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 : In a stunning admission that has reshaped the geopolitical narrative of the Middle East, President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth effectively acknowledged the end of America’s direct military campaign against Iran. Declaring that “Epic Fury” had ended for all practical purposes and that “Operation Freedom” was now in effect, the United States quietly shifted from aggressive military confrontation to strategic disengagement.
Yet the most revealing statement came from Secretary Hegseth himself, who openly stated that the United States no longer considered the Strait of Hormuz its responsibility because America was not dependent on the waterway for its energy needs. According to Hegseth, those nations suffering from the closure of Hormuz should themselves use whatever diplomatic or military tools they possess to reopen the route.
This statement amounted to far more than a tactical adjustment. To many observers across the globe, it sounded like an open acknowledgment of strategic failure. The very war initiated by Israel and the United States had triggered the instability that closed Hormuz in the first place, yet now both powers appeared eager to walk away from the consequences while the rest of the world continued to suffer.
Before the war, the Strait of Hormuz functioned as one of the world’s most critical energy arteries, carrying nearly 20 percent of global oil shipments and a substantial portion of liquefied natural gas exports. The closure and militarization of the region following the conflict sent shockwaves through the global economy. Oil prices surged beyond $140 per barrel at several points during the crisis., while shipping insurance premiums multiplied several times over. Freight costs skyrocketed, disrupting global trade routes from Asia to Europe and Africa. What began as a military operation against Iran evolved into a worldwide economic earthquake affecting virtually every continent.
Asia bore some of the heaviest economic consequences. China, India, Japan, South Korea, Pakistan, and many Southeast Asian economies depend heavily on Gulf energy supplies. The disruption in oil shipments dramatically increased manufacturing costs, transportation expenses, and inflation across the region. China reportedly absorbed economic losses exceeding $400 billion through disrupted supply chains, higher energy costs, and slowing exports. India, already struggling with inflationary pressure, saw fuel prices surge and industrial growth slow sharply. Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and other developing Asian economies faced intensified economic distress as energy imports became unaffordable. Millions of vulnerable households across Asia were pushed deeper into poverty due to rising food, electricity, and transportation prices.
Europe also paid a heavy price for the war. Already weakened by years of economic slowdown, energy insecurity, and the lingering consequences of the Ukraine conflict, European economies suffered severe inflationary pressure from rising oil and gas prices. Germany’s industrial sector, heavily dependent on stable energy costs, experienced declining production. France, Italy, and Spain faced rising transportation and manufacturing expenses. Analysts estimated Europe’s direct and indirect war-related economic losses in the range of $350 to $500 billion through reduced growth, inflation, trade disruption, and financial instability. European stock markets experienced repeated volatility as investors feared prolonged instability in the Middle East.
Africa, despite having no involvement in the war itself, became one of its greatest humanitarian victims. Many African nations rely heavily on imported fuel and food. The spike in shipping and energy prices sharply increased the cost of basic necessities. Countries already struggling with debt, unemployment, and food insecurity faced worsening humanitarian crises. Transportation costs surged across East and West Africa, while inflation reduced purchasing power for millions of ordinary citizens. International aid agencies warned that the war indirectly pushed millions more people below the poverty line across Africa.
South America similarly experienced major economic disruption. Brazil, Argentina, Chile, and other economies dependent on global commodity markets suffered from rising shipping costs, weakening trade flows, and market uncertainty. Airlines across Latin America struggled with increased jet fuel prices, while agricultural exports became more expensive to transport. Currency volatility intensified as investors shifted toward safe-haven assets amid fears of broader global instability.
Even the United States itself suffered enormous economic consequences. While Washington argued that it was less dependent on Gulf oil, the integrated nature of the global economy meant that rising energy costs affected all Americans. Gasoline prices climbed sharply, mortgage rates remained elevated, airline costs increased, and supply chains faced renewed disruption. U.S. military expenditures surged into hundreds of billions of dollars as naval deployments, missile defense systems, logistics operations, and regional base protection consumed vast financial resources. The Congressional Budget Office and independent analysts estimated that the broader economic cost of the war to the United States could ultimately exceed $1 trillion when inflationary pressures, military spending, market instability, and indirect economic damage are included.
Israel also faced devastating consequences. The Israeli economy contracted sharply during the conflict, with reduced tourism, falling investment, declining consumer confidence, and repeated disruptions caused by missile attacks and mobilization costs. Israeli businesses faced uncertainty while infrastructure and military spending strained public finances. More importantly, Israel failed to achieve its central strategic objectives. Iran’s government remained intact. Iran’s missile and drone capabilities survived. Regional resistance networks in Lebanon and Gaza remained operational. Instead of emerging weakened, Iran emerged emboldened.
Indeed, the most profound geopolitical consequence of the war may be Iran’s transformed regional position. After surviving months of coordinated military pressure from both Israel and the United States, Tehran dramatically shifted its position. Iranian leaders now argue openly that negotiations can no longer revolve around limiting Iran’s capabilities. Instead, Tehran demands reparations for war damage, reconstruction of oil infrastructure, compensation for civilian casualties, recognition of Iranian sovereignty over Hormuz security arrangements, and an end to Israeli military operations in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, and surrounding territories.
From Tehran’s perspective, the war proved that Iran could withstand the combined power of the United States and Israel while continuing to exert regional influence. Across much of the Global South, Iran increasingly presents itself as a symbol of resistance against Western military dominance. Even countries that do not politically align with Iran privately acknowledge that the conflict exposed the limits of American and Israeli military power in the twenty-first century.
Perhaps the clearest evidence of strategic failure lies in the final political reality itself. After months of military escalation, trillions in economic damage, global inflation, disrupted trade, and regional instability, the United States and Israel are now seeking disengagement while Iran stands politically unbroken. Washington’s own leadership now publicly signals that Hormuz is no longer America’s problem. Yet the closure of Hormuz was itself a direct consequence of the war launched by Israel and the United States.
History may ultimately remember this conflict not as a triumph of military power, but as a case study in strategic overreach. The United States and Israel entered the war promising deterrence, dominance, and regional transformation. Instead, they triggered global economic pain, strengthened Iran’s geopolitical standing, weakened confidence in Western leadership, and exposed the limitations of military force in an interconnected world. Today, while Washington and Tel Aviv search for an exit from the crisis, Iran stands defiant, presenting itself as the side that endured, resisted, and survived.

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 historic meeting between Donald Trump and Xi Jinping in Beijing from 13 to 15 May 2026 is not merely another diplomatic summit. It represents a confrontation between two radically different worldviews, two competing models of global order, and two opposing philosophies about power, prosperity, and humanity’s future. Behind the polished smiles, ceremonial handshakes, and carefully choreographed statements lies a deep ideological divide that may define the twenty-first century.
Under Trump’s leadership, the United States has embraced an uncompromising “America First” doctrine. Every alliance, every trade deal, every military commitment, and every diplomatic engagement is evaluated through a narrow national-interest lens. Washington increasingly views the world not as a shared system of cooperation but as a battlefield of transactional competition where gains for others are often perceived as losses for America. Trump’s tariffs on allies and rivals alike, pressure campaigns against NATO partners, confrontational trade policies toward China, and demands that partners “pay their share” reflect this philosophy.
China, under Xi Jinping, presents itself as the opposite model. Beijing repeatedly promotes the concept of a “shared future for mankind,” arguing that nations rise together or fall together. China’s diplomacy emphasizes infrastructure, connectivity, trade integration, and development partnerships. Xi’s language consistently revolves around “win-win cooperation,” multilateralism, and economic interdependence rather than military alliances or ideological confrontation. Whether one accepts China’s narrative completely or not, Beijing has undeniably invested enormous resources into projecting this image globally.
The clearest manifestation of China’s approach is the Belt and Road Initiative, launched in 2013. According to estimates from institutions such as the World Bank and the Council on Foreign Relations, China’s Belt and Road Initiative has involved more than 145 countries and generated infrastructure investments exceeding $1 trillion through ports, highways, railways, power plants, industrial zones, and digital infrastructure projects.
In countries across Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, China has financed highways in Pakistan, ports in Greece, rail systems in East Africa, industrial parks in Central Asia, and renewable energy projects across the developing world. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and other Chinese-backed financial mechanisms have expanded alternatives to Western-led lending institutions. China argues that development—not military intervention—is the real foundation of peace.
Supporters of Beijing’s model point to measurable outcomes. Nations connected through Belt and Road projects have seen increases in trade volumes, logistics efficiency, electricity generation capacity, and industrial productivity. China’s trade with Belt and Road partner countries surpassed $3 trillion in recent years, while Chinese overseas construction contracts and investments continue reshaping large portions of the Global South.
At the technological level, China is also attempting to project itself as a provider rather than a gatekeeper. Chinese companies and research institutions have increasingly supported open-source artificial intelligence platforms, telecommunications infrastructure, and digital payment systems. Beijing frames this strategy as democratizing technology access, particularly for developing nations that cannot afford Western-controlled ecosystems.
Washington, however, views China’s rise through a completely different lens. Successive American administrations—especially under Trump—have increasingly defined China as America’s primary strategic rival. The United States accuses China of unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, industrial espionage, military expansion, and efforts to displace American global leadership. The rivalry is no longer limited to tariffs or trade deficits; it now spans semiconductors, artificial intelligence, rare earth minerals, cybersecurity, quantum computing, and military dominance in the Indo-Pacific.
The result is a world drifting toward economic fragmentation. The United States has imposed sweeping export controls on advanced semiconductor technology destined for China and pressured allies to reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains. Beijing, in turn, has accelerated efforts toward technological self-sufficiency and diversification away from U.S.-controlled systems.
Trump’s return to aggressive economic nationalism has also strained America’s relationships with traditional allies. European leaders increasingly speak of “strategic autonomy,” seeking to reduce dependence on Washington in defense, energy, and industrial policy. Canada and parts of Europe have openly resisted aspects of U.S. trade pressure and unilateral sanctions policies. Even in the Middle East, where American influence once appeared unshakable, regional powers are diversifying partnerships toward China, Russia, and other emerging blocs.
The contrast between Washington and Beijing became even sharper during recent Middle Eastern crises. China positioned itself as a diplomatic broker, most notably facilitating rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023. Meanwhile, critics argue that U.S. military interventions over the past two decades—from Iraq to Libya and beyond—have often left instability, destruction, and humanitarian crises in their wake.
The United States still remains the world’s strongest military and financial superpower. The U.S. dollar dominates global trade and reserves, American universities lead in innovation, and U.S. corporations remain central to the global economy. Yet the image of America as the unquestioned architect of the international order has weakened significantly. Endless wars, political polarization, debt expansion exceeding $35 trillion, trade confrontations, and growing global resentment toward unilateral sanctions have all damaged Washington’s soft power.
China, meanwhile, presents itself as patient, pragmatic, and economically focused. Beijing rarely frames its rise as ideological conquest; instead, it frames it as shared prosperity. Critics, of course, accuse China of creating debt dependency, expanding authoritarian influence, and leveraging economic ties for strategic gain. Yet many developing nations still see China as a source of roads, railways, ports, energy, and financing that Western powers either ignored or conditioned heavily.
The deeper issue is philosophical. Trump’s America increasingly defines the world through competition and dominance. Xi’s China speaks the language of integration and interconnected destiny. One emphasizes national primacy; the other emphasizes collective growth. One increasingly relies on sanctions, tariffs, and strategic containment; the other relies on infrastructure, connectivity, and trade expansion.
This is why the Trump-Xi meeting matters far beyond diplomacy. It symbolizes the collision of two civilizational visions. The United States wants to preserve an international system shaped overwhelmingly by American power after World War II. China wants a multipolar order where Western dominance is diluted and emerging economies gain greater influence.
Whether these two visions can coexist peacefully remains one of the defining questions of our age.
For now, both nations remain economically intertwined despite strategic hostility. Trade between the United States and China still exceeds hundreds of billions of dollars annually, global supply chains remain interconnected, and financial markets depend heavily on stability between the two giants. Yet beneath the surface, mistrust continues to deepen.
The Beijing summit may produce agreements, temporary compromises, and carefully worded joint statements. But it will not erase the fundamental contradiction between “America First” and China’s “shared destiny” narrative. One side believes prosperity must primarily strengthen national supremacy; the other claims prosperity should be distributed through interconnected development.
In the end, the real battle is not simply over tariffs, technology, or military power. It is over which philosophy the rest of the world will ultimately choose to follow.

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 : What began as “Epic Fury,” a forceful and ambitious operation aimed at reshaping Iran’s strategic capabilities, has now transitioned into “Project Freedom,” a mission focused on safeguarding maritime routes and restoring the flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz. Yet this shift reveals a striking contradiction at the heart of the entire conflict. The very waterway now being secured at enormous cost was open and functioning before the war began, exposing a troubling paradox in both purpose and execution.
What emerges is not strategic brilliance but an anomaly—first creating a crisis, then deploying vast resources to resolve it. In that sense, “Project Freedom” appears less like a victory and more like a costly correction of an avoidable mistake, raising profound questions about judgment, foresight, and accountability.
The official admission of the defeat has been delivered with confidence. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted that the objectives of the operation were achieved and that the United States will now rely on economic and diplomatic pressure to influence Iran’s nuclear trajectory.
Faced with these realities, the narrative has shifted. What was initially framed as a mission to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program is now being reinterpreted as an effort to weaken its “conventional shield.” This evolving justification reflects not strategic clarity, but the difficulty of reconciling ambitious promises with limited outcomes. In modern warfare, such redefinitions of success often reveal the admission of defeat rather than its victory.
Yet the true consequences of this conflict extend far beyond strategy and rhetoric. They are economic, immediate, and global in scope. The war has triggered a chain reaction across energy markets, supply chains, and financial systems, transforming a regional conflict into a worldwide economic shock.
Before the war, many American consumers, including drivers in Michigan, were paying around $2.40 per gallon for gasoline. Today, the same drivers are paying nearly $4.60 per gallon. That is an increase of $2.20 per gallon, or almost 92 percent—a near doubling of the fuel burden on ordinary families. This is not a minor fluctuation or a routine market adjustment.For a 15-gallon tank, the cost has jumped from about $36 to $69, meaning one fill-up now costs roughly $33 more than before.
For millions of families, this is not an abstract economic indicator—it is a daily reality. Every gallon of fuel purchased carries the weight of geopolitical decisions. Transportation costs rise, and with them the price of food, healthcare, clothing, and essential services. Inflation spreads across the economy, eroding purchasing power and increasing the cost of living. Analysts estimate that households are paying thousands of dollars more annually, not just in fuel but through the cascading effects of inflation that ripple through every sector.
But the cost is not confined to the United States; it is global, systemic, and staggering in scale. Current estimates suggest that the 2026 U.S.–The Iran war has already inflicted a direct loss of around $3.5 trillion, wiping out over 3 percent of global economic output. Financial markets have reacted even more sharply, with nearly $12 trillion in global market capitalization erased, reflecting deep uncertainty and loss of investor confidence. At the same time, the International Monetary Fund has downgraded global growth by 0.3 to 1.4 percentage points, warning that the world is approaching the threshold of a synchronized recession, with worst-case scenarios pushing growth down to nearly 2 percent. The regional toll is equally severe: Arab economies alone have lost between $120 billion and $194 billion within a single month, while Asian economies face losses ranging from $97 billion to $300 billion as they struggle to absorb energy shocks.
The aviation industry alone has suffered unprecedented losses, with over $53 billion wiped out in airline market value within weeks, while jet fuel prices have more than doubled from roughly $830 to over $1,800 per tonne, adding nearly $11 billion in additional global operating costs. This has forced massive operational cutbacks, including over 60,000 flight cancellations, and even led to the collapse of major carriers, marking the industry’s worst crisis since the pandemic.
At the same time, the global tourism sector—valued at over $11.7 trillion—is bleeding heavily, with losses of up to $600 million per day in visitor spending and projected annual declines of $34 to $56 billion in the Middle East alone. These disruptions extend far beyond travel, affecting logistics, trade, and essential supply chains worldwide. What began as a regional conflict has thus evolved into a systemic global economic shock, shaking industries, markets, and livelihoods far removed from the battlefield.
The United States and its allies, particularly Israel, initiated a conflict whose consequences have been borne not only by the adversary but by the entire world.
Ideally, the total cost of such a war should be calculated by an independent international body—quantifying the damage to global GDP, supply chains, and living standards. Those responsible for initiating the conflict should, in principle, be held accountable for the economic consequences imposed on others. Such accountability may never be enforced in practical terms, particularly when it involves global powers, but its acknowledgment remains essential for the credibility of international norms.
The United States, as the world’s dominant economic and military power, is unlikely to compensate for these losses. The scale of the damage itself is so vast that even the largest economy could not fully absorb it. Yet acknowledging responsibility is not merely about financial repayment—it is about recognizing the consequences of decisions that affect billions of lives.
The transition from “Epic Fury” to “Project Freedom” marks the transformation of a conflict from an ambitious attempt at strategic dominance into a complex struggle to manage its own unintended consequences.
Yet this war has revealed something even more profound. It has demonstrated that power in the 21st century is no longer defined solely by the scale of conventional military strength. A country like Iran—subjected for decades to sanctions, technological isolation, and sustained economic pressure—has shown that resilience, adaptability, and strategic innovation can offset overwhelming conventional disadvantages. By shifting the nature of warfare toward asymmetric, technology-driven, and decentralized systems, it has challenged long-held assumptions about what it means to be powerful.
This is not merely a regional lesson; it is a global inflection point. It signals to middle and emerging powers that sovereignty and strategic independence no longer require matching superpowers in aircraft carriers, fighter jets, or traditional defense systems. Instead, the balance of power is increasingly shaped by resilience, ingenuity, and the ability to adapt to a new model of warfare—one that is less visible, less predictable, and far more difficult to dominate.
Perhaps this moment will stand as a turning point—the last time a superpower enters a war driven by the assumption that overwhelming military strength alone guarantees decisive outcomes. The failure of “Epic Fury” suggests otherwise. It compels a fundamental recalculation of power, strategy, and consequence, reminding the world that in the 21st century, wars are not won by force alone—and that even the mightiest nations must reckon with the limits of their power.