Paris ( Imran Y. CHOUDHRY):- A delegation of Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) led by its President Rana Azeem today met the Ambassador of Pakistan to France Mumtaz Zahra Baloch.
The Ambassador welcomed the journalists and said that PFUJ has a responsible role to play, as journalism is a life line for any democratic society. The media has a significant part to play in promoting a positive image of the country, she added.

Ambassador Baloch briefed the delegation on Pakistan-France relations and the key role of the Embassy in promoting cooperation in the areas of trade, culture, academics and media. She also briefed the delegation on UNESCO’s role in communication and information and Pakistan’s initiatives in this regard at UNESCO.

PFUJ President briefed the Ambassador on the Centenary Congress of the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) which is being attended by more than 300 journalists’ unions and associations’ representatives from 5th – 7th May 2026 to celebrate the 100 years of international solidarity for strong journalism and trade unionism in order to shape common strategies for future challenges.

The delegation also briefed the Ambassador on the PFUJ’s 5-year strategic plan. It also appreciated the contribution of Pakistani diplomats highlighting Pakistan’s narrative around last year’s war with India and the diplomatic efforts of Pakistan for mediation during the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

Members of the delegation included: Rana Azeem, Shakeel Ahmed, Tariq Usmani, Javeria Siddiqui, G. M. Jamali, Abdur Razzaq Sial, Saima Siddique, Asmat ullah Hashwani, Ashraf Majeed, Ahtsham-ul-Haq, Syed Sana Zahra, Mazhar Amanat and Namrah Nadir.

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 a moment when the world stood dangerously close to a wider regional inferno, Pakistan has emerged not merely as a bystander, but as one of the few states able to talk to all sides and keep diplomacy alive. As of April 15, 2026, there is still no final U.S.-Iran agreement, and no official ceasefire extension has been publicly confirmed. But Washington says fresh talks may happen in Pakistan within days, President Trump is signaling optimism, Pakistan’s military chief has been in Tehran, and regional diplomacy is now visibly revolving around Pakistani mediation. That alone marks a dramatic shift in Pakistan’s standing in the current geopolitical crisis.
The facts matter. The first 21-hour round of talks in Islamabad ended without a deal, with Vice President JD Vance saying Iran had not accepted core U.S. demands, especially on the nuclear issue. Yet Pakistan did not walk away after that setback. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif publicly said Pakistan’s “full effort” remained focused on ending the conflict, while Field Marshal Asim Munir traveled to Tehran in an attempt to narrow differences before the ceasefire expires. That is the real significance of Pakistan’s role: not that it solved the war in one stroke, but that it kept open the only serious diplomatic corridor after formal negotiations collapsed.
This matters because the war’s costs are no longer theoretical. The conflict that began on February 28 has already killed more than 5,000 people across the region. The repair costs to damaged energy infrastructure alone may reach as high as $58 billion. The Strait of Hormuz, through which about one-fifth of global oil and LNG normally passes, remains the central choke point in the conflict. Even after the April 8 ceasefire, traffic through Hormuz had at one stage fallen to less than 10% of normal, while ships and crews remained trapped and insurers, traders and governments braced for a prolonged shock.
That is why Pakistan’s diplomatic intervention should be understood not only in moral or political terms, but in financial ones. No government or international institution has yet issued an official dollar figure for what Pakistan has “saved.” Still, scenario-based calculations grounded in World Bank, IMF and Reuters reporting suggest that if Pakistan’s mediation helps convert the fragile ceasefire into a durable settlement, the avoided losses could plausibly run from the high hundreds of billions into the low trillions. This is not propaganda; it is what the macroeconomic numbers imply.
Start with global growth. The IMF cut its 2026 global growth forecast to 3.1% because of the war and warned that, in a severe scenario, growth could fall to 2.0%. The World Bank separately warned that even in a best case the war could shave 0.3 to 0.4 percentage points off global growth, and as much as 1 point in a prolonged conflict. WTTC data showing global travel and tourism alone contributed $11.7 trillion in 2025, equal to 10.3% of global GDP, implying a world economy of roughly $113.6 trillion. On that basis, preventing a 0.3–0.4 point hit means protecting roughly $341 billion to $454 billion of global output. Preventing a 1-point hit protects about $1.14 trillion. Preventing the IMF’s 1.1-point slide from 3.1% to 2.0% implies roughly $1.25 trillion in avoided output loss.
And that is only the macro layer. Add the already-estimated $58 billion energy repair bill, the IMF’s warning that more than a dozen countries may need $20 billion to $50 billion in support, the World Bank’s preparedness to mobilize $80 billion to $100 billion for war-hit economies, and the UNDP estimate that just $6 billion in emergency support could keep 32 million people from falling into poverty due to the war-driven energy shock. Even before counting military fuel, munitions, deployment costs, higher insurance, rerouted shipping, lost industrial output and inflation spillovers, the visible tally of avoided or containable damage quickly rises into the hundreds of billions.
Markets themselves are already pricing the value of diplomacy. Gulf stock markets rising on renewed hopes of U.S.-Iran talks, while Wall Street pushed to record highs as investors bet the worst might be avoided. Brent crude, though still elevated, has pulled back from the panic zone above $100 and hovered around $95 on April 15 as traders responded to the possibility of renewed negotiations. Eleven finance ministers meeting around the IMF-World Bank spring meetings called for full implementation of the ceasefire, warning that even if the shooting stops, the economic aftershocks on inflation, growth and debt will linger. That is the clearest evidence that diplomacy is not a symbolic exercise; it is already functioning as a stabilizing economic asset.
Pakistan’s importance in this crisis is therefore not accidental. It has managed to present itself as credible to Washington, acceptable to Tehran, relevant to Gulf capitals and increasingly necessary to wider regional diplomacy that now also involves Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. President Erdogan has openly referenced Pakistan’s mediator role, while the White House has acknowledged Pakistan as the likely venue for the next round. In a fractured region where many actors are aligned too heavily with one bloc or another, Pakistan’s value lies in being politically connected, militarily serious, diplomatically flexible and geographically impossible to ignore.
Still, the argument must remain grounded. Pakistan has not yet “saved the world” in any final sense, because the war is not formally over, the Hormuz issue is unresolved, Lebanon remains volatile, and the hardest questions — nuclear verification, sanctions, shipping access and war damages — are still on the table. The IAEA chief has warned that any real settlement will require detailed inspections, and Reuters says U.S. economic pressure on Iran is still intensifying even while diplomacy continues. So the credit Pakistan deserves today is not for a completed peace, but for preventing diplomatic collapse and preserving the one path that could still save the region from a second explosion.
If the second round succeeds, Pakistan’s diplomatic dividend will be immense. It will not simply have hosted talks; it will have helped prevent a wider energy shock, a deeper inflation spiral, further destruction across Iran and the region, and perhaps a global recession. In scenario terms, that would place Pakistan’s peace dividend somewhere between roughly $341 billion and $1.25 trillion in avoided world output loss, before adding infrastructure, humanitarian and fiscal savings. For a country long described as fragile, indebted and peripheral, that would be a stunning reversal. Pakistan may still be economically constrained, but in this crisis it has demonstrated something rarer than wealth: strategic usefulness. And in the modern world order, the country that can stop a war may matter more than the country that can afford one.

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 : After a tense pause in talks between Iran and the United States held in Islamabad on April 11, and to the relief of the entire world, diplomacy has not died; it has simply entered a more difficult and consequential phase, with Pakistan once again emerging as the venue where war-weary rivals may still search for an exit.
The collapse of the first round of direct U.S.-Iran talks in Pakistan did not end diplomacy. It exposed how far apart the two sides still are, but it also showed that both Washington and Tehran believe the crisis is too dangerous to leave to military logic alone. On April 14, President Donald Trump said a second round of talks in Pakistan could happen “over the next two days,” while U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres called it “highly probable” that negotiations would restart. Pakistan’s finance minister, Muhammad Aurangzeb, also said the country’s leadership was “not giving up” and would keep pursuing dialogue.
That is the real story of the moment. The first session in Islamabad may have ended without a deal, but it was not a diplomatic failure in the larger sense. Vice President JD Vance himself struck a more optimistic tone on April 14, saying negotiators had made “a ton of progress,” that Iranian negotiators appeared to want a deal, and that he felt “very good” about where things stood. That is a very different message from a final rupture. It suggests the breakdown was procedural and substantive, not terminal. The gap remains wide, especially over enrichment, inspections, and access, but the process is alive.
Pakistan’s importance has therefore grown rather than diminished. It hosted the first direct U.S.-Iran discussion in nearly half a century, won public praise from Guterres, and is now being openly discussed again as the venue for the next round. In diplomacy, trust is measured less by ceremony than by repetition. If two adversaries return to the same table in the same country after a failed first round, that country has already scored a quiet but significant success. Pakistan’s role is no longer symbolic; it is becoming operational.
The reason the world cares so intensely is obvious. The war has already imposed a severe economic shock. Reuters reported that Wall Street rallied sharply on April 14 because investors interpreted talk of renewed negotiations as a sign that the worst-case scenario might still be avoided. The S&P 500 rose 1.17%, the Nasdaq jumped 1.95%, and Brent crude fell 4.6% to $94.79 while WTI dropped nearly 8% to $91.20. Markets were not celebrating peace; they were pricing in the possibility that diplomacy might prevent a wider catastrophe.
The IMF’s warning makes the stakes even clearer. It cut its 2026 growth forecast for the Middle East and North Africa to 1.1%, with Iran’s economy projected to contract 6.1%, and warned that the conflict is already inflicting broad damage through disrupted shipping, damaged infrastructure, and energy insecurity. In other words, this is no longer a regional war with merely regional costs. It has become a global economic threat touching inflation, shipping, fertilizer, fuel, and food systems far beyond the battlefield.
That is why the Strait of Hormuz remains central to everything. About one-fifth of the world’s oil trade normally passes through that corridor, and both the war and the subsequent U.S. blockade of Iranian ports have turned it into the most sensitive chokepoint in the global economy. Reuters reported that Britain and France are now preparing a 40-country diplomatic effort focused on restoring freedom of navigation, while refusing to simply fold themselves into the American approach. That alone tells us how far the crisis has widened: even close U.S. allies are now building parallel frameworks to contain the fallout.
Washington’s own posture reflects strain. Publicly, U.S. officials remain firm. Vance has repeated that Iran cannot be allowed to retain a path to nuclear weapons capability, and reports from CBS and the Washington Post indicate that Washington pushed a demand for a long suspension of uranium enrichment, alongside wider restrictions. But firmness is not the same as appetite for endless war. The very fact that the White House is signaling renewed talks so quickly after the first round shows that military pressure alone has not delivered closure. It has created leverage, but not resolution.
Iran, for its part, is also signaling that it has not shut the door. Tehran continues to insist on its rights under international law and rejects maximalist U.S. demands, but its willingness to return to talks in Pakistan indicates that it still sees diplomacy as useful, especially if the alternative is a prolonged economic siege and continued strategic pressure. Guterres’ remarks, Pakistan’s continued engagement, and Trump’s own public comments all point in the same direction: neither side believes this crisis can be settled quickly through coercion alone.
Parallel diplomacy is also unfolding on another front, though with far less certainty. Israel and Lebanon held their first direct talks in decades in Washington on April 14, under U.S. auspices and with Secretary of State Marco Rubio participating. The talks produced agreement to continue discussions, but they also immediately revealed their core weakness: Hezbollah rejects the track, and rocket fire resumed even as diplomacy was being launched. That does not make the talks meaningless, but it does mean they cannot by themselves end the violence unless they eventually alter the military and political calculations of the armed actors on the ground.
So the regional picture is mixed. On one side, there is cautious diplomatic movement: Pakistan trying to bring Washington and Tehran back together, Europe preparing a post-crisis Hormuz framework, and Washington opening a rare direct Israel-Lebanon channel. On the other side, there is still active fighting, deep mistrust, maritime disruption, and a massive humanitarian toll. AP reported that more than 2,100 people have been killed in Lebanon and more than a million displaced, while the broader war has killed thousands in Iran and continued to wound U.S. forces. These realities make optimism necessary, but premature triumphalism dangerous.
What Pakistan can claim, however, is substantial. It has shown itself capable of hosting high-risk diplomacy with professionalism and enough credibility that both parties are prepared to consider returning. For a country often described internationally through the language of instability, this is a valuable reversal of narrative. Pakistan is being seen not as a bystander to chaos, but as a facilitator of de-escalation. That does not guarantee success, but it does restore diplomatic relevance.
The next 48 hours matter because they will test whether the first Islamabad round was merely an opening probe or the foundation of a real process. If talks resume, markets will likely read that as the strongest signal yet that a broader settlement remains possible. If they do not, the war economy, maritime insecurity, and political fragmentation now spreading from Tehran to Washington to Europe will deepen. For now, the most important fact is simple: the door is still open, and Pakistan is still holding it.