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 second presidential term of Donald Trump has triggered a geopolitical shift of historic proportions. For decades, the United States stood as the uncontested leader of the Western alliance, commanding not just military superiority but also strategic obedience from its European partners within NATO. That era, defined by unquestioned transatlantic unity, is now visibly eroding. What is emerging in its place is a more assertive, self-directed Europe—one that is no longer willing to follow Washington into conflicts without consultation, nor accept the consequences of decisions it did not shape.
This transformation has been dramatically accelerated by the recent war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, and the subsequent closure of the Strait of Hormuz—a vital artery through which nearly a fifth of the world’s oil and gas once flowed daily. The decision by Washington to launch strikes on Iran without adequately consulting its European allies proved to be more than a strategic misstep; it became the breaking point in a relationship already strained by years of unilateral policies, sanctions, and economic coercion.
Europe’s response has been swift, calculated, and deeply symbolic. In a move that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, Keir Starmer, alongside Emmanuel Macron, convened a summit of more than 35 countries to address the Hormuz crisis—deliberately excluding the United States. This was not merely a diplomatic gathering; it was a declaration of strategic independence. For the first time in decades, Europe signaled that it was prepared to lead, not follow.
The summit focused on practical and urgent objectives: restoring safe navigation, securing stranded vessels, stabilizing energy flows, and coordinating both diplomatic and limited military responses such as mine-clearing and maritime monitoring. Unlike the U.S. approach, which has leaned heavily on military pressure, Europe emphasized a blend of diplomacy, coordination with global industry, and measured security interventions. The message was clear: sustainable solutions cannot be imposed through force alone—they must be negotiated and collectively maintained.
The urgency behind Europe’s actions is rooted in economic reality. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent shockwaves through global energy markets, but its impact on Europe has been particularly severe. Having already reduced dependence on Russian energy, European economies had shifted toward Middle Eastern supplies. The disruption of these routes has now placed the continent in a precarious position, facing rising fuel costs, supply shortages, and broader economic instability.
Tourism—a major pillar of many European economies—has been hit by reduced travel and rising costs. Aviation faces operational strain due to jet fuel uncertainty. Industrial output is slowing under the weight of energy constraints. In short, Europe is bearing a disproportionate share of the economic fallout from a conflict it neither initiated nor endorsed. This reality has reinforced a critical lesson: strategic dependence carries unacceptable risks.
Yet Europe’s response is not merely reactive—it is transformative. Collectively, European economies represent one of the largest economic blocs in the world, rivaling the United States and exceeding any single nation, including China. This economic weight is now translating into political ambition. Europe is beginning to act like what it has long been in economic terms: a global power capable of shaping outcomes rather than absorbing them.
The exclusion of the United States from the Hormuz summit underscores a deeper shift. It reflects a growing realization within Europe that reliance on American leadership has become a liability rather than an asset. Washington’s expectation that allies would support its military actions—followed by demands for assistance in managing the consequences—has been met with resistance. Europe is instead constructing a framework based on sovereignty, collective decision-making, and a clear preference for diplomacy over confrontation.
This evolving doctrine represents a fundamental rebalancing of the transatlantic relationship. It does not necessarily signal a complete rupture, but it does mark the end of unquestioned alignment. Europe is asserting its right to define its own strategic priorities and to pursue solutions that align with its interests, even when they diverge from those of Washington.
At the same time, a quieter but equally significant transformation is unfolding in the global financial system. The extensive use of sanctions by the United States has prompted many nations to explore alternatives to the dollar-based system. European countries, along with members of BRICS, are increasingly experimenting with trade settlements in euros, local currencies, and digital financial mechanisms. While the dollar remains dominant, its monopoly is gradually being challenged.
If this trend continues, it could weaken one of the United States’ most powerful tools of influence: its control over global financial infrastructure. The possibility of parallel systems—designed to bypass traditional channels such as SWIFT—reflects a broader desire among nations to insulate themselves from economic coercion. Europe’s participation in this shift signals that even long-standing allies are reconsidering their dependence on American financial dominance.
Beyond economics and strategy, Europe’s initiative represents a philosophical shift in how global conflicts are approached. The Hormuz summit emphasized de-escalation, post-conflict stabilization, and long-term security rather than immediate military gains. Plans to clear mines, secure shipping lanes, and engage Iran diplomatically illustrate a commitment to sustainable peace rather than temporary victories.
This approach resonates with a broader global sentiment. Many nations are increasingly wary of interventions that prioritize force over diplomacy and dominance over stability. Europe’s actions suggest that there is an alternative path—one that balances security with dialogue and power with restraint.
The implications of these developments are far-reaching. The world is moving toward a multipolar order in which power is distributed across multiple centers rather than concentrated in a single dominant state. In this emerging landscape, Europe is positioning itself as a key pillar—alongside rising powers in Asia and other regions.
The United States remains a formidable power, but its role is evolving. Its reliance on military solutions and economic pressure has accelerated the search for alternatives. Allies are no longer content to follow; they are beginning to lead.
For Washington, this moment presents a critical choice. It can adapt to the realities of a changing world—embracing multilateralism, respecting the autonomy of its partners, and leveraging its strengths in innovation and diplomacy—or it can continue on a path that risks further isolation.
For Europe, the challenge is equally significant. Leadership requires unity, coherence, and the ability to translate ambition into action. The Hormuz summit is a bold first step, but sustaining this momentum will require continued coordination and political will.
What is clear, however, is that the global order is undergoing a profound transformation. The age of unquestioned American dominance is giving way to a more balanced, more complex system. In this new world, leadership will not be defined solely by military power, but by the ability to build consensus, manage crises, and deliver stability.
Europe has signaled that it is ready to assume that role. The question now is not whether the world will change—but how quickly, and who will shape the future that emerges.

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 Iran–United States standoff has reached a decisive moment. After weeks of tension, destruction, and global anxiety, President Donald Trump has signaled that a peace agreement with Iran is not only possible but near. Reuters reported on April 16 that Trump said he might go to Islamabad if the deal is signed there, while Pakistan confirmed that diplomacy is still active even though no date has yet been fixed for another round of talks. That makes Islamabad not just a venue, but the emerging diplomatic center of one of the world’s most dangerous crises.
At the heart of this breakthrough are two long-standing sticking points. First, Iran’s willingness to formally commit that it will not pursue nuclear weapons. Second, Trump’s claim that Iran is prepared to hand over what he called the buried enriched material or “nuclear dust” after earlier strikes on key nuclear sites. Whether every detail is ultimately verified through a final written accord remains to be seen, but politically these two points give both sides a framework to claim success: Washington can say it stopped nuclear escalation, and Tehran can say it preserved the state while opening the door to sanctions relief and normal engagement.
This shift comes at a staggering cost. The conflict has already killed thousands across the region, disrupted trade, and shaken financial markets. The Strait of Hormuz remains the central economic flashpoint. Official and major news reporting continues to note that roughly one-fifth of global oil trade moves through that corridor, so any disruption there instantly becomes a worldwide inflation tax. Reuters has also reported fuel stress inside the United States, while AP has warned that Europe faces severe jet-fuel pressure if normal flows do not resume. In other words, this war has not remained a battlefield event; it has become a global cost-of-living event.
Against this backdrop, Trump’s possible visit to Islamabad to sign a peace agreement with Iranian leaders is not symbolic theater. It is a strategic turning point. A signing in Pakistan would show that the crisis has moved from bombs to bargaining, from blockades to diplomacy, and from military coercion to structured de-escalation. For Iran, such a meeting would signal the possible beginning of normalized state-to-state relations with the United States after more than four decades of sanctions, hostility, and mutual distrust. For Washington, it would create a face-saving exit from a risky conflict while preserving its declared objective of preventing an Iranian nuclear weapons path.
For Iran, the economic upside is enormous. Even partial sanctions relief could unlock tens of billions of dollars a year by restoring oil export capacity, reopening access to financing channels, and reviving deferred investment. A reasonable peace-dividend range for Iran is $50–100 billion annually, including renewed oil sales and broader economic normalization. For the United States, the gain lies less in direct trade and more in avoided damage: lower energy prices, less inflation pressure, reduced military expenditure, and calmer markets. If a durable accord brings oil down meaningfully from crisis highs, the U.S. and its consumers could benefit from a broader global energy relief effect worth well over $100 billion, while averted war escalation could spare Washington and its allies additional costs running into the hundreds of billions. These are not marginal improvements; they are strategic savings.
Domestic politics in Washington have helped push events in this direction, but that factor should be understood as a nudge, not the whole story. The War Powers Resolution in the House failed by just 213–214, with one Republican voting present, a narrower margin than the earlier 212–219 vote, showing that resistance to a prolonged Iran war is growing. That tightening gap matters because it warns the White House that escalation is becoming politically more expensive. But the larger story is not congressional arithmetic; it is that the administration now sees more value in a deal than in a drawn-out confrontation.
Europe also stands to gain substantially. AP’s reporting on jet-fuel risk underscores how quickly Gulf supply disruption can hit European transport, tourism, freight, and manufacturing. If Hormuz normalizes and oil and refined-product flows resume, Europe could avoid tens of billions in emergency energy costs and secondary losses. A prudent estimate is that Europe’s peace dividend could reach $100–200 billion annually through lower fuel costs, restored industrial confidence, and reduced inflationary strain. The Middle East itself could gain even more. Stabilized energy markets, improved investor sentiment, reduced shipping risk, and resumed regional projects could yield $200–400 billion a year in combined benefits across Gulf producers, transport corridors, and reconstruction-linked sectors.
China and Russia both have major stakes in de-escalation, though in different ways. China, as a giant energy importer and a leading Belt and Road power, gains from open sea lanes, cheaper hydrocarbons, and secure corridor expansion westward. Russia, though an energy exporter, still benefits from lower geopolitical volatility in trade and finance and from more stable Eurasian connectivity. It is reasonable to estimate that China’s direct and indirect peace dividend could run to $80–120 billion annually, while Russia’s could be in the $20–40 billion range through steadier energy planning, logistics, and regional commerce. Those figures are necessarily scenario-based, but the direction is beyond dispute: peace pays, and war taxes everyone.
However, the country that may gain the most strategically from this accord is Pakistan. Pakistan’s role as mediator has already elevated its standing. It hosted the talks, kept channels open after the 21-hour breakdown in Islamabad, and retained the confidence of both Washington and Tehran at a time when very few capitals could do so. That diplomatic success now has a direct economic translation. Pakistan’s existing two-way goods trade with the United States was about $7.23 billion in 2024, with the U.S. remaining Pakistan’s largest goods export market at $5.12 billion. Iran and Pakistan, meanwhile, have publicly targeted $10 billion in annual bilateral trade. If peace removes sanctions-related friction and unlocks energy and transit cooperation, Pakistan could realistically position itself for an incremental economic gain of $15–25 billion annually within a few years: roughly $7–8 billion from scaling Pakistan-Iran trade toward the $10 billion target, $3–5 billion in annual energy savings from a revived Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, $1–2 billion from stronger U.S.-Pakistan trade and investment momentum, and several more billions from transit, logistics, warehousing, border markets, services, and Gulf-linked agriculture and infrastructure inflows. Over a decade, if corridor integration through CPEC extends into Iran and toward Central Asia and the Middle East, Pakistan’s cumulative strategic economic upside could run into the tens of billions more, potentially crossing $50 billion in combined direct and indirect value. This is why the Islamabad peace track is not merely diplomatic theater for Pakistan; it is a possible economic turning point.
That is also why the peace dividend for Pakistan is larger than simple trade arithmetic. Peace would strengthen Pakistan’s reputation with Washington, Tehran, Beijing, Riyadh, Ankara, and the Gulf monarchies all at once. It would improve investor confidence at a moment when Pakistan still needs reserve support and external financing, as shown by the recent additional $3 billion Saudi support package reported by Reuters. A successful mediation would allow Pakistan to market itself not as a security risk at the edge of crises, but as the state that prevented a wider war and made regional commerce possible. That kind of reputational shift lowers financing risk, improves deal flow, and can turn diplomacy into development.
At the geopolitical level, the emerging U.S.-Iran rapprochement may also reorder the regional equation. Israel, long a central force in the confrontation with Iran, appears less central to the actual peace architecture now taking shape. The more Washington and Tehran negotiate directly, the more the region shifts from confrontation through intermediaries to pragmatic statecraft. That does not erase old rivalries, but it does signal that the next chapter may be written less by missile launches and more by summit tables.
Yet caution remains necessary. The ceasefire is still fragile. Verification of nuclear commitments, sequencing of sanctions relief, security guarantees, shipping normalization, and the politics of implementation in Tehran and Washington will all matter. A single military incident or political reversal could still spoil the process. But even with that uncertainty, the direction of travel is now clearer than it was days ago: diplomacy has regained momentum because war has exposed its own unbearable cost.
Still, the balance sheet is compelling. The war may already have inflicted global economic damage in the high hundreds of billions of dollars. Peace, by contrast, could unlock a multi-year dividend that plausibly reaches $1–2 trillion across energy, trade, shipping, reconstruction, investment, inflation relief, and avoided military escalation. In that larger picture, Pakistan’s role is neither ceremonial nor incidental. It is central. Islamabad has offered the table, the channel, and the trust that others could not. If the accord is signed there, Pakistan will not merely have hosted history. It will have helped redirect it.

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 fragile pause that briefly held back the flames of a widening Middle East war is now collapsing under the weight of mistrust, unilateral action, and ideological confrontation. What began as a geopolitical conflict between the United States and Iran has rapidly evolved into something far more dangerous—a multidimensional crisis blending military escalation, economic coercion, and increasingly, religious polarization.
At the heart of this renewed escalation lies a bold and controversial decision by Donald Trump: the imposition of a naval blockade targeting Iran’s maritime access through the Strait of Hormuz. This narrow corridor, through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil supply flows, is not merely a regional passage—it is the lifeline of the global energy system. Any disruption here reverberates instantly across economies, markets, and political alliances.
Yet, beyond its economic implications, the blockade raises profound legal and moral questions. Under established principles of international maritime law, a blockade is considered an act of war, typically justified only within a declared armed conflict and subject to strict conditions. The United States, however, is not a coastal state in the Persian Gulf. It lies thousands of miles away, raising immediate concerns about jurisdiction and legality. Experts have already questioned whether such a move violates the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which guarantees freedom of navigation in international waters.
From Iran’s perspective, the situation appears even more provocative. As a coastal state bordering the Strait, Tehran argues that it holds legitimate security interests in regulating nearby waters, particularly when facing direct military threats. Iranian officials maintain that any attempt by external powers to control or blockade the Strait constitutes an infringement on their sovereignty and a violation of international norms. This legal ambiguity is precisely what makes the current situation so volatile—each side claims legitimacy, while the risk of confrontation escalates.
Compounding this already tense environment is a dramatic shift in the narrative—from geopolitical rivalry to ideological confrontation. In an unexpected and deeply symbolic clash, Pope Francis has openly challenged the moral justification of the war. Representing over 2.4 billion Christians worldwide, the Pope has reiterated a long-standing doctrine: that war, especially one targeting civilians, is fundamentally incompatible with the teachings of the Gospel. His call for peace, diplomacy, and humanitarian restraint stands in stark contrast to the rhetoric emerging from Washington.
President Trump, however, has framed the conflict in existential terms, asserting that military action is necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—a claim that continues to dominate U.S. strategic thinking. In his public statements, he has gone further, suggesting divine endorsement of his actions, thereby transforming a policy dispute into a theological confrontation. The result is a dangerous convergence of faith and force, where opposing worldviews are no longer confined to policy debates but are amplified through religious narratives.
This escalation is further complicated by shifting alliances and growing dissent within the Western bloc itself. The United Kingdom, under Keir Starmer, has notably distanced itself from the U.S. blockade. While London supports freedom of navigation, it has refused to participate in direct military enforcement, instead advocating for a diplomatic resolution. This divergence signals a broader fracture within NATO, as European nations increasingly question the strategic direction and unilateralism of American policy.
France and other European actors have similarly called for restraint, emphasizing negotiation over confrontation. The proposed international summit on Hormuz reflects this growing consensus: that the crisis cannot be resolved through military means alone. Yet, these diplomatic efforts face an uphill battle against the momentum of escalation.
Meanwhile, the humanitarian toll continues to mount. In the broader regional conflict, particularly involving Benjamin Netanyahu, thousands of civilians have reportedly been killed, and over a million displaced. The International Criminal Court has intensified scrutiny, with arrest warrants and investigations pointing to alleged war crimes, including targeting civilians and imposing collective punishment. These developments further complicate the moral standing of the conflict and amplify global outrage.
Economically, the stakes could not be higher. Any sustained disruption in the Strait of Hormuz threatens to send oil prices soaring, destabilizing global markets and pushing vulnerable economies into crisis. Countries heavily dependent on energy imports—particularly in Asia—face immediate risks. China, one of the largest buyers of Iranian oil, stands at the center of this economic equation. Ironically, earlier U.S. decisions to ease certain sanctions had enabled Iran to sustain its oil exports, indirectly strengthening its economic resilience. The sudden reversal of policy, now aimed at choking these flows, underscores the unpredictability that has come to define the current strategy.
Critics within the United States itself are raising alarms. Questions about strategic clarity, long-term objectives, and the coherence of policy decisions are increasingly being voiced across political lines. Some lawmakers have even suggested reviewing the president’s decision-making processes, citing inconsistencies and abrupt shifts that have contributed to the current crisis.
Yet, perhaps the most dangerous dimension of this unfolding scenario is the risk of direct confrontation at sea. A naval blockade is not a passive measure—it requires enforcement, interception, and, potentially, the use of force. Iranian fast boats, drones, and missile systems are well-positioned to challenge any such attempt. A single miscalculation—a warning shot, a misidentified vessel, or an accidental collision—could ignite a full-scale conflict.
And this is precisely the paradox at the core of the crisis. The blockade, intended as a tool of pressure, may instead become the trigger for escalation. The very act of attempting to control the Strait could provoke the response it seeks to prevent.
Reading between the lines, however, a different narrative begins to emerge. Despite the rhetoric, there are clear indications that major powers, including segments within the United States, are increasingly inclined toward a diplomatic resolution. The reluctance of key allies to engage militarily, the push for international summits, and the growing domestic criticism all point toward an underlying recognition: that war is neither sustainable nor desirable.
The path forward, therefore, lies not in dominance but in dialogue. Recognizing Iran as a legitimate regional actor, rather than an adversary to be subdued, could open the door to meaningful negotiations. A balanced approach—one that addresses security concerns while respecting sovereignty—offers the only viable route to de-escalation.
In the end, the Strait of Hormuz is more than a waterway; it is a symbol of interconnectedness in an increasingly fragmented world. Attempting to control it through force risks not only economic disruption but also a broader unraveling of international order. The challenge before global leadership is not merely to secure passage through these waters, but to navigate the far more complex currents of power, principle, and peace.
The choice is stark: continue down the path of confrontation, where law is contested and faith is weaponized—or step back, recalibrate, and pursue a future where diplomacy prevails over destruction.