Connect with us

Pakistan News

USA-Iran Talks Collapse, Illusions Remain

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 : As the dust settles over Islamabad, the much-anticipated direct negotiations between the United States and Iran have ended not with a breakthrough, but with a pause—one that exposes the deep structural fault lines of this conflict. After an intense 21-hour uninterrupted diplomatic marathon, the talks concluded without agreement, confirming that despite urgency, pressure, and global attention, the gap between the two adversaries remains wide and unresolved.
The United States delegation, led by JD Vance, acknowledged the deadlock with unusual clarity. Despite what he described as “intensive” and “substantive” discussions, Iran “chose not to accept” American terms. This was not a procedural delay or technical pause—it was a strategic failure to reconcile competing visions of the post-war order. The talks did not collapse abruptly; they exhausted themselves, which in many ways is even more revealing.
What makes this outcome more striking is the contradiction at the highest level of American leadership. Even as negotiations were ongoing—and indeed as they stretched deep into the night—Donald Trump maintained that the United States had already won the war. His assertion that “we win regardless” now stands in sharp contrast to the reality of failed negotiations. If victory had truly been secured, diplomacy would have been a formality. Instead, it has become a necessity—one that has, so far, failed to deliver results.
At the center of this deadlock lies the Strait of Hormuz, the most critical strategic chokepoint in the world. Control over this narrow waterway—once responsible for nearly 20% of global energy flows—remains the primary point of contention. The United States insists on restoring full navigational freedom and removing Iranian leverage, while Iran views control over the strait as its most powerful bargaining chip.
This tension was dramatically illustrated during the talks themselves. Washington announced that two U.S. Navy destroyers had entered the strait to begin mine-clearing operations, signaling an attempt to project authority and normalize passage. Iran, however, rejected this narrative, asserting that any movement in the waterway falls under its control and that its forces had challenged the U.S. presence. Regardless of which version is accepted, the strategic conclusion is unavoidable: the United States cannot exercise uncontested control over the Strait of Hormuz. This reality not only weakened Washington’s negotiating position but also injected additional mistrust into an already fragile diplomatic process.
Another major factor shaping the outcome of the talks was the rigidity of core demands on both sides. The United States insisted on a binding commitment that Iran would not develop nuclear weapons—a position that remains non-negotiable in Washington. Iran, on the other hand, presented equally firm red lines: a ceasefire in Lebanon, reparations for war damage, lifting of sanctions, release of frozen assets, and recognition of its sovereign rights under international frameworks. These positions were not merely negotiating stances; they were strategic doctrines, leaving little room for compromise within a single round of talks.
Compounding this complexity is the evolving regional dynamic—particularly the role of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Early in the conflict, the United States explored leveraging Kurdish groups operating in and around Iran as proxy forces. This approach, however, was swiftly blocked by Turkey. Viewing Kurdish factions as extensions of the PKK insurgency, Ankara issued strong warnings that any U.S. support for such groups would directly threaten Turkish national security.
President Erdoğan leveraged Turkey’s NATO position and his direct engagement with President Trump to force a policy reversal. The United States ultimately stepped back from arming Iranian Kurdish groups and offered assurances to Turkey. This episode is crucial—it demonstrates that even in wartime, U.S. strategic options are constrained by alliance politics, and that regional actors like Turkey can decisively shape the trajectory of conflict.
Equally telling was the hesitation among Kurdish groups themselves, many of whom feared becoming disposable instruments in a larger geopolitical struggle. Their reluctance further undermined Washington’s proxy strategy, leaving it with fewer tools to exert pressure on Iran.
Meanwhile, the economic narrative surrounding the war has taken an unusually blunt turn. President Trump has openly framed the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz as beneficial to the United States, arguing that it forces global markets to turn toward American oil and gas. In this interpretation, the war becomes a commercial advantage, a mechanism for redirecting global energy dependence.
This perspective has sparked widespread criticism. It suggests that geopolitical conflict is being evaluated not in terms of stability or human cost, but through the lens of economic gain. Thousands have been killed, infrastructure has been devastated, and entire populations have been displaced. To frame such destruction as economically advantageous raises profound moral and strategic questions about the nature of modern warfare.
At the same time, Israel’s continued military operations in Lebanon against Hezbollah played a significant role in the failure of the talks. Iran insisted that any ceasefire must extend to Lebanon, while Israel—under Benjamin Netanyahu—refused to halt its campaign. This divergence created an additional layer of conflict that the Islamabad negotiations could not bridge.
Public sentiment across the region and beyond is also shifting. In Israel, protests are growing against what many see as endless war without clear strategic benefit. In the United States, both traditional and digital media are increasingly questioning the rationale behind continued military engagement and the broader influence shaping American foreign policy decisions.
Despite suffering significant damage, Iran has emerged from the conflict with enhanced strategic leverage. Its control over the Strait of Hormuz remains intact, and its negotiating position has hardened rather than weakened. Moreover, Iran’s exploration of alternative financial systems—bypassing the U.S. dollar and traditional banking channels—poses a longer-term challenge to American economic dominance.
The broader Middle East is also undergoing a quiet transformation. Gulf states are reassessing their reliance on U.S. security guarantees, while regional powers like Turkey are asserting greater independence. These shifts point toward a more multipolar regional order, where American influence, while still significant, is no longer uncontested.
Amid this complexity, Pakistan’s role as mediator stands out as a rare diplomatic success. By bringing the United States and Iran to the same table, Islamabad demonstrated its capacity to act as a bridge between adversaries. The involvement of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and military leadership underscores Pakistan’s growing importance in global diplomacy.
The uninterrupted 21-hour negotiation itself remains a critical takeaway. It reflects a shared recognition of the stakes and a willingness to engage deeply. However, the failure to reach agreement highlights the depth of mistrust and the rigidity of strategic positions on both sides. The talks did not fail due to lack of effort—they failed because the foundations for compromise are not yet in place.
What happens next remains uncertain. There are indications that talks may resume, suggesting that diplomacy is not entirely dead. But the pause in negotiations also signals that any future progress will require significant shifts in position—something neither side appears ready to undertake immediately.
In this context, President Trump’s declaration of victory appears less like a reflection of reality and more like a political narrative aimed at shaping perception. It may also signal an underlying recognition that the limits of military power have been reached.
In the final analysis, the events in Islamabad reveal a sobering truth. This is not a conflict that can be resolved through force alone. It is a war defined by interdependence—of energy, alliances, economics, and diplomacy. The collapse of talks does not mark the end of the process, but it does expose the illusion at its core.
Victory has been declared—but no outcome has been secured.

Pakistan News

Israel’s Bases in Iran and Iraq and Threat to Pakistan

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 : The June war between Israel and Iran revealed a frightening new reality of modern warfare: nations are no longer defeated only by armies crossing borders or fighter jets bombing cities. Increasingly, wars are prepared from within. The real battlefield now lies inside societies, intelligence networks, covert safe houses, cyber systems, recruited insiders, and hidden operational bases quietly established years before conflict begins.
What shocked military analysts during the June conflict was not merely the intensity of Israeli airpower, but the astonishing precision with which Iran’s top military commanders, nuclear scientists, IRGC leadership, missile batteries, and strategic facilities were targeted. According to multiple international investigations published by The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Times of Israel, many of these attacks were enabled through covert Israeli operational networks functioning deep inside Iran itself.
Reports suggest that Mossad had spent years cultivating Iranian dissidents, smugglers, contractors, and covert assets near strategic locations such as Tehran, Natanz, Isfahan, and other sensitive military and nuclear sites. Through these embedded networks, Israeli intelligence reportedly obtained precise coordinates, movement patterns, communication details, and even internal meeting schedules of senior Iranian officials.
The result was devastating. Nuclear scientists were assassinated with pinpoint precision. Missile launchers were neutralized before activation. Air-defense systems were disabled from within. Underground command centers were reportedly identified and struck with astonishing accuracy. Even senior Iranian military gatherings were allegedly tracked through cyber deception operations and internal informants.
Iran later admitted the scale of internal infiltration by launching mass arrests across the country. Thousands were detained on accusations of espionage, treason, and collaboration with foreign intelligence services. Iranian authorities claimed that many individuals had shared coordinates of military sites and strategic locations with Israeli operatives. Tehran’s response reflected a painful realization: much of the war had already been prepared inside Iran long before the first missile was fired. But the most alarming development emerged later.
International media reports revealed that Israel had allegedly established covert operational bases inside Iraq as well. According to these reports, hidden facilities in Iraq’s western desert were used for reconnaissance, logistics, emergency pilot support, intelligence gathering, and preparation for attacks deep inside Iran. Some reports suggested these installations dated back to 2024 and were operational during both the 2025 and 2026 conflicts.
The implications are enormous. If covert Israeli infrastructure could function inside countries openly hostile to Israel, then no regional state can assume immunity from similar penetration.
This is where the danger becomes particularly serious for Pakistan.
Pakistan today faces a highly sensitive strategic environment. The growing convergence between India, Israeli strategic interests, and evolving Taliban-controlled dynamics inside Afghanistan creates a deeply concerning security equation for Islamabad. Afghanistan’s geography alone makes it an ideal staging ground for intelligence operations targeting both Pakistan and Iran. Its porous borders, fragmented governance structures, smuggling networks, militant corridors, refugee movements, and weak centralized intelligence oversight create an operational environment where covert infrastructure can potentially be established with relative ease.
Israel’s operational doctrine, as demonstrated in Iran and Iraq, appears increasingly dependent on first creating hidden operational ecosystems inside or near adversarial states before open conflict begins. Such ecosystems may start as small reconnaissance cells, logistics hubs, communications nodes, safe houses, drone launch sites, cyber relay stations, or intelligence listening posts. Over time, they mature into fully operational covert bases capable of supporting sabotage, surveillance, targeted assassinations, and precision military operations.
This is precisely why Pakistan must now view Afghanistan not merely through the lens of terrorism or border security, but through the broader framework of strategic intelligence warfare.
The danger is compounded by the existing instability in regions like Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Long-running insurgencies, political polarization, smuggling routes, militant financing channels, ethnic grievances, and cross-border trafficking networks create fertile ground for foreign intelligence agencies seeking recruitment opportunities or covert operational access. Such environments are vulnerable to exploitation by any sophisticated intelligence service capable of leveraging local actors, financial desperation, ideological divisions, or anti-state sentiments.
If covert Israeli networks could allegedly penetrate the heavily monitored security structure of Iran, then Pakistan cannot afford complacency.
The warning is clear and urgent: Pakistan and Iran must immediately strengthen their counterintelligence cooperation regarding Afghanistan. Both countries need to activate deep intelligence monitoring systems capable of detecting even rudimentary efforts to establish covert operational infrastructure near their borders. Intelligence operations can no longer remain reactive. They must become aggressively preemptive.This requires several immediate strategic measures.
First, Pakistan and Iran must significantly expand intelligence penetration inside Afghanistan itself. Monitoring militant networks alone is no longer sufficient. Greater focus must now be placed on suspicious logistics activities, foreign funding channels, unexplained infrastructure projects, covert aviation activity, encrypted communications networks, and unusual movements near sensitive border regions.
Second, Pakistan’s intelligence agencies must intensify scrutiny over recruitment pipelines operating through financial networks, NGOs, smuggling channels, technology firms, cross-border trade routes, and ideological organizations. Modern intelligence warfare rarely begins with soldiers; it begins with local facilitators.
Third, sensitive military, nuclear, communication, and leadership infrastructure inside Pakistan must undergo a complete security reassessment. The Iranian experience demonstrated that covert targeting becomes possible only after years of surveillance, infiltration, and mapping. Preventing such penetration requires constant internal vetting, cyber monitoring, communication discipline, and aggressive counterespionage measures.
Fourth, strategic coordination between Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and other regional states must expand beyond diplomacy into active intelligence-sharing frameworks focused specifically on covert foreign operational networks.
The reality of modern warfare is brutal. By the time airstrikes begin, the enemy may already have spent years building the battlefield from inside your territory.
This is why the June war should not merely be studied as a military confrontation between Israel and Iran. It should be understood as a case study in how intelligence penetration, covert bases, recruited insiders, cyber deception, and hidden logistics networks can cripple even powerful states from within.
For Pakistan, the lesson is existential. The greatest threat may not come from visible armies massing at the border, but from invisible networks silently embedding themselves within vulnerable spaces long before conflict erupts. Afghanistan’s instability, combined with emerging India-Israel strategic alignment, creates precisely the type of environment where such covert infrastructure could potentially take root.
Time, therefore, is not on the side of complacency. Pakistan, Iran, and other regional powers must act now — before covert operational ecosystems mature into irreversible strategic threats. Once such networks become deeply entrenched, the cost of dismantling them becomes extraordinarily high, and the damage they can inflict may already be beyond repair.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Berlin event highlights Pakistan’s strategic restraint and national unity

Published

on

By

BERLIN, Germany — The Embassy of Pakistan in Berlin marked the first anniversary of Maarka‑e‑Haq (The Battle of Truth) with a solemn ceremony that highlighted Pakistan’s national unity, strategic restraint, and commitment to regional peace.

Addressing the gathering, Pakistan’s Ambassador to Germany, H.E. Saqlain Syeda , described Pakistan’s conduct during Operation Bunyan‑un‑Marsoos as an example of responsible and principled statecraft. She noted that Pakistan’s response to Indian aggression was “measured, lawful, and firmly rooted in international norms,” adding that the country’s political and military leadership demonstrated exceptional coordination at a critical moment.

Ambassador Ms.Syeda praised the “unshakeable resolve” of Pakistan’s Armed Forces, commending their readiness to safeguard the nation’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. She also underscored the importance of public support, which she said played a vital role in strengthening the country’s unified stance during the crisis.

Prominent German‑Pakistani businessman Manzoor Awan emphasized the urgent need for unity and national cohesion in Pakistan, stating that collective strength remains the country’s greatest asset in times of challenge.

Speaking at the event, Awan noted that Pakistanis have historically stood together as a united nation. He stressed that strong coordination between the public and the government is essential for confronting external threats, adding that “with unity, not only India but any major adversary can be faced with confidence.”

Awan reaffirmed the unwavering support of the Pakistani people for the Pakistan Army, saying that whenever the nation encounters danger, the public and the armed forces respond together with courage and determination.

Members of the Pakistani diaspora in Germany also spoke at the event, expressing solidarity and national pride. They voiced appreciation for Pakistan’s civil and military leadership and emphasized that diplomacy, unity, and strategic patience remain essential for maintaining regional stability.

Participants reaffirmed their confidence in Pakistan’s leadership and reiterated their commitment to contributing to the country’s progress, prosperity, and global standing.

The ceremony concluded with the screening of a documentary on Operation Bunyan‑un‑Marsoos, offering attendees a detailed account of the events and the national response it inspired.

Continue Reading

Pakistan News

Delegation of students from the Comité Interuniversitaire des Nations Unies de Paris (CINUP) visited the Embassy of Pakistan in Paris

Published

on

By

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY):- A delegation of students from the Comité Interuniversitaire des Nations Unies de Paris (CINUP) visited the Embassy for interactive session with Ambassador Mumtaz Zahra Baloch.

During the session, the students were given a detailed presentation on Pakistan’s role in multilateral diplomacy, with a particular focus on its engagement with international organizations based in Paris. The presentation was followed by an insightful question-and-answer session.

Ambassador Mumtaz Zahra Baloch underscored Pakistan’s commitment to multilateralism, international law, and peaceful settlement of disputes. She also briefed them on the constructive role played by Pakistan in advancing the mandate of and championing the priorities of developing countries.

CINUP is a Paris-based student organization that promotes awareness and engagement with the work of the United Nations and multilateral diplomacy.

Continue Reading

Trending