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 :

At the NATO summit held in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025, President Donald Trump redefined the contours of American leadership—not through war, but through dominance, negotiation, and fiscal pressure. In one sweeping press conference after the summit’s conclusion, Trump laid out what can only be described as a bold new American doctrine: intervention without entanglement, alliance with accountability, and diplomacy from a position of absolute military superiority.
This was no longer the Trump of 2017, who had shoved his way to the front of the NATO family photo. This time, the alliance bent to his will, with leaders praising his demands, echoing his slogans, and adjusting their policies to match his vision. From British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s hand-delivered invitation from King Charles III, to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s comparison of Trump to a “daddy” figure quelling global tensions, the tone was reverent and deferential.
Trump, for his part, reciprocated with selective praise. He acknowledged NATO’s new commitments as a “historic shift,” especially the summit’s final declaration that all 32 member states would invest 5% of GDP on defense and security-related expenditures by 2035—a monumental increase from the previous 2% threshold. “I’ve been asking them to go up to 5% for a number of years,” Trump said. “And now they’ve agreed.”
Trump’s message to NATO was transactional: pay more, and buy American. “All that money you’ll be spending—spend it on American weaponry.”
He promoted U.S. arms exports with the flair of a salesman-in-chief, boasting of B-2 bomber missions over Iran, submarine-launched strikes from 600 miles away, and the near-perfect performance of Patriot missile systems. “Only one missile got through in Qatar—and it missed its target,” he bragged.
On Ukraine, Trump appeared resolute. He announced the deployment of Patriot missile systems to Kyiv, affirming U.S. support despite the summit’s broader downplaying of Ukraine’s war with Russia. “Patriots will shield Kyiv,” he said bluntly. This contradicted speculation that Trump was seeking to dial down U.S. involvement in Ukraine. Instead, his statement suggested a prolonged commitment, possibly to gain leverage in future peace talks.
Yet Trump’s doctrine was about more than defense budgets. It was about control. In the clearest terms yet, Trump emphasized that America will now set the terms for global security—not Israel, not NATO, not even long-standing doctrine like Article 5 of the NATO treaty. Although he had earlier cast doubt by saying America’s commitment to NATO “depends on your definition” of Article 5, he reassured allies during the press conference, saying: “I stand with it. That’s why I’m here. If I didn’t stand with it, I wouldn’t be here.”
Trump’s address took a dramatic turn as he recounted his decision-making during the recent Israel-Iran conflict. He surprised many by calling Iran a “great country” and acknowledging its fierce resistance. Trump insisted that U.S.-led strikes had “set back Iran’s nuclear program by many years,” dismissing media reports citing intelligence assessments that the delay was only “a few months.” “Those are low-confidence leaks. Deep state sabotage,” he said. “The Fordow facility is gone. Inoperable. Ask the Israelis.”
He then revealed that the U.S. had entered direct talks with Iran, signaling a major shift in strategy. Trump hinted at sanctions relief and oil export permissions as part of a “golden opportunity” for Iran to rebuild. “This is a golden opportunity for Iran,” he said. “Its people deserve peace, prosperity, and progress.”
Perhaps most striking was his admission that Israel had planned a second wave of attacks after the ceasefire using 52 jets. Trump claimed he personally called off the strike, saying: “The United States is no longer taking dictation from Israel. We are setting the terms now.”
This repositioned Trump not just as a peacemaker, but as a regional referee—capable of restraining even America’s closest allies if it meant avoiding wider war.
In a brief but significant disclosure, Trump confirmed that he held a closed-door meeting with Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Asim Munir, in the Oval Office just days prior to the NATO summit. “He is a great, great man,” Trump said, lauding the Pakistani general’s demeanor, leadership, and role in promoting regional stability.
While Trump did not publicly discuss the content of the meeting, media outlets and strategic analysts have speculated that the conversation may have touched upon Middle Eastern security dynamics, including Iran. Given General Munir’s deep familiarity with the region, particularly Pakistan’s shared border and strategic ties with Iran, some observers believe he may have been consulted—informally or tactically—regarding America’s military and diplomatic posture.
However, these conclusions remain speculative. Trump himself made no direct mention of any discussion on the Israel-Iran war or broader U.S. Middle East policy during his public remarks about General Munir. Nonetheless, the timing of the meeting—paired with Trump’s newfound tone on Iran—has stirred considerable interest among regional watchers.
The most controversial part of the press conference was Trump’s attack on the U.S. intelligence community. He accused anonymous officials of leaking classified assessments that undermined his narrative on Iran. “These are professional stabbers,” Trump thundered. “They want to embarrass our pilots, our military, our mission. We won’t let them.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth supported the president, announcing an investigation into the leaks and confirming the military’s high-confidence assessment that Iran’s capabilities had been significantly degraded.
Congressional briefings are now expected to clarify the situation further, but for Trump, the issue was political as much as it was military. “You either stand with America—or with the leakers,” he warned.
President Trump left The Hague not as a supplicant nor as a participant in a multilateral alliance—but as a domineering architect of a new world order. He rewrote the NATO playbook, reset U.S.-Iran relations, restrained Israel, and reasserted America’s centrality to every major global conflict.
For some, it was alarming. For others, it was long overdue. But for all, it was clear: Trump had come to The Hague not to join, but to command. And if his ambition to end the Ukraine war materializes, Pakistan’s Nobel Peace Prize nomination may not just be symbolism—it may become global recognition of a controversial yet undeniably consequential leader.