Connect with us

Pakistan News

Trump’s Spotlight on Shahbaz

Published

on

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 recent summit hosted by President Donald Trump, with Egypt’s Prime Minister beside him, carried moments that went beyond protocol. When Trump extended an affectionate greeting to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, it was more than a warm gesture—it symbolized a historic shift in U.S.–Pakistan relations. That moment showed how Islamabad’s civilian leadership and its military command under Field Marshal Asim Munir had moved from the margins of suspicion to the heart of Washington’s strategic calculus. This closeness did not emerge overnight. It had been cultivated in the months before America’s devastating strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, when Pakistan’s leadership first engaged with Trump in serious dialogue. Since then, Pakistan has become central in persuading the Muslim world and wealthy Arab capitals to support Trump’s ambitious 21-point Gaza Peace Plan.
What followed at the summit underscored the depth of this bond. While European leaders, presidents, and prime ministers from around the globe sat on the sidelines, Shehbaz Sharif was invited by Trump to take the podium and publicly offer praise. No other leader was given such a platform. Trump, clearly pleased, remarked that the true achievement of the summit was not only the signing of the Hamas–Israel agreement but the dawn of a new era of friendship, reconstruction, and hope for Gaza. In a further gesture, Trump mentioned Field Marshal Munir by name, praising his leadership and role in regional stability. It was a recognition that carried consequences far beyond the hall, signaling to the world that Pakistan was no longer merely a participant but an indispensable partner in shaping the future of the Middle East.
The political consequences at home are equally profound. A country that only recently teetered on the brink of economic collapse now finds itself under the protective shield of Washington’s goodwill. Trump’s personal embrace of Pakistan’s leadership, combined with the IMF’s readiness to release fresh funds and the global media’s acknowledgment of reforms, all but ensures that Shehbaz Sharif’s government will complete its five-year term. Bloomberg’s recent report, which placed Pakistan as the second most improved emerging economy in terms of sovereign default risk, has become an anchor for this perception of stability. It suggests that regime change, once a lingering fear, is no longer an imminent threat.
For the opposition led by Imran Khan, this represents a near-terminal blow. PTI, once a movement with momentum, now appears fractured, riddled with blame games and leadership rifts. International recognition of government performance compounds the decline of PTI’s appeal. The likelihood of Khan’s return to power grows slimmer with each passing day, not only in this term but perhaps in the next electoral cycle as well. Continuity, not disruption, now defines the political horizon.
Bloomberg’s endorsement is more than a headline. Between June 2024 and September 2025, Pakistan’s sovereign default probability fell by as much as 2,200 basis points. From being ranked among the riskiest economies in the world, Pakistan rose to the second-best performer among emerging markets, behind only Turkiye. The turnaround was achieved through strict fiscal discipline, compliance with IMF conditions, timely debt repayments, and reforms that improved investor confidence. To lenders and investors, the message is clear: Pakistan is no longer a default story but a recovery story. To citizens, it signals hope that the worst may be behind them.
Yet beneath this optimism lies a more complex reality. The improvement in sovereign risk is significant but does not tell the whole story. Pakistan’s growth for FY25 was revised upward to 3.04% after industrial output rebounded, while third-quarter growth came in at 2.4%. These figures are encouraging but modest, reflecting stabilization rather than a boom. Inflation, which had once spiraled above 30%, cooled dramatically to just 4.1% by late 2024, allowing the State Bank to cut policy rates from a suffocating 22% down to 12%. This drop, however, owes as much to global commodity relief as it does to policy discipline.
Investment has shown some sparkle: the Special Investment Facilitation Council pushed foreign direct investment up by 16% in one month, IT exports rose 32%, and the Karachi Stock Exchange doubled in a single year. Exports rose by 10% to $30.64 billion in FY2024, though a persistent trade deficit remains, fueled by costly imports of petroleum and machinery. Most recently, a $1.2 billion IMF agreement reached in October 2025 has shored up liquidity, while the 2025–26 budget ambitiously targets 4.2% growth.
These data points reinforce Bloomberg’s narrative to an extent. Inflation is under control, growth is stabilizing, investors are returning, and credit risk has narrowed. Yet deep challenges persist. Job creation remains weak, and official data is thin. Small and medium enterprises, which form the backbone of domestic employment, still face crushing costs from energy tariffs, taxation, and financing constraints. Structural reforms in governance, energy, and taxation continue to lag. Pakistan’s revival, while real, is fragile—dependent on external goodwill and vulnerable to global shocks.
What makes the Bloomberg recognition consequential is its convergence with Trump’s embrace. Together, they create a powerful narrative dividend: Pakistan is not only stable, but strategically indispensable. For Washington, Islamabad’s role in rallying Muslim and Arab states behind the Gaza framework is invaluable. For Pakistan, the dividend is survival and the chance to thrive under international endorsement. IMF funds flow more smoothly, investors take notice, and international media highlight the recovery rather than the collapse. Confidence breeds confidence, and the government’s legitimacy is strengthened at home.
But overreliance on narrative is dangerous. Recognition from Bloomberg or praise from Trump cannot substitute for deep economic transformation. If oil prices spike, if U.S. interest rates rise, or if domestic reforms stall, the narrative could unravel quickly. Investors are patient only as long as reforms continue; corruption or complacency could break the cycle of confidence. Pakistan’s future cannot rest solely on symbolic endorsements. It must be built on durable change that translates into jobs, thriving businesses, and improved living standards.
The outlook is both promising and precarious. If Pakistan can maintain fiscal prudence, expand exports, exploit its mineral wealth, and modernize its economy, this Bloomberg moment may be remembered as the beginning of a genuine turnaround. With Washington’s backing, the country enjoys a rare window of stability that could last five to ten years, enough time to set the foundation for durable prosperity. But history offers harsh lessons: moments of reprieve squandered, opportunities lost to complacency or discord.
The challenge now is not to mistake recognition for resolution. Trump’s embrace and Bloomberg’s endorsement are powerful signals of global confidence, but unless they are matched by tangible improvements in jobs, trade, and technology, they will remain fleeting headlines. Pakistan stands at a turning point, its reprieve fragile but full of possibility. Whether this moment becomes a renaissance or a relapse depends not on the applause abroad but on the reforms at home.

Pakistan News

Strategic Siege: Is Pakistan Being Surrounded

Published

on

By

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 : Geopolitics has never been governed by sentiment. Not religion, not shared history, not cultural brotherhood—only interests. The unfolding realignments across South Asia and the Middle East illustrate this truth with striking clarity. Alliances are shifting, rivalries are recalibrating, and Pakistan finds itself increasingly positioned at the intersection of competing strategic designs.
The roots of today’s complexity stretch back to 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Pakistan became the frontline state in a U.S.-backed campaign to counter Moscow. Billions of dollars in American and Saudi assistance flowed through intelligence networks to arm and train Afghan fighters. The mobilization of religious ideology was not incidental—it was strategic. Fighters from across the Muslim world converged in Afghanistan. By 1989, the Soviet withdrawal marked a Cold War victory for Washington and its partners.
But militant infrastructures rarely dissolve once their immediate utility ends. The Taliban emerged in the 1990s from the ashes of war, establishing control over Kabul in 1996. Pakistan was among the few nations to recognize their regime. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, the same Taliban became the primary target of American military intervention. The subsequent 20-year war cost over $2 trillion and claimed more than 170,000 lives before the U.S. withdrawal in August 2021.
The Taliban’s return to power reshaped the region yet again. Instead of ushering in stability for Pakistan, however, cross-border militancy intensified. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), operating from Afghan soil, escalated attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan. Islamabad responded with cross-border airstrikes against militant sanctuaries. While tactically decisive, these actions strained relations with Kabul and risked civilian backlash.
Instead, Pakistan with its deep intelligence roots in Afghanistan, had the option to adopt the same tactics which Afghanistan is using by infiltrating Pakistani Taliban in Pakistan and killing innocent people mostly by detonating human bombs in Mosque. This could have been a more discrete way to weed out the menace of TTP. History suggests that purely kinetic responses can produce unintended strategic consequences. Airstrikes may eliminate immediate threats, but they can also deepen mistrust and create diplomatic openings for rival powers.
In geopolitics, tactical victories can sometimes yield strategic setbacks. By intensifying overt military pressure, Islamabad may have inadvertently accelerated Kabul’s search for diversified partnerships.
That diversification is perhaps the most striking development. The Taliban government, ideologically committed to Islamic governance, has increasingly explored diplomatic and economic engagement beyond traditional Islamic partners. India reopened diplomatic channels in Kabul and expanded humanitarian assistance. Israel has pledged billions of dollars of aid to Kabul in alignment with India. This is a profound geopolitical entanglement: an Islamic Emirate seeking expanded engagement with a Hindu-majority India and a Jewish-majority Israel, even as tensions simmer with neighboring Muslim Pakistan.
This underscores a fundamental principle of realpolitik: states pursue survival and leverage, not theological alignment. Religious brotherhood and shared culture matter, but only when they coincide with national interest calculations. Facing economic collapse, frozen reserves, and diplomatic isolation, Kabul seeks diversification. India offers infrastructure and access. Israel offers technological cooperation and strategic outreach. Ideology yields to necessity.
For Pakistan, however, the optics intensify concerns of encirclement. On its eastern border, India remains a strategic competitor, particularly over Kashmir. On its western frontier now stands an Afghanistan willing to engage Islamabad’s rivals. To the southwest lies Iran, itself navigating tense relations with the United States. This evolving geometry fuels perceptions of a tightening strategic ring.
An additional dimension complicates matters further: Bagram Airbase. During the U.S. presence in Afghanistan, Bagram served as the largest American military installation in the country, with dual runways capable of handling heavy aircraft and advanced surveillance platforms. Its geographic location—approximately 500 kilometers from China’s Xinjiang region—made it strategically significant.
U.S. President Donald Trump publicly criticized the abandonment of Bagram in 2021, arguing that retaining the base would have preserved American leverage, particularly in the context of intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. Bagram’s proximity to Central Asia, Iran, and western China positions it as more than a counterterrorism platform—it is a potential springboard in great-power competition.
While direct American military reentry into Afghanistan appears unlikely in the near term, evolving regional alignments could create indirect pathways of influence. The strengthening of India’s presence in Kabul, combined with Israel’s strategic engagement in broader Asian geopolitics, introduces analytical possibilities. Washington maintains deep defense partnerships with both New Delhi and Tel Aviv. If Afghanistan continues diversifying toward these actors, space may gradually reopen for U.S. strategic leverage—without formal troop deployments.
Interestingly, geopolitics often unfolds through indirect channels. For Washington, containing China remains a central strategic priority. For India, Afghanistan offers westward strategic depth. For Israel, expanded regional engagement broadens diplomatic influence. For Kabul, diversified partnerships reduce isolation. For Pakistan, however, these convergences heighten strategic anxiety.
For Israel, extending its engagement with Kabul through India would provide a strategic foothold in South Asia and enhance its capacity to deter Pakistan from aligning with Turkey and Saudi Arabia in any configuration perceived as intimidating to Israel. Such cooperation could be viewed as a counterweight to a potential alignment involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and nuclear-armed Pakistan, which some analysts argue might aim to exert strategic pressure or encirclement against Israel.
Simultaneously, the Persian Gulf remains heavily militarized. The U.S. Fifth Fleet in Bahrain deploys advanced naval assets, while Iran has invested in ballistic missiles, drones, and anti-ship systems designed to offset conventional asymmetry. China, importing substantial Gulf energy supplies, and Russia, expanding ties with Tehran, both observe carefully.
Any escalation between Washington and Tehran would reverberate in Pakistan. The country already hosts approximately 1.3 million registered Afghan refugees. A major Iran conflict could trigger further displacement, compounding economic strain amid IMF-backed reforms and domestic political polarization.
Internally, Pakistan faces political turbulence, including debates surrounding the incarceration of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and federal-provincial tensions. External pressure combined with internal division magnifies vulnerability.
Yet one broader truth emerges from this complex web: strategic encirclement is not solely a product of adversarial design. It can also arise from miscalculation, overreliance on hard power, and insufficient diplomatic agility. States that rely exclusively on military tools risk narrowing their strategic options.
This is a defining moment. Great-power rivalry, regional insecurity, and ideological contradictions intersect at fragile fault lines. Afghanistan’s outreach beyond traditional religious alignments demonstrates the primacy of interest over identity. Bagram symbolizes the enduring shadow of great-power competition. India and Israel’s evolving engagement in Kabul reflects the fluidity of modern alliances.
But history offers a sobering lesson. From the Soviet-Afghan war to the U.S. intervention, military campaigns have reshaped borders without resolving deeper grievances. Stability requires not merely deterrence but diplomacy.
Encirclement strategies may promise leverage. Hybrid doctrines may promise precision. Yet sustainable security demands cooperation grounded in mutual recognition of vulnerabilities.
Geopolitics may be ruthless in its calculations, but peace remains the only enduring strategic victory.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan and Russia deepen media and diplomatic dialogue ahead of PM Sharif’s visit to Moscow

Published

on

By

Monitoring Desk: The Moscow–Islamabad Media Forum will be held on February 27, 2026, to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow, scheduled for the first week of March 2026.
The forum will serve as a platform for journalists, political experts, and diplomats from Pakistan and Russia to discuss the current state of bilateral relations, explore future opportunities, and analyze how the Russia–Pakistan partnership impacts global politics, the economy, and the contemporary media landscape.

Cooperation between Russia and Pakistan is of particular importance in the context of the transformation of international relations and the formation of a new system of global interaction. In recent years, contacts between the two countries have intensified at inter-parliamentary, expert, and media levels, while practical cooperation in the humanitarian and socio-political spheres continues to expand.
Within the framework of the forum, Russian and Pakistani journalists, political scientists, and representatives of diplomatic circles will discuss the current state and future prospects of bilateral relations, as well as the role of the Russia–Pakistan partnership in political, economic, and information processes shaping the modern world.
The event is timed to coincide with the official visit of the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Shehbaz Sharif, to Moscow from March 3 to 5, 2026.
Admission for media representatives will be granted only through prior accreditation upon presentation of a passport and a valid editorial certificate confirming the journalist’s affiliation with the accredited media organization.
MSPC “Russia Today” reserves the right to refuse accreditation without providing an explanation.
This News is taken from
https://dnd.com.pk/pakistan-and-russia-deepen-media-and-diplomatic-dialogue-ahead-of-pm-sharifs-visit-to-moscow/328726/

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Pakistan launches strikes on Afghanistan, with Taliban saying dozens killed

Published

on

By

Pakistan has carried out multiple overnight air strikes on Afghanistan, which the Taliban has said killed and wounded dozens of people, including women and children.

Islamabad said the attacks targeted seven alleged militant camps and hideouts near the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and that they had been launched after recent suicide bombings in Pakistan.

Afghanistan condemned the attacks, saying they targeted multiple civilian homes and a religious school.

The fresh strikes come after the two countries agreed to a fragile ceasefire in October following deadly cross-border clashes, though subsequent fighting has taken place.

The Taliban’s defence ministry said the strikes targeted civilian areas of Nangarhar and Paktika provinces.

Officials in Nangarhar told the BBC that the home of a man called Shahabuddin had been hit by one of the strikes, killing about 20 family members, including women and children.

Pakistan’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting said it had carried out “intelligence based selective targeting of seven terrorist camps and hideouts”.

In a statement on X, it said the targets included members of the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, which the government refers to as “Fitna al Khawarij,” along with their affiliates and the Islamic State-Khorasan Province.

The ministry described the strikes as “a retributive response” to recent suicide bombings in Pakistan by terror groups it said were sheltered by Kabul.

The recent attacks in Pakistan included one on a Shia mosque in the capital Islamabad earlier this month, as well as others that took place since the holy month of Ramadan began this week in the north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.

Pakistan accused the Afghan Taliban of failing to take action against the militants, adding that it had “conclusive evidence” that the attacks were carried out by militants on the instructions of their leadership in Afghanistan.

The Taliban’s defence ministry later posted on X condemning the attacks as a “blatant violation of Afghanistan’s territorial integrity”, adding that they were a “clear breach of international law”.

It warned that “an appropriate and measured response will be taken at a suitable time”, adding that “attacks on civilian targets and religious institutions indicate the failure of Pakistan’s army in intelligence and security.”

The strikes come days after Saudi Arabia mediated the release of three Pakistani soldiers earlier this week, who were captured in Kabul during border clashes last October.

Those clashes ended with a tentative ceasefire that same month after the worst fighting since the Taliban returned to power in 2021.

Pakistan and Afghanistan share a 1,600-mile (2,574 km) mountainous border.

Continue Reading

Trending