avoided direct conventional confrontation and instead relied on asymmetric warfare. Ballistic missiles, long-range drones, and coordinated regional pressure became the core elements of Iran’s response. Missile barrages began reaching targets across the region, forcing Israeli defense systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow interceptors to operate under sustained pressure.
As the conflict continued, the geographic scope of the war began to expand beyond Israel itself. Strategic infrastructure across the Middle East suddenly became vulnerable. Oil facilities, refineries, and shipping routes across the Gulf faced rising threats. The war was no longer limited to direct military engagement between two adversaries; it had begun to affect the economic lifelines of the entire region.
The most critical pressure point quickly emerged in the Strait of Hormuz, one of the most strategically important maritime corridors in the world. Nearly twenty percent of the world’s oil supply and massive volumes of liquefied natural gas pass through this narrow channel each day. Any disruption in this corridor immediately sends shockwaves through the global economy.
As tensions escalated, shipping companies began rerouting vessels away from the region to avoid potential attacks. Insurance premiums for oil tankers increased dramatically, and global oil prices climbed sharply. These developments triggered a chain reaction across global supply chains, affecting industries ranging from transportation and petrochemicals to agriculture and food production.
Countries heavily dependent on imported energy began facing serious economic pressure. Rising fuel costs pushed inflation higher, and governments introduced emergency measures to conserve energy. In some countries, businesses reduced operations and institutions shifted to remote work in order to limit energy consumption. The consequences of the war were no longer confined to the battlefield; they were spreading through the global economy.
Europe also found itself increasingly vulnerable to the unfolding crisis. After reducing its dependence on Russian natural gas following the Ukraine conflict, many European nations had turned to liquefied natural gas imports from Qatar. Those shipments, however, must pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Any prolonged disruption in that waterway therefore threatens European energy security as well.
As the crisis deepened, a development occurred that many observers considered extraordinary. Despite earlier declarations that Iran had been “decimated,” the United States began asking other countries to help secure the Strait of Hormuz and escort commercial shipping through the region. Washington appealed to several nations—including the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Africa, and even China—to help ensure safe maritime navigation.
This appeal created an obvious contradiction. If Iran had truly been defeated, why would the world’s most powerful military require international assistance to secure the region’s most important shipping route? The request itself suggested that the conflict had become far more complicated than initially anticipated.
The shifting narrative of the war added further confusion. The conflict did not begin with a single clearly defined objective. Instead, the justification evolved repeatedly as the war progressed. Initially, the war was presented as a mission to liberate the Iranian people from their leadership. Shortly afterward, the stated objective shifted toward eliminating Iran’s nuclear program and forcing Tehran to surrender enriched uranium and nuclear infrastructure.
As the conflict continued, the goals expanded further. The mission was no longer limited to nuclear facilities; it now included dismantling Iran’s ballistic missile and drone capabilities. Factories, research laboratories, and technological facilities connected to military development became targets. Later still, the narrative shifted once again, framing the war as necessary to protect global trade and ensure safe shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
Each shift expanded the scope of the conflict while simultaneously raising new questions about its ultimate purpose. Analysts, policymakers, and even allied governments struggled to understand what the final objective of the war had become. The absence of a consistent strategic goal created uncertainty about how or when the conflict might end.
Meanwhile, the global economic consequences continued to intensify. Energy-importing nations faced rising inflation as fuel prices climbed. Fertilizer shortages threatened agricultural production in several regions. Petrochemical industries dependent on Gulf oil and gas supplies began slowing or shutting down operations, adding further strain to global supply chains.
Ironically, the country benefiting economically from rising global energy prices appeared to be the United States itself. Over the past decade, America has emerged as one of the world’s largest exporters of oil and liquefied natural gas. As global prices surged due to instability in the Middle East, American energy exports became more profitable. Increased military production also boosted the U.S. defense industry.
However, economic gains abroad do not necessarily translate into political stability at home. American voters historically react strongly to rising gasoline prices and inflation. If the cost of fuel and basic goods continues to rise, domestic political pressure could intensify rapidly.
Yet the most revealing lesson of this conflict lies in a simple but powerful reality. Had the United States been decisively winning the war, it would not be asking other countries to help manage the consequences. A nation confident of victory does not appeal to the world for assistance against a supposedly weaker opponent.
When a superpower begins asking others to step in, the myth of guaranteed victory begins to collapse. The war that was expected to demonstrate overwhelming power instead reveals the limits of military supremacy. The battlefield has a way of rewriting narratives that were once presented as certainty.
The Iran conflict therefore illustrates a timeless geopolitical truth. Power can start wars, but resolve and strategy often determine how they unfold. The strongest army may enter a war with confidence, but history remembers the moment when that confidence turns into appeals for help.
And in the end, when victory is truly assured, no help is needed—but when help is requested, the battlefield tells a very different story.
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 : The war in the Middle East has now moved far beyond the battlefield. What initially appeared as a regional military confrontation has evolved into a systemic global crisis—one that is tightening its grip not only on governments and markets, but on ordinary people struggling to sustain daily life. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, combined with targeted disruption of oil infrastructure, has triggered a cascading breakdown across energy supply chains, aviation networks, and tourism-dependent economies. The world is no longer merely watching a war; it is experiencing its economic consequences in real time.
At the center of this unfolding crisis lies the global jet fuel market—a sector often overlooked in geopolitical analysis, yet one that sustains the arteries of globalization. Prior to the conflict, global jet fuel demand had recovered strongly, reaching approximately 107 billion gallons annually in 2024, with projections climbing to nearly 7.2 million barrels per day by early 2026. This demand was supported by a finely balanced supply network spanning North America, Asia, and the Middle East. Today, that balance has been violently disrupted.
The Middle East, which typically contributes around 20% of global jet fuel supply, has seen a dramatic collapse in its effective output. War-related damage to refineries, combined with the strategic closure of the Strait of Hormuz, has removed an estimated 320,000 tons of jet fuel per day from global circulation. At the same time, approximately 3 million barrels per day of refining capacity across the الخليج region has either been shut down or rendered inoperable. This is not a marginal disruption—it is a structural shock to the global energy system.
Jet fuel prices have responded accordingly. Within weeks, prices surged from approximately $85–90 per barrel to well above $200, representing one of the sharpest increases in modern energy market history. For the aviation industry, where fuel accounts for up to one-third of operating costs, this is nothing short of catastrophic. Airlines are no longer operating in a demand-driven environment; they are navigating a survival crisis defined by cost pressures and supply scarcity.
The impact is most visible in Europe, where the aviation sector—and by extension, the tourism economy—is deeply exposed. Europe imports roughly 25–30% of its jet fuel from the Persian Gulf. With supply lines disrupted, airlines have begun aggressive capacity cuts. Major carriers have canceled thousands of flights ahead of the critical summer season. Lufthansa alone has reportedly removed tens of thousands of flights from its schedule, while other carriers are grounding aircraft, optimizing routes, and operating only essential services.
This contraction strikes at the heart of Europe’s economic model. Tourism is not a peripheral sector; it is a foundational pillar. The continent generates between $600 and $700 billion annually from tourism, supporting millions of jobs and contributing significantly to GDP in countries such as Spain, Italy, France, and Greece. This entire ecosystem depends on affordable, reliable air travel. Without it, hotels remain empty, restaurants lose customers, and entire regional economies begin to contract.
The crisis is not confined to Europe. In Asia-Pacific, where airlines depend heavily on Middle Eastern fuel flows, the situation is even more acute. Carriers have entered emergency operational modes, securing limited fuel supplies and preparing for prolonged disruption. Even in the United States—buffered by its status as a major producer—airlines face massive financial strain. Leading carriers have warned of billions of dollars in additional fuel costs, threatening profitability and forcing difficult operational decisions.
What makes this crisis particularly dangerous is its compounding nature. Aviation is not only about passenger mobility; it is a critical component of global trade. High-value goods, pharmaceuticals, and time-sensitive cargo depend on air freight. As flight capacity shrinks, supply chains tighten, prices rise, and inflationary pressures intensify. Indeed, energy analysts have already warned that this crisis could add nearly 0.8% to global inflation—an alarming figure in an already fragile economic environment.
Meanwhile, the maritime dimension of the conflict is adding further instability. The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply normally passes, has become a contested zone. Tankers are being intercepted, diverted, and in some cases seized. Insurance costs have soared, discouraging shipping companies from entering the region. Even where fuel is available, the ability to transport it safely has become uncertain.
China’s position offers a temporary buffer but not immunity. With substantial strategic reserves and a diversified energy portfolio, including large-scale investments in renewable energy, China can withstand short-term shocks. However, as the world’s manufacturing hub, any prolonged disruption will inevitably impact its output. A slowdown in Chinese production would have global consequences, affecting supply chains and economic growth worldwide.
This brings into focus a critical strategic question: what is the underlying objective of this disruption? One interpretation—gaining increasing traction—is that the closure of the Strait of Hormuz is not merely a byproduct of conflict, but a strategic lever. By constraining Middle Eastern supply, global demand is redirected toward alternative producers, most notably the United States. Over the past decade, the U.S. has transformed into a leading exporter of oil and liquefied natural gas. In a constrained market, its leverage increases significantly.
For Iran, the situation presents a profound strategic dilemma. Maintaining the closure of the Strait exerts pressure on adversaries but simultaneously inflicts economic pain on the wider world. Reopening the waterway, on the other hand, could reposition Iran as a stabilizing force while exposing the broader dynamics at play. It would restore global supply flows, ease economic pressures, and potentially shift international opinion.
From a strategic standpoint, reopening Hormuz could neutralize the leverage derived from disruption. It would deny the United States to exploit scarcity and would reestablish a degree of economic normalcy. More importantly, it would demonstrate that stability—not disruption—is the stronger strategic position in an interconnected global system.
The world today is facing more than an energy crisis. It is confronting the fragility of a system built on uninterrupted flows—of fuel, goods, people, and capital. When one critical node collapses, the effects ripple outward, disrupting industries and livelihoods across continents.
If the current trajectory continues, the consequences will be severe. Aviation networks may contract further, tourism economies could enter recession, and global trade may slow significantly. Inflationary pressures will rise, and economic uncertainty will deepen. What began as a regional conflict risks becoming a global economic turning point.
The solution lies not in escalation, but in recalibration. Restoring the free flow of energy through critical waterways, stabilizing supply chains, and reengaging in meaningful diplomacy are essential steps. The alternative is a prolonged period of economic disruption with far-reaching consequences.
The Strait of Hormuz is no longer just a geographic chokepoint. It has become the pivot on which the global economy now turns.
There is No Way to Peace, Peace is the Way
Akhtar Hussain Sandhu
Chicago (USA)
Iran-US War and Islamabad peace facilitation prompt me to recall the famous quotes of Abraham Johannes Muste, a US-based civil rights and anti-nuclear-weapons activist. To him, nothing can lead to peace, but peace, in fact, facilitates a positive change in relations therefore, not circumstances or ways, but ‘peace’ itself proves a nucleus of attention in the crisis-packed situation in a society or world. Social scientists usually count the factors and circumstances leading to peace in a conflict at the societal and international level, but A. J. Muste believes that ‘peace’ is the greatest force that attracts rival protagonists to create understanding and end conflict. A. J. Muste opposed World War I and the US-Vietnam War and also opposed nuclear weaponry. He worked zealously and nonviolently for labor rights and civil liberties in the United States. The US-Israel led war against Iran on 28 February 2026 caused a catastrophic results and the continuous bombing destroyed Iran’s civil infrastructure, and approximately 180 schoolgirls were killed in an aerial attack. It was condemned by the masses in the US and other countries. Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz as a war tactic, which created a global oil crisis, and all countries’ economies experienced an overnight major setback. The US President changed his initial war objectives and focused on the reopening of the Hormuz because multiple nations were bashing the US President for his unethical war mongering ambition, which caused the energy crisis. US President Donald Trump first decided to isolate the US from this dangerous drive and declared that the affected countries should send their troops to open this sea route for their vessels, but in April 2026, he issued a furious statement that if Iran did not open the Strait of Hormuz, it would be eliminated from the earth. It caused panic in the world because this message meant a nuclear attack on Iran. If it happened, any power could justify the use of nuclear weapons against the rival country, and the world could be an unsafe and hellish place. It could also convince every country, including Iran, to have nuclear weapons in future because having nuclear weaponry was to be left as the only option to survive against a rival nuclear power. However, Pakistan, China, Russia, Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, enjoying cordial relations with the US and Iran, ultimately brought a truce of two weeks, and both countries consented to dialogue in Islamabad on 10 April. Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir, PM Mian Shahbaz Sharif, and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar from Pakistan played a pivotal role in the ongoing parleys between the rival leaders. The ceasefire created an environment in which both camps claimed victory, and both seemed busy proving their military strength and muscles, but despite all, they are heading towards peace through dialogue. Threatening Statements by the US President even before a day before the negotiations is an evidence that the agreement (if it is concluded) would be presented as Iran’s surrender before the US might. A. J. Muste quotes that not circumstances, but ‘peace’ itself pushed the rival forces away from the battlefield. Once, a reporter questioned his presence as a protest in front of the White House: ” Can you change the White House? A. J. Muste replied. ‘I don’t do this to change the country. I do this so the country would not change me.’ The ruling elite always use the name of ‘state’ to change the people as it desires, but the state’s predilections change with the passage of time; therefore, to curb the citizens proves havoc for the social fabric. Dissatisfied masses can hardly produce a beneficial human resource that truly serves a nation. A. J. Must says that the problem after a war is that the victor shows the fight has brought a bright future, and war has paid the nation a lot. In their perception, the war was a new form of reform that would ensure prosperity and psychological pride for the people. Iran and the USA have both been claiming victories and asserting that the conflict has brought blessings. Both countries closed their eyes to the human sufferings and loss of innocent lives, wealth, economy, infrastructure, and hatred generated against each other. Peace proved its importance and motivated them to approach the neutral countries for a ceasefire, which means the war had crippled both the rivals to the extent that they were unable to talk even of ‘peace’, which shows the weakness and impotency of the so-called victors. A. J. Muste opines that no big power in the war accepts itself as an aggressor; instead, it is always the rival that is the aggressor.’ However, I think that every fighting country thinks of itself as a big force, therefore both become ‘big powers’ under their own justifications. Look at the arguments of the US and Iran that have been justifying their righteousness and aggression toward the rival according to their own national narratives. None of them is ready to accept any lapse on the side. Perhaps it happens amid internal and external threats to the political leadership, who twist events and arguments to secure their political position and national morale. This is another form of stress and aggression against peace, humanity, and righteousness. For example, many US military and other officials refused to attack Iran who must be consulted about their current thinking on their decision. A. J. Muste says that peace is impossible if people are only concerned with peace. A war is an outcome of different ways of life. If people desire to attack war, they have to attack that way of life.’ A. J. Muste here can be disagreed because way of life is always different, which does not mean to be in a battlefield all the time. I think he wants to say that if people dislike war, they should change their vision to one of living in societies with divergent ways of life. This quote reflects Muste’s desire that prosperity and civil liberties can change society, and by this, war maneuvering can be suffocated. AJ Must was a member of the Fellowship of Reconciliation in the US, which struggled against war hysteria and the violation of civil liberties and for labor rights. He delivered lectures in different universities on the nonviolent struggle for rights. He joined the Montgomery Bus Boycott, led by Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1955. A. J. Muste’s struggle is still admired by Americans and Europeans because he worked selflessly for humanity, peace, and the dignity of all races.
Writer is a US-based Historian & Colmunist
9 April 2026
war
PM Shehbaz, Starmer Hold Key Call on Regional Security UK Backs Pakistan’s Peace Initiatives and Ceasefire Efforts
Prime Minister’s Office
Media Wing
ISLAMABAD: 10 April 2026.
Prime Minister’s Telephone Call with Prime Minister Keir Starmer of the United Kingdom
Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif received a telephone call from Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, His Excellency Keir Starmer, this evening.
Prime Minister Starmer deeply appreciated Pakistan’s effective diplomatic efforts in facilitating the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, and the resumption of dialogue. He felicitated Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif on hosting the peace negotiations in Islamabad and offered his best wishes for the success of this endeavor.
Reaffirming Pakistan’s sincere commitment to regional peace and stability, Prime Minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif welcomed the joint statement issued by key European and international leaders, including Prime Minister Starmer, endorsing Pakistan’s peace initiatives.
Both leaders emphasized the importance of ensuring that the ceasefire remains in place and creates the necessary conditions for lasting peace and stability in the region.
The two leaders agreed to work together to lend fresh impetus to the longstanding friendly ties between Pakistan and the United Kingdom, across all spheres of mutual interest.
The Prime Minister reiterated his cordial invitation to Prime Minister Starmer to undertake an official visit to Pakistan.
From Almaty to London: The Story of a Musician Who Refused to Stop Dreaming
Questions of Trust and Transparency: The Growing Controversy Around Serikzhan Bilash
Part 2-Muslim-Sikh Harmony in Punjab: Akhtar Hussain Sandhu with Arshdeep Kaur Battu in a TV Interview on Sanjha TV (Canada)
-
Europe News1 year agoChaos and unproven theories surround Tates’ release from Romania
-
American News1 year agoTrump expands exemptions from Canada and Mexico tariffs
-
American News1 year agoTrump Expels Zelensky from the White House
-
Pakistan News10 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
-
Pakistan News1 year agoCan Pakistan be a Hard State?
-
Entertainment1 year agoChampions Trophy: Pakistan aim to defend coveted title as historic tournament kicks off today