It is not often that Pakistan finds itself at the center of global diplomacy — and even less often in a positive light. Yet over the past weeks, something remarkable has unfolded. As tensions between Iran and the United States escalated into open confrontation, Islamabad emerged not as a bystander, but as a venue, a broker, and arguably, the biggest geopolitical winner regardless of the talks’ final outcome.

Pakistan has brought the US and Iran to the table for the highest level talks since the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran post 1979-Revolution. The US delegation includes US Vice President JD Vance, US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff, and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Iran delegation comprises Speaker of Iranian Parliament Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf as well as Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

I’ll admit: I was genuinely surprised to see Islamabad mentioned across Western media with a tone I can hardly remember encountering before: measured, pragmatic, even hopeful. Pakistan, for once, was not framed through the lens of crisis, extremism, or instability, but as a necessary interlocutor in one of the most dangerous flashpoints in global politics.

That shift alone is significant. But it is not accidental.

A mediator like no other

Pakistan’s advantage lies in what many have historically framed as its contradiction: it is one of the very few countries that maintains deep, historic ties with Iran while simultaneously preserving working, if at times uneasy, relations with the United States.

This duality is not new. It is structural.

Despite decades marked by mistrust — most notably the fallout from the Osama bin Laden episode — Pakistan has never fully fallen out of Washington’s strategic calculus. Nor has it severed its civilizational, geographic, and political ties with Tehran. Where others must choose sides, Pakistan has learned to navigate both.

This is precisely what makes it useful.

And history backs this up. Pakistan has played this role before, quietly but decisively. It served as a bridge in the US–China rapprochement, a move strongly backed by Henry Kissinger, who understood Pakistan’s unique positionality. More recently, Islamabad facilitated pathways that eventually led to US–Taliban negotiations in Doha.

Pakistan does not just appear in diplomatic crises, it reappears.

Islamabad: from crisis to opportunity

The current moment, however, did not emerge in a vacuum. Pakistan’s renewed diplomatic relevance is, in part, the byproduct of a regional escalation that began elsewhere.

The chain of events can be traced back to India’s populist military signaling —Operation Sindoor in May 2025 — which sought domestic political capital through cross-border escalation. Pakistan’s response, Operation Bunyanum Marsoos, was calibrated yet assertive, reestablishing deterrence while avoiding uncontrolled escalation.

The turning point came not in the battlefield, but in diplomacy.

Pakistan’s decision to accept mediation — particularly under Donald Trump’s involvement — and then strategically amplify that mediation through public praise marked a shift in tone. Islamabad leaned into a pragmatic reality: in global politics, ego management is often as important as strategic positioning.

Yes, Pakistan flattered. But it also delivered.

Beyond flattery: rebuilding trust through substance

Reducing Pakistan’s recent success to mere diplomatic flattery would be a mistake. What Islamabad has done carefully is pair symbolic gestures with tangible incentives.

From deals around rare earth to crypto frameworks and broader economic engagements, Pakistan has signaled that it is not just asking for renewed trust, it is offering value.

This matters. The United States, recalibrating its global alliances in an increasingly fragmented world, is not necessarily looking for loyalty but for utility.

Pakistan, once again, is proving useful.

A region in flames and a state that connects it

With the Gulf region destabilized by escalating US–Israeli strikes on Iran and Tehran’s retaliatory posture, the strategic map is shifting rapidly. Traditional alliances are under strain. Communication channels are breaking down.

And in that vacuum, Pakistan’s relevance increases.

Geographically, politically, and militarily, Pakistan sits at a crossroads few can replicate. It borders Iran, maintains deep ties with Gulf states, and remains within the operational horizon of Western strategic interests.

In moments like these, countries are not judged by their internal fragilities but by their external utility.

Pakistan, for now, is indispensable.

Not everyone is comfortable with that

This newfound relevance does not come without friction. Some Gulf states, long accustomed to viewing Pakistan through a lens of labour export or security dependence, may be less enthusiastic about a Pakistan that is stable, assertive, and diplomatically central.

Geography, after all, breeds competition.

But even for those reluctant actors, the broader reality is unavoidable: a destabilized Pakistan marred with economic, political, and environmental turmoil serves no one. Recent events have made one thing clear: Pakistan’s stability is not a regional luxury. It is a global necessity.

Winning Before the Outcome

Whether the Iran–US talks in Islamabad culminate in a historic “Islamabad Accord” or collapse under the weight of irreconcilable differences is, in some ways, secondary.

Because Pakistan has already won.

It has repositioned itself from a country often spoken about to a country spoken with. From a problem to be managed to a partner to be engaged. From the periphery of global discourse to its diplomatic center.

That is no small shift.

The real question now is whether Pakistan can build on this moment. Diplomatic relevance is fleeting unless institutionalized. Symbolic victories must translate into long-term gains — much need given Pakistan’s economic, environmental, and political challenges.

But for now, at least, Pakistan has done something rare.

It has turned crisis into capital.

And in the unforgiving arena of global politics, that is the clearest victory of all.

As tensions in the Middle East escalate amid the widening confrontation between Israel/the United States (US) and Iran, Pakistan finds itself in a familiar but increasingly precarious position: balancing relationships across rival geopolitical camps while hoping the fire next door does not spread across its own borders.

Islamabad’s foreign policy has long relied on siding with Saudi Arabia while also balancing relations with Iran. But the current regional climate is testing that balancing act more than usual.

Pakistan maintains deep military and economic ties with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries, an uneasy but necessary relationship with Iran along its western border, and a complicated strategic partnership with Washington. Each of these relationships now pulls Islamabad in different directions as the Middle East edges closer to open confrontation.

For Pakistan, the challenge is not simply diplomatic. It is structural.

Mutual-defence pact with Saudi Arabia

Pakistan’s relationship with Saudi Arabia goes far beyond diplomatic courtesies. The two states maintain extensive military cooperation, and Islamabad has historically stationed troops and advisers in the Kingdom.

More importantly, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have as of September 2025 a so called Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement (SMDA) reportedly resembling NATO’s Article 5 logic: an attack on either country would be considered an attack on the both.

The commitment to Saudi Arabia’s security has long served as a pillar of Pakistan’s strategic partnership with the Gulf.

But it also creates a difficult scenario if tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia escalate into direct conflict. In such a situation, Islamabad could face enormous pressure to stand firmly — also militarily — on Riyadh’s side.

That would place Pakistan in direct confrontation with a neighbor it cannot afford to antagonize.

Tehran: the neighbor that cannot be ignored

Pakistan shares a long and often uneasy border with Iran, stretching across the restive province of Balochistan. The relationship has been marked by periodic tensions, cross-border militant activity, and mutual suspicion.

Yet despite these frictions, Pakistan has consistently avoided aligning openly against Tehran. There is a simple strategic reason for this: Pakistan has no interest in destabilizing Iran.

Islamabad’s security planners would share the geopolitical interest of China and Russia: the worst-case scenario would be a collapse of the current Iranian political order followed by the emergence of a pro-Western or pro-Israel government on Pakistan’s western flank.

Such a shift would fundamentally alter the region’s geopolitical balance and introduce a potentially hostile alignment along Pakistan’s border.

In that sense, Pakistan’s strategic preference is clear — stability in Iran, even if relations remain uneasy.

A western front already active

Complicating this regional calculus is the fact that Pakistan is already managing a volatile western security environment.

The military is currently engaged in operations along the Afghan border under Operation Ghazab lil Haq (“Righteous Fury”), targeting militant networks that Islamabad says operate from Afghan territory.

Relations with the Taliban government in Kabul have grown increasingly strained, with Pakistan accusing Afghan authorities of supporting the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).

This has effectively created an active security front along Pakistan’s western border — one that already consumes military resources and strategic attention.

Any escalation involving Iran would therefore introduce a second layer of instability along that same frontier.

Economic fragility

Pakistan’s geopolitical balancing act is further constrained by economic realities.

The country remains heavily dependent on imported energy, making it particularly vulnerable to disruptions in Middle Eastern oil markets. A major regional war could send petroleum prices soaring — a scenario that Pakistan’s fragile economy is ill-equipped to absorb.

The Gulf also remains a critical economic lifeline. Millions of Pakistani workers are employed across Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Gulf states, sending significant amount of foreign exchange in remittances back home each year.

A wider regional conflict would not only threaten energy supplies but also the economic stability of Pakistan’s diaspora workforce.

In short, Pakistan has significant exposure to Middle Eastern instability with very little strategic leverage over its course.

The ever-present India factor

All of this unfolds against the backdrop of Pakistan’s enduring rivalry with India. It was only less than a year ago that the military conflict — Operation Sindoor and Operation Bunyan-um-Marsoos — between the nuclear powers put the world on edge.

While the Line of Control (LoC) in Kashmir remains relatively calm, the broader relationship between Islamabad and New Delhi continues to be defined by diplomatic hostility, periodic military signaling, and an ongoing battle for narrative dominance in international forums.

For Pakistan’s strategic planners, the possibility of managing heightened tensions with India while instability grows along both western borders represents a deeply uncomfortable strategic scenario.

Strategic ambiguity as policy

Pakistan’s likely response to the current regional crisis will follow a familiar pattern: careful neutrality paired with quiet strategic hedging.

Islamabad will continue to reassure Saudi Arabia of its security commitments while avoiding any steps that could provoke direct confrontation with Iran.

At the same time, Pakistan will keep diplomatic channels open with Washington, aware that its economic stability remains tied in part to Western financial institutions.

It is a balancing act Pakistan has performed before — but rarely under such complex regional conditions. And as time goes on and the war widens, Pakistan may just have to pick a side, which for all purposes would be against Iran in order to defend Saudi Arabia.

A nightmare scenario which will have lasting impacts since Pakistan is home to the second largest Shia Muslim population in the world. A large part of the community feels spiritually aligned to the Iranian supreme leader.

For now, Pakistan is still walking the rope.

The question is how much longer the rope will hold.

Glowing faces. Charming youth. Fearless stage presence. Postures full of hope.

That is the vibe one gets while watching the rebooted Pakistan Idol, whose second season has returned after an 11-year hiatus. But what’s striking is not just what’s happening on stage — it’s what’s happening off it.

On social media — Instagram, YouTube, TikTok — a rare phenomenon is unfolding. Young and old. Resident and overseas Pakistanis. Across ethnicities and religious backgrounds. People are simply… rooting for talent. Praising their favourite contestants. Agreeing. Celebrating. No cyber-bullying marathons. No sectarian flame wars. No political trench warfare.

Just music.

For a country whose online spaces are often defined by polarisation, this level of collective positivity feels almost unfamiliar.

A late but timely arrival

Pakistan may be nearly two decades late to fully embracing the global song contest formats wave, but perhaps the timing is finally right.

The reality singing format represents something quite powerful in a capitalist-democratic imagination: the idea that anyone — regardless of background — can rise through talent alone. Register. Audition. Perform. Make it.

Countries across the world, including non-Western and Muslim-majority ones, have long adapted the format successfully. Afghanistan’s Afghan Star, for example, became a cultural lightning rod — though not an Idol franchise but inspired by it. India industrialised the Idol format into a commercial juggernaut.

Pakistan, however, struggled to find its footing.

There have been many singing competitions in Pakistan. Several of today’s prominent artists emerged from them. But none achieved the sustained commercial and cultural dominance seen elsewhere, not even the first season of Pakistan Idol (2013–14), which struggled to establish a distinctive identity and was often mocked for relying heavily on Bollywood songs and looking like a ‘cheap copy’ of the Indian edition Indian Idol.

This time, something feels different.

What Changed?

1. The stage: production value with confidence

The lavish lighting, grand stage design, and polished visual aesthetics are finally on par with international standards. The show doesn’t look like it’s trying to imitate someone else. It looks self-assured. It looks expensive — in a good way.

Viewers are genuinely in awe that such production quality is emerging from Pakistan.

2. The judges: a strategic cultural mix

The panel is a masterstroke of diversity and star power:

• Fawad Khan — heartthrob with massive cross-border appeal

• Zeb Bangash — Chal Diye-famed indie icon and cultural tastemaker

• Rahat Fateh Ali Khan — qawwali maestro with classical gravitas

• Bilal Maqsood — pop-rock pioneer from Strings

It’s a blend of classical mastery, pop credibility, indie sophistication, and mainstream charisma. The Idol format thrives on judge chemistry and this panel offers both authority and warmth. Fawad Khan alone brings a gravitational star presence that extends beyond music.

3. Reclaiming Pakistani music

Perhaps the most important shift: the show now centres Pakistani songs.

The first season allowed contestants to lean heavily on Bollywood tracks, which blurred the franchise’s identity and invited comparisons to Indian Idol. This time, the house band revives iconic Pakistani cult hits… classics that shaped generations.

The result? A rediscovery of local musical heritage.

Audiences aren’t just consuming nostalgia, they’re reconnecting with it. Younger Gen-Z viewers are discovering songs they may never have heard before, presented in arrangements modern enough to feel fresh but respectful enough to retain authenticity.

In this sense, Pakistan Idol seems to have taken cues from Coke Studio — reviving cultural classics while packaging them for contemporary audiences.

Multi-platform strategy: meeting the audience where they are

Unlike its previous run, this season understands digital reality.

The show is broadcast across multiple national television networks including Geo TV, PTV Home, A-Plus TV, Green Entertainment, and Express Entertainment while simultaneously streaming online via the Begin app. Snippets are uploaded to YouTube, giving each performance a second life — and sometimes a larger audience than television itself.

In a fragmented media environment, this multiplatform approach has been critical to its revival.

A nation starved for cultural release

Pakistan has long faced a shortage of recreational spaces for young people. Dance clubs are rare. Bars are non-existent. Public cultural life is heavily policed — socially and politically.

Add to this decades of identity confusion:

Who are we?
Arabs? Turks? Anything but Indians?

State-sponsored Islamisation, waves of religious extremism, and the policing of music as “haram” have left deep marks on cultural confidence.

Against this backdrop, Pakistan Idol feels like oxygen.

It celebrates music unapologetically. It platforms songwriters, composers, musicians — icons who shaped Pakistani cultural memory. It reminds viewers that Pakistani identity is not imported; it is layered, rich, and musically sophisticated.

The show doesn’t just entertain. It reclaims.

Soft power and cross-border appeal

Scroll through the YouTube comments and you’ll notice something else.

It’s not only Pakistanis watching.

Viewers from Turkey, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Central Asia, the Gulf, and even India are commenting in admiration. They praise the language, the melodies, the truck art aesthetics in the background, the warmth of the judges.

In a region often defined by political tension, music once again functions as soft power.

Pakistan looks confident. Creative. Cultured.

That matters.

From imitation to institution

The first season was mocked for resembling a cheaper copy of Indian Idol. This season is being praised for standing on its own cultural footing.

It now feels less like a franchise experiment and more like a national institution — approaching the cultural weight of Coke Studio.

And its success has already shifted the industry. Rival formats are re-emerging. The Voice Pakistan has reportedly been announced for a 2026 launch by the British franchise owner ITV, suggesting that the revival of Idol may have reignited Pakistan’s competitive music television space.

Competition, in this case, is good news.

More of this, please

For once, Pakistan’s internet is celebrating instead of fighting.
For once, the comment section feels like a choir instead of a battlefield.
For once, talent is the headline.

If this is what cultural confidence looks like, then yes…

Can we please have more of Pakistan Idol?

So yes, the idea of Basant returning in 2026 — now actively pushed by the Punjab government — feels like a cultural homecoming. But if we’re being honest, it also reopens an old and uncomfortable question: how much human cost are we willing to accept in the name of culture and freedom?

Because Basant must not become a US-style Second Amendment issue — where a freedom is treated as so sacred and ideological that, as its defenders argue, it remains worth the recurring, preventable loss of life.

Some would argue this constant ping-pong between freedom and security is a uniquely American dilemma. And in Pakistan, Basant’s supporters often advance a similar line of reasoning: banning the festival was never the answer, no matter how high the human cost. That, precisely, is where the argument collapses.

If a government is unable to regulate, enforce, and curb violations that turn a cultural festival into a public safety nightmare, then it does not get to hide behind culture while bodies pile up. The freedom to celebrate does not sit above the right to stay alive.

And I say this as someone who grew up in Lahore — who lived through the excitement, the escape, the rooftop gatherings, the thrill, the chaos, the bass-heavy music shaking entire neighbourhoods, and of course the competitive madness of kite-flying itself.

I also remember the disappointment and heartbreak when Basant was banned. But it didn’t come out of nowhere, and it wasn’t some random cultural purge.

By the early 2000s, Basant had become increasingly lethal. Metallic and chemical kite strings (dor), reckless rooftop behaviour, gunfire disguised as “celebration,” overcrowded terraces, electrocutions, traffic accidents, and throat-slashing strings turned the festival into a yearly death toll. Hospitals braced for it. Families feared it.

The ban — imposed under the Pervez Musharraf-aligned PML-Q government — was blunt, unpopular, and politically costly. But the justification was simple: the state admitted it could not regulate or enforce the rule of law well enough to keep people safe. That admission mattered.

There were attempts to salvage the spirit of Basant without kite-flying. They failed. There were teases, rumours, half-announcements. Brief revivals in 2006 and 2007. Each time, the same problems resurfaced — and the ban returned.

Over time, the conversation mutated. Alongside legitimate cultural grievances, religious conspiracy theories began to circulate more aggressively: Basant framed as a “Hindu ritual,” a foreign or un-Islamic imposition, a moral threat disguised as festivity. These narratives were never historically grounded — Basant in Punjab long predates modern religious boundaries — but they proved politically useful. Culture wars are easier than governance.

Now, nearly 20 years later, the Punjab chief minister Maryam Nawaz Sharif is once again promising Basant’s return. The pitch is familiar: this time it will be regulated, controlled, safer. Sharif has hit the right chords. She is, it seems, on the right track, as her team has devised and deployed a safety policy in record time. The dangerous glass-coated and metal strings that caused most of the fatal accidents back then are banned. Standard kite sizes are now in force. Vendors are required to register themselves and are bound by a QR-code mechanism, through which they can be traced and held accountable. All good things… on paper, at least.

The danger isn’t Basant itself. The danger is turning Basant into an untouchable symbol, immune from criticism, evidence, or accountability — a cultural right that cannot be questioned even when it kills.

If Basant 2026 is to return, it cannot run on nostalgia alone. It requires enforcement that actually exists, not press conferences. It requires consequences that are applied, not selectively ignored. And it requires the humility to shut it down again if the state fails — without dressing that failure up as an attack on culture.

Culture is meant to bring life, not demand sacrifice.

If Pakistan wants Basant back, it must prove — not promise — that this time, celebration won’t come with funerals.

Pakistan partially reopened the Torkham border crossing on Saturday to allow thousands of stranded Afghan refugees to return home, although restrictions on trade movement remain, according to the Associated Press. This move follows an agreement to maintain a temporary ceasefire between the two countries after their deadliest border clashes since 2021. The truce, which was brokered by Turkey and Qatar, was extended following talks in Istanbul, with a follow-up negotiation round scheduled for November 6 to finalize mechanisms for maintaining peace. Despite the diplomatic effort, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry stressed that the ceasefire is contingent upon Kabul’s assurances to act decisively against militants, particularly the outlawed Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), operating from Afghan soil. Meanwhile, Pakistan’s security crackdown on Afghan refugees has continued, with nearly 40,000 Afghan nationals having left Balochistan’s capital, Quetta, alone since the expulsion campaign began in late 2023.

The ongoing tension between Pakistan and Afghanistan is primarily a security crisis rooted in the resurgence of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a militant group ideologically aligned with the ruling Afghan Taliban but focused on attacking the Pakistani state. Since the Afghan Taliban seized power in Kabul in August 2021, the TTP has been emboldened, allegedly using Afghan soil as a secure base to launch a dramatic increase in deadly cross-border attacks into Pakistan. This security threat culminated in the most serious military clashes since 2021, involving Pakistani airstrikes and Afghan retaliation in October 2025, which led Pakistan to close the vital Torkham border crossing. The closure, which halted all trade and travel, left thousands of Afghan refugees stranded as they were already attempting to leave Pakistan due to Islamabad’s major campaign to repatriate all ‘undocumented foreigners’. The current partial reopening of the border is a result of recent ceasefire talks mediated by Qatar and Turkey, but its permanence is fragile and dependent on, as insisted by Pakistan, Kabul finally agreeing to Pakistan’s demands for decisive action against the TTP. The Taliban regime on the other hand has maintained TTP to be Pakistan’s ‘internal problem’.

On one side, pro-normalization voices — often from exiled/expat pro-Israel Pakistani neoliberals — latched on to Asif’s remarks as a signal of an imminent realignment. Opinion columns and social media posts erupted with interpretations that Pakistan was inching closer to joining the Abraham Accords club. The subtext in many of these arguments was clear: Pakistan must shed its ideological baggage, recognize the geopolitical realities of the Middle East, and pursue its national interest by establishing ties with Israel — much like the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco.

On the other end of the spectrum, the conspiracy brigade struck with even more vigour. Prominent among them was seasoned television journalist Hamid Mir, who has in recent years leaned into sensationalism with increasing conspiracy theories. Mir has for example warned that Israel might attack Pakistan, even suggesting in his YouTube monologue published from Geo News’ official YouTube channel that Israeli intelligence agency Mossad may have been planning to assassinate Pakistan president Asif Ali Zardari. Not to mention that claims that went viral during the Iran-Israel 12-day direct conflict last month. Ranging from how Pakistan was gonna aide Iran by striking Israel to how Pakistan was gonna be Israel’s next target after it was done with Iran, these claims, devoid of any credible sourcing, went viral. Cherry on the top: how Israel was eyeing Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

This cyclical pattern — one side reading normalization into diplomatic vagueness, and the other fanning paranoia — is not just unproductive; it’s dangerous.

Let’s be clear: Pakistan has not made any formal move toward recognizing Israel. The state’s position, as reiterated multiple times by the Foreign Office, remains tied to the resolution of the Palestinian issue in accordance with UN resolutions and the Arab Peace Initiative. More specifically, a two-state solution along the the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital. While Pakistan does not formally recognize Israel, it recognizes Palestine and hosts a Palestinian mission in Islamabad and lends a very vocal diplomatic support on international forums. It merits mentioning here that there have been reports of backchannel contacts and diplomatic interactions between Israel and Pakistan. There even has been a Pakistani delegation of “journalists” and “influencers” visiting Israel in March this year and also in 2023. Since the “journalists” are pro-military establishment in Pakistan — touted by many even as military assets — it doesn’t need a genius to figure out that they had Pakistani military apparatus’ blessings. Otherwise good luck returning to Pakistan and live a normal life after traveling to Israel on a passport that literally forbids its citizens from traveling to Israel through “This passport is valid for all countries of the world except Israel” inscription.

The cozying up and testing the waters aside, Pakistan’s official foreign policy in this regard remains unchanged. It didn’t help that a barrage of Israeli-made drones formed Indian arsenal used against Pakistan in May flare up of military escalation between India and Pakistan — fostering the belief of India and Israel being Pakistan’s eternal foes.

What is particularly troubling in the current discourse is the inability of both ends of the spectrum — pro-Israel relations and contra — to resist manipulating public opinion. For the neoliberals, every ambiguous remark is an opportunity to project a premature ideological victory. For conspiracy theorists, every headline becomes a battle cry to stir nationalist fervor, resentments, and anti-Semitic tropes.

The Abraham Accords changed the dynamics of the Middle East, no doubt. But they also revealed that normalization is a complex, deeply sovereign decision. Bilateral relations, national interests, regional dynamics — given that many Arab states see Iran as a threat too — and pressure from the US have played a role for some Arab states to normalize relations with Israel. For Pakistan, it’s not quite the same since the only nuclear power has enjoyed relatively cordial relations with Iran. This was at display even during Iran-Israel war last month where Pakistan stood up for Iran at all major international forums. This despite the fact that Iran-Pakistan relations are not immune from tensions either. It was only in January 2024 when both countries exchanged tit-for-tat airstrikes.

The real debate that Pakistan should be having is not about whether a minister said something cryptic on TV, but about what a mature, sovereign foreign policy should look like in an increasingly multipolar world. That requires moving beyond knee-jerk reactions, rejecting fake news, and asking harder questions: What does Pakistan gain or lose from normalization? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that with one master stroke of normalizing relations with Israel, Pakistan can deliver a blow to archrical India’s far-right government that has military/security and intelligence cooperation with Israel. But, can Pakistan reconcile its moral stance on Palestine with pragmatic diplomacy? Can Pakistan give up on its long standing two-state policy and establish relations with Israel without a Palestinian state on the horizon — a dilemma similar to that of Saudi Arabia. What about Pakistan’s moral high ground and claim on Kashmir, then?

It remains to be seen — albeit amid the fog of angst, fake news/disinformation, and conspiracy theoties.

The author, a former journalist and editor, is now a Germany-based social worker and commentator on human rights, geopolitics, and Pakistan, and currently serves as editor of Indus.News.

During a press briefing, the Israeli official categorically denied any such intentions, emphasizing that the country's defense policy does not include preemptive operations targeting Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. The spokesperson noted these sensational reports were based on misinformation and had been “misrepresented by the media.”

Context and Implications

The incident unfolded just days after Pakistan, under Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, conducted its first successful nuclear tests, registering Islamabad as a declared nuclear power. This milestone triggered heightened media attention and geopolitical speculation, especially in the wake of India’s earlier nuclear tests in May.

Amidst heightened tensions, Pakistan's government reaffirmed the defensive purpose of its nuclear arsenal. Pakistani officials cautioned that any attempt to diminish its nuclear capability would meet with serious resistance, while simultaneously calling upon global powers to discourage further nuclear escalation in South Asia.

Media Speculation vs. Official Position

While several Israeli outlets reported on the purported military plans, the foreign ministry’s swift rebuttal aimed to dispel any notions that Israel was seeking to enter the South Asian nuclear equation. Experts suggest that the leaked reports may have been motivated by broader strategic fears surrounding nuclear proliferation, rather than any real military planning.

David Bar-Illan, spokesperson for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, had stated on 2nd June 1998 that Israel was concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons to more extremist Islamic states, such as Iran and Iraq. Here is a video statement from back then:

According to the report, India has increased its nuclear warhead inventory from 172 in 2024 to 180 by early 2025, continuing a steady upward trajectory in its nuclear development. Pakistan, meanwhile, has maintained a stockpile of approximately 170 warheads. However, SIPRI researchers point out that Islamabad is steadily accumulating fissile material and enhancing its delivery systems, which suggests the potential for further growth in the coming years.

Both countries are investing heavily in next-generation delivery platforms. India, in particular, has begun deploying "canisterised" missile systems, which allow warheads to remain mated and ready for launch even in peacetime — significantly reducing launch time. The country has also successfully tested advanced missile platforms such as the Agni-P, with a range of 1,000 to 2,000 kilometers, and the Agni-5 intercontinental ballistic missile, which is now reportedly MIRV-capable (i.e., able to carry multiple warheads). Strengthening its nuclear triad, India has also advanced its naval deterrence capabilities, commissioning its second nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine, INS Arighat, and planning further expansion of its submarine fleet.

Pakistan continues to enhance its own delivery platforms, focusing on short- and medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles. Its steady production of fissile material points to an intent to expand its nuclear stockpile over the coming decade. SIPRI emphasizes that this trend, combined with tactical nuclear capabilities, gives Pakistan the ability to counterbalance India’s growing conventional superiority.

The Yearbook also highlights a brief military skirmish between India and Pakistan in May 2025 as a case study in nuclear risk. According to SIPRI researcher Matt Korda, the clash involved disinformation and speculative strikes near nuclear-related infrastructure. These developments “risked turning a conventional conflict into a nuclear crisis,” he warned, underscoring the dangers of rapid escalation in a region with limited crisis communication mechanisms.

Zooming out to the global picture, SIPRI estimates that there were 12,241 nuclear warheads globally as of January 2025. Of these, around 9,614 are in military stockpiles for potential use, and approximately 3,912 are deployed on missiles or with operational forces. Alarmingly, about 2,100 warheads are on high operational alert — primarily in the United States and Russia.

China is also a growing concern in the nuclear domain. Its arsenal has expanded to an estimated 600 warheads, with SIPRI noting an annual increase of roughly 100 warheads in recent years. In addition, China is constructing approximately 350 new missile silos, a scale of expansion not seen since the Cold War. Meanwhile, the United States and Russia continue to hold over 90 percent of the world's nuclear weapons, with approximately 5,459 and 5,177 warheads, respectively.

All nine nuclear-armed states are currently engaged in efforts to modernize their arsenals. At the same time, global arms control is weakening. Treaties like the New START — set to expire in February 2026 — face an uncertain future, and no new multilateral frameworks have emerged to replace expiring agreements.

SIPRI concludes that nuclear risks in South Asia are growing due to both the scale and nature of modernization, as well as the absence of meaningful bilateral or multilateral dialogue. Globally, tensions are rising as new technologies, more alert postures, and fewer legal restraints drive a shift back toward Cold War–like dynamics. The institute warns that without new treaties, confidence-building measures, or crisis hotlines, the world — especially volatile regions like South Asia — could be headed toward increased instability and miscalculation.

A senior commander from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), General Mohsen Rezaee, claimed that Pakistan would launch a nuclear retaliation against Israel if Israel used nuclear weapons against Iran.

🔎 The Context:

• The statement was made in the context of heightened regional tensions following Israeli airstrikes on Iranian interests.

• The IRGC commander’s quote, widely shared on social media, amplified by some Iranian and Indian outlets in a provocative tone, and even picked up by the British tabloid Daily Mail, implied a nuclear solidarity pact between Pakistan and Iran.

✅ Fact:

Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Pakistan, Ishaq Dar addressed this claim during a Senate session, labeling the video circulating online as “fake, fabricated” and likely AI-generated. He confirmed no such statement was made and emphasized Pakistan’s responsible, defensive nuclear posture.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif also publicly rejected the claim, stating that no such commitment exists between Islamabad and Tehran. Asif emphasized that Pakistan’s nuclear policy remains defensive and based on deterrence, and that its strategic decisions are made independently and in accordance with national interest, not external provocations.

🧾 Historical Context:

• Pakistan and Iran maintain complex, often pragmatic relations but do not have a formal military alliance.

• Pakistan has consistently maintained a policy of minimum credible deterrence and non-proliferation, though not a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty (NPT) and Pakistani scientists like Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan have previously been accused of trying to help Iran in gaining the nuclear technology. The charge sheet of Pakistani scientists meeting Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan was even featured in the Netflix documentary, American Manhunt: Osama bin Laden.

📊 Verdict:

❌ False & Misleading
Pakistan has not pledged to use nuclear weapons in defense of Iran. The claim is unsubstantiated, and officially denied by the Government of Pakistan.

Pro-Iran Pakistani mainstream and social media accounts have circulated an old video clip of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, suggesting that he labeled Pakistan as the next target of Israel. The clip implies a direct threat against Pakistan.

✅ Fact:

Netanyahu has never directly threatened Pakistan. The clip being shared is taken out of context. In the original interview, Netanyahu was referring to the threat of a Taliban takeover in Pakistan, not the country itself.

📺 What Did Netanyahu Actually Say?

In the original video, Netanyahu stated:

“The greatest mission that we have is to prevent a militant Islamic regime from meeting up with nuclear weapons or from nuclear weapons meeting up with a militant Islamic regime. The first is called Iran, the second is called Pakistan – or more specifically, a Taliban takeover of Pakistan. Because if these radical regimes have nuclear weapons, they will not obey the rules that have been obeyed in the last almost seven decades. And they can threaten our world. So the first thing is to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. That’s mission number one and mission number two is to find a substitute for oil. That would make our planet safe, that would make our planet clean. These are the two great missions for our generation and the next one.”

The key clarification – "a Taliban takeover of Pakistan" – is cut from the clips circulating online, which falsely gives the impression that Netanyahu views the Pakistani state itself as a threat.

📌 Context Matters

• Netanyahu's statement was a general warning about nuclear proliferation and extremist regimes.

• His reference to Pakistan was conditioned on the scenario of a Taliban-style regime gaining control — not a direct accusation or threat toward Pakistan.

• The video is being misrepresented in some Pakistani media circles to stoke public outrage and anti-Israel sentiment, especially in the wake of increased regional tensions.

📉 Conclusion:

The claim that Netanyahu threatened Pakistan directly is false and based on a misleadingly edited clip. His remarks focused on preventing extremist groups like the Taliban from gaining access to nuclear weapons, not on targeting Pakistan as a state.

In the world of transactional diplomacy and theatrical politics, few leaders appreciate public praise as much as United States (U.S.) president Donald J. Trump who has once again discovered something he deeply values — validation and massaging of his ego. And he’s been getting plenty of it from an unexpected place: Pakistan.

Ever since Pakistan officially acknowledged Trump’s behind-the-scenes role in helping deescalate recent tensions between Pakistan and India, the U.S. President has had nothing but glowing remarks for the South Asian country. Trump, who thrives on being perceived as a dealmaker, appears to have welcomed Pakistan’s recognition of his efforts as a “peacemaker” — a role he desperately wants added to his legacy. This, despite the fact that the other party in the conflict, India, hasn’t been that generous in acknowledging Trump’s role in brokering the ceasefire.

It’s not just symbolic. The Pakistani state’s messaging — amplified through both government channels and strategic interviews with U.S. media — has offered exactly the kind of rhetorical flattery Trump responds to.

Enter: Praise Diplomacy

When Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, leading Pakistan’s diplomatic outreach in Washington, was asked about Trump’s tariff policies — which many countries criticize as punitive and unpredictable — he deftly turned the narrative. He said while the tariffs may be a problem for others, but for Pakistan, it’s an opportunity. He framed it as a chance for fairer bilateral trade, a phrase that mirrors Trump’s own justifications for his aggressive trade policies.

For Trump, this isn’t just diplomacy — it’s ego reinforcement. Bilawal’s remarks were tailor-made for Trump’s brand: playing the victim of bad global trade deals and the savior who can fix them. Few leaders stroke Trump’s ego without overdoing it, but Pakistan's subtle praise has been just right.

The Quiet Exclusion That Speaks Volumes

Then there’s the issue of immigration. Despite relentless lobbying and speculation from India-based analysts and right-wing media echo chambers, Pakistan was notably absent from any new version of Trump’s travel ban list — a recurring political flashpoint. While countries with far less direct bilateral tension have faced restrictions, Pakistan’s omission is no accident. It’s a diplomatic win quietly celebrated in Islamabad and a further sign that Trump values good public relations with those who publicly massage his self-image.

A Blow to the Imran Khan Narrative

The praise from Trump, however, is also a humbling blow to former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. For years, PTI has peddled the narrative that only Khan had “chemistry” with Trump — a myth that now lies in tatters.

As Khan languishes in legal limbo, PTI has been pivoting to lobbying Republican leaders in Washington, attempting to frame his prosecution as a human rights issue. Ironically, this is the same PTI that dismissed such concerns when it was in power between 2018 and 2022. Back then, human rights defenders, journalists, and political opponents were routinely vilified and suppressed under Khan’s watch, to the extent, that Khan was included in the Reporters without Borders press freedom predators list in 2021.

Yet, despite sympathy from some GOP circles, Trump has not publicly demanded Khan’s release. Instead, he has chosen to praise Pakistan’s current leadership. But that raises a curious question: who exactly is Trump referring to?

Is it Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif (unlikely), a centrist figure trying to navigate Pakistan through economic headwinds and political fragility? Or is it Army Chief Asim Munir, whose recent elevation to Field Marshal status — a rare and symbolic move — came after Pakistan’s bold military posturing and de-escalation diplomacy? With the military long seen as the real power center in Islamabad, Trump may well be tipping his hat to both — intentionally vague to maintain plausible deniability.

The Trump-Pakistan Equation

At its core, this warming of ties reflects a mutual exchange of ego and expediency. Trump gets the international flattery he craves. Pakistan, meanwhile, gains room to maneuver diplomatically, especially at a time when global narratives on human rights, democracy, and extremism are being contested.

More importantly, it underscores a strategic shift: Pakistan is learning to use soft power — through media engagement, messaging, and symbolism — to influence figures like Trump. This is not old-school dependency. It is strategic ego diplomacy, and so far, it’s working.

The author is Berlin-based social worker, former Pakistani journalist, editor indus.news, and member of Germany's social democrats party. He continues to actively comment on culture, geopolitics, and human rights.

In the aftermath of Pakistan’s recent military successes on the eastern front and its growing diplomatic clout — underscored by its appointment as Vice Chair of the UN Security Council's Counter-Terrorism Committee — the nation stands at a crossroads. For the first time in years, there is a renewed sense of national unity, a rare political and public consensus centered around sovereignty, resilience, and the need for lasting peace.

The question now is: Will Pakistan seize this moment not only to defend its borders but also to defend its soul from within?

From External Defense to Internal Cleansing

While Pakistan’s armed forces have admirably defended the nation from foreign aggression, the real battle for Pakistan’s future lies within — in its ability to decisively confront homegrown extremism and fringe ideologies that undermine both national and international credibility.

Groups like Tehreek-e-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP), which misuse blasphemy laws to terrorize minorities and paralyze cities, have inflicted deep wounds on the country’s democratic fabric. Their intimidation tactics not only endanger citizens but also present Pakistan as a state unable — or unwilling — to curb radical forces. Similarly, factions that exploit sectarianism, indulge in cross-border terror, or operate under the guise of religious activism, continue to compromise Pakistan’s international standing and threaten internal harmony.

Now that Pakistan has regained some diplomatic space and visibility in global anti-terror forums, it must go beyond symbolic actions. It must dismantle the networks and narratives that have allowed extremist ideologies to thrive under political cover or state appeasement.

A Call to Rethink Priorities

Too often, Pakistan's state machinery has focused its coercive power not on terrorists, but on journalists, rights activists, politicians, and dissenters — voices that are vital for any democracy. This misplaced priority only deepens internal divisions and obscures the real threat: those who use fear, violence, and religion to destabilize society.

If Pakistan truly wants to be secure, it must be secure for all its citizens — regardless of faith, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or ideology. A prosperous Pakistan is not just one where bombs don’t go off, but one where civil rights are respected, where minorities feel safe, and where freedom of expression is not mistaken for sedition.

The Path to Sustainable Peace

To win lasting peace, Pakistan must also pursue regional reconciliation. Peace with neighbors — particularly India, Afghanistan, and Iran — will not come easy, but neither will prosperity without it. Pakistan must engage honestly and comprehensively with its neighbors, especially on issues like cross-border terrorism, mutual mistrust, and trade barriers.

A strong, unified, and credible Pakistan cannot afford to be seen as harboring or tolerating elements that sabotage peace efforts — at home or abroad. Its role in regional stability must be underpinned by principled diplomacy, not proxy politics.

Pakistan is faced not only with challenges but also an opportunity — a window where military momentum, diplomatic recognition, and domestic consensus align. But such windows close quickly. If Pakistan is to rise as a secure, respected, and modern nation, it must prioritize rooting out homegrown extremism, uphold civil liberties, and commit itself to regional peacebuilding.

Because only a Pakistan that is secure, just, and engaged with its neighbors can hope to be economically vibrant and globally relevant.

The author is Berlin-based social work student, former Pakistani journalist, editor indus.news, and member of Germany's social democrats party. He continues to actively comment on culture, geopolitics, and human rights.

The review hearing featured theatrics such as top clerics and representatives of Islamist parties arguing the case, "schooling" the Supreme Court on why they thought it was wrong. And when the Supreme Court accepted their arguments and decided that the Ahmadiyya minority group does not have any right to preach and express their faith even if they do so while presenting themselves as non-Muslims. In the background of this are violent protests and the TLP leaders calling inciting violence against the Chief Justice himself after labelling him and the state as "blasphemous". Now read the brief backgrounder again and ask yourself how the bare minimum of civil liberties, expressing, practicing, and preaching your faith, could mean a mob lynching death for some in the self-proclaimed Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

The state, instead of enforcing its writ and standing behind key state institution, the Supreme Court, has decided to surrender. It has surrendered to a group of Islamofascists, paving the way for an unprecedented regression. As if Pakistan as a state inching closer to its authoritatian and totalitarian ambitions where civil liberties can be encroached upon wasn't troubling enough, we now have Supreme Court-sanctioned precedence where so much as calling for basic right to practice one's faith can be labelled blasphemous.

Compare that with a western country: Imagine the outrage if the predominantly Christian countries decided Muslims cannot call themselves Muslims, practice, express, or preach their faith. Such an encroachment in the year 2024 is unimaginable. And yet, that is the lived reality of hundreds of thousands in Pakistan. A development in contravention of what the founding father Muhammad Ali Jinnah envisaged. He too would be labelled blasphemer and would be faced with mob lynching for merely stating what did 3 days before Pakistan's independence.

You are free. Free to go to your temples, mosques, churches or any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed, that has nothing to do with the business of the state. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle: that we are all citizens, and equal citizens, of one State.

It's a development that makes us bury our heads in shame and makes us wonder what is the next civil liberty up for grabs in this God-forsaken country. With the Islamofascists gaining ground rapidly, it's not all that difficult to imagine what the future of Pakistan looks like.

Pakistan needs progress and not regression. In out-of-touch state apparatus in Pakistan needs to realise that Pakistan needs progress and not regression in order to survive. And progress without civil liberties and a state where everyone is equal is not possible. The state needs to take measures towards creating an environment of tolerance and acceptance -- a state where there are no first class and second class citizens. Pakistan needs to butt out of matters of faith of its citizens. It has long allowed itself to constitutionally meddle in by proclaiming to be an Islamic Republic with Islam as the state religion. The contradiction here is that out of 50+ Muslim countries in the world, no other country sees matter of blasphemies as strictly despite the fact that they're hardly the embodiment of civil liberties and equal rights themselves. Until changes are made that set Pakistan on the path to progess -- where clerics and Islamofascists become irrelevant, Pakistan's future looks bleak.

Days later, the viral Bill Bill Pakistan song to highlight rising inflation was deleted from his Instagram and YouTube pages prompting many to connect the dots and point fingers to the state institutions such as intelligence agencies to be behind this. While the police reportedly refused to file a First Information Report (FIR) to investigate his disappearance, the Lahore High Court on Friday ordered the police to recover Aun Ali Khosa and present to the court by August, the 20th. This after Mr. Khosa's wife petitioned the court for recovery of her husband.

Meanwhile, criticism has been growing against the government for weaponising state institutions to curb free speech like political satire. Amnesty International has criticised the Pakistani government on the developemt and issued a call for Aun Ali Khosa's immediate recovery:

The disappearance of Aun Ali Khosa has also attracted criticism from activists, politicians and journalists. Journalist Sabahat Zakariya posted on X:

Prominent comedian and political satirist Shafaat Ali posted:

Activist and politician Jibran Nasir posted:

The abduction of artists and activists in Pakistan is a concerning issue that has drawn significant attention both domestically and internationally. Over the years, several artists, journalists, and activists have been abducted or have faced intimidation, often due to their outspoken views on sensitive political and social issues.

These disappearances often involve individuals who are critical of the government, military, or state policies. While the primary targets have traditionally been political activists, journalists, and human rights defenders, artists and musicians have also increasingly found themselves at risk.

Artists in Pakistan often use their platform to address social issues, challenge the status quo, and give voice to the marginalized. This makes them potential targets, especially in an environment where dissent is not always tolerated. The abduction or intimidation of artists is typically aimed at silencing them and deterring others from expressing similar views.

The abduction and intimidation of artists have a chilling effect on freedom of expression in Pakistan. Artists, writers, and musicians who might otherwise critique the state or highlight sensitive issues may self-censor to avoid similar fates. This stifles the cultural and intellectual growth of society and limits public discourse on important issues.

Human rights organisations, both within Pakistan and internationally, have repeatedly called for investigations into these abductions and for the protection of freedom of expression. These organisations argue that the state has a responsibility to protect all citizens, including those who express dissenting views.

The issue of enforced disappearances, including the abduction of artists, has been raised in various international forums. However, concrete action remains limited, and the culture of impunity often prevails.

At the heart of these protests lies the issue of enforced disappearances, a grim reality that has scarred countless families in Balochistan. Students, many of whom are the sons, daughters, or relatives of those who have disappeared, are demanding answers from the state. They are not just fighting for their right to education but also for the right to live without the constant fear of losing their loved ones to the shadows of unaccountable power. The disappearance of Baloch students themselves, who are often picked up by "unknown actors" without due process, has become a chilling reminder of the dangerous environment they navigate daily.

The protests, which have gained momentum in recent months, are not just about individual cases but also about the larger issue of state neglect and the lack of investment in the province of Balochistan, despite being rich in natural resources, remains one of the most underdeveloped regions in Pakistan. The education system, particularly at the higher levels, suffers from chronic underfunding, inadequate facilities, and a lack of qualified teachers. For Baloch students who manage to reach universities in other parts of the country, the challenges continue in the form of racial profiling, harassment, and discrimination.

The recent incidents at prestigious institutions like the Quaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, where Baloch students were allegedly subjected to racial slurs and unjust treatment, have only exacerbated their sense of alienation. Such incidents reveal a deep-rooted prejudice that not only undermines the social fabric of our educational institutions but also tarnishes the very principles of equality and justice that these institutions are supposed to uphold.

The state’s response to these protests has been disappointingly predictable — heavy-handedness, labels and accusations of anti-Pakistan activities, arrests, violent crackdowns, firing of live bullets, and a reluctance to engage in meaningful dialogue. This approach not only fails to address the core issues but also fuels further resentment and distrust among the Baloch youth. The use of force against peaceful protesters, particularly students, is a grave violation of democratic norms and an affront to the principles of free expression and assembly.

What is needed now more than ever is an empathic and constructive approach. The state must recognise the legitimacy of the students' demands and take immediate steps to address their grievances. This includes a transparent investigation into the cases of enforced disappearances, ensuring the safety and security of Baloch students on campuses, and creating an inclusive environment where they can pursue their education without fear of discrimination or harassment.

Furthermore, there is an urgent need for systemic reforms that go beyond the immediate crisis. The federal and provincial governments must prioritise education in Balochistan, allocating adequate resources to improve infrastructure, recruit qualified educators, and provide scholarships to Baloch students. Moreover, there must be a concerted effort to promote inclusivity and understanding within educational institutions across Pakistan, fostering an environment where diversity is celebrated rather than shunned.

The protests by Baloch students are not just a cry for help; they are a call to action for all Pakistanis who believe in justice, equality, and human rights. The state must heed this call, not with repression, but with a genuine commitment to reform and reconciliation. Ignoring the voices of these students will only deepen the wounds of alienation and injustice that have long festered in Balochistan. The wounds of 1971 are not that old for us to not remember the consequences if calls for justice by a people are actively crushed.

It is time for Pakistan to confront the uncomfortable truths about how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. It is time to listen to the voices of Baloch students, to understand their pain, and to work towards a future where every Pakistani, regardless of their ethnicity or province, can live with dignity, security, and hope.

The dismissal by the foreign affairs ministry didn't seem enough since the topic has exploded in the news cycle. Interestingly, the media outlets amplifying the claims are Indian and all of them are linking to the original Jerusalem Post report. And this is what the Jerusalem Post bases its report on:

Maariv, an Israeli publication and member of the Jerusalem Post Group, cited Arab sources in its report that Pakistan planned to supply Iran with the missiles should war break out with Israel. This was reportedly discussed during an emergency meeting of the foreign ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), requested by Iran and Pakistan, in Saudi Arabia.

Other than the obvious far-fetched nature of the reports, Pakistan is highly unlikely to embark on a suicide mission like that. Pakistan and Israel official do not have diplomatic ties and there have always been tension and uneasiness between both countries at international forums. Despite the fact that Pakistan overtly joined the Arabs during the Arab-Israel wars, there have been instances where both countries have cooperated on security intelligence behind the scenes. Pakistan's powerful military establishment has also been mulling joining the Arab states in cessation of hostilities against Israel in the recent years, even if that is in stark contrast with the public sentiment which runs deeply anti-Israel and pro-Palestine.

Not to mention the economic factor. Pakistan has been facing the worse economic and political crises ever. It cannot afford wars at this time. In fact, it is this economic weakness that Pakistan hasn't been relevant at the global stage at all. What little influence it had on the west in Afghanistan seems to have diminished fast. On the Middle East crisis Pakistan is not a player at all. Yes, that, despite that fact that some analysts in Iran or Turkey or from the Arab world would have us believe otherwise based solely on pan-Muslim solidarity and Pakistan being the only nuclear power. The reality, however, is the sheer realism of the international politics. Pakistan, like its Arab allies are not interested in a conflict with Israel at this time.

That said, Pakistan has always been a kind of enigma and a wildcard on the international stage. We know that the public sentiment runs deep against Israel. There's also this rhetorical romanticism that you'd hear from the military personnel and their friends and families. How their ultimate goal is to fight the Jewish state and not really India. How Pakistan and Israel are inherently anti-each other since both countries had its foundations rooted in religious ideologies. The ideologies are not even remotely the same but that's what many in Pakistan believe. Something biblical, the Muslim state facing off the Jewish state -- a face off meant to be. I wouldn't be surprised if there were elements within the Pakistani military mulling if this is their chance at the "ultimate holy war". They might be asking each other, what are the nukes for if not to help out fellow Muslims being bombed, and their homes raised to the ground.

There are no reasons to believe the threat of Pakistan getting involved with their nukes is real. This is also reflected in Pakistan's foreign policy. Where Pakistan has maintained close and friendly ties with Iran, it has also refrained from issuing threats or inflammatory language against Israel. And if you take into account the behind the scene diplomacy attempts, the reports that Pakistan might go on a suicide mission by supplying Iran with nukes against Israel appear even more ridiculous.

The recent controversy regarding the term "genocide" in connection with Israel's actions in Gaza has been a major point of contention among Wikipedia editors. After months of intense debate, Wikipedia's English editors voted to rename the article titled "Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza" to simply "Gaza genocide." This change reflects a position that sees the events as more than just allegations, despite significant opposition to this viewpoint.

Supporters of the title change argue that there is a growing consensus among scholars, human rights experts, and international observers that Israel's actions in Gaza meet the legal and academic definitions of genocide. They point to statements by Israeli officials, casualty figures from Gaza's Health Ministry, and reports from various international organizations as evidence supporting this view.

However, critics of the decision argue that it violates Wikipedia's commitment to neutrality, emphasizing that there is still considerable debate over whether the term "genocide" is appropriate in this context. These editors believe the title should include the word "allegations" to reflect this ongoing dispute, and they accuse Wikipedia of bias by omitting it. They also question the reliability of some sources cited in the article, particularly those linked to anti-Israel perspectives.

The decision has sparked significant backlash, particularly from pro-Israel groups and individuals, who see it as part of a broader trend of bias against Israel on the platform.

The article generally refrains from a conclusionary tone and acknowledges the arguments it cites as accusations. However the sidebar which lists the key facts says:

Attack type: Genocide, collective punishment, mass murder, ethnic cleansing, forced displacement, bombardment, targeted killings, starvation as method of war, torture, others

It further notes as the motive:

• Retaliation and revenge for the 7 October attacks

• Zionism

• Anti-Palestinianism, Anti-Arab racism, and Islamophobia

• Settler colonialism

The "facts list" goes on to list under "accused":

• Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli war cabinet and government

• Israel Defense Forces, under the leadership of Yoav Gallant

• Israel Ministry of National Security, under the leadership of Itamar Ben-Gvir

as well as a list of those it says are "complicit":

• United States, under the Biden administration

• United Kingdom, under the Sunak ministry

• Germany, under the Scholz cabinet

• Australia, under the Albanese government

• Romania, under the Ciolacu cabinet

Israel is facing genocide charge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) brought up by South Africa. Juristically it can take years to decide whether Israel's actions in Gaza constituted genocide. That hasn't stopped experts from sounding the alarm and many newsrooms such as Qatar-funded Al Jazeera have made editorial decisions to refer to these events as genocide.

Israel disputes the accusations of genocide and maintains its action in Gaza are in line with the international law.

The fact that the state has encouraged these militants to create space for themselves and used them against the opponents, and the fact that the state now lets these militants operate with impunity, and resultantly the rapidly worsening situation has made lose all hope for Pakistan for the first time in my life. And I’m sure it’s the sentiment shared by many. I have the privilege of not being in that hellhole anymore but I can try to imagine the horror and the fear the vulnerable in the country feel in the face of the rising violence. Imagine being a minority in that country right now, a religious minority, a gender/sexual minority, a woman, heck try to imagine to be an innocent person knowing at any point anyone can frame you out of personal grudge and then it’s only a matter of time until you’re greeted with an unimaginably painful death.

Not only does the state not act against it, the state apparatus as well as politicians use these fringe elements for their own agendas and against their opponents. And every political actor has done that. The state’s security institutions have provided them with patronage and money in the past and the politicians from every political party have used religious card and blasphemy card against the opponent.

I literally have no hope for that country anymore. It’s so frustrating to watch a country go up in flames which I once thought was destined for greatness. In my younger days I believed in potential of the overwhelmingly younger population of the country. Through blogging, digital media, and journalism, I’ve tried to do my bit. My work in the past has entailed speaking for human rights of the oppressed and the vulnerable, including the religious, gender and sexual minorities. My friends often asked me how’s that working out for me since I ended up in exile… away from Pakistan.

Only in the past five years a lot has changed. And not for the better. On top of the steep rise in extremism, we now have western styled populism with Islamist-fascist aspirations being mediated through digital media platforms and engulfing the younger generation. They are extremely popular with Gen-Z on TikTok, for example. The content mostly is chest-thumping jingoism with a dose of Islamism, nationalism, and male chauvinism. The enemy: women, transpersons, the queer community, Ahmadis, and other minorities. Method: Flexing of muscle and chest-thumping profession of love for own interpretation of Islam by beating to death anyone that stands in the way. This shock of such visuals and mob behaviour obviously desensitizes the idealistic younger generation prone to violent extremism.

Despite having to have left my country, I somehow have had hope. That it’s only a matter of time that things will start to improve and that Pakistan will be back on track of the greatness I once thought it was destined to be. Five years down, I have only seen things get worse, and worse, and worse… to the point that I literally have zero hope left.

Pakistani film showcasing queer theme and characters is playing in German cinemas since November 9, 2023. Critically acclaimed elsewhere, the Joyland film, Pakistan's officially entry to Oscars, was initially banned in Pakistan. Following months of controversy and debates the film was allowed to screen in Pakistan but not without multiple censorships. That is something that the viewers in Germany will not have to worry about.

I personally haven't watched the movie yet, but I'm really excited to. In the meantime, watch the trailer and let me know if this excites you equally too.

By now you’re probably aware of former US State Department official Stuart Seldowitz's viral Islamophobic and racist rant. In a series of videos posted on the internet, Seldowitz can be seen hurling demeaning and nasty abuse at a Halal food cart vendor. In the aftermath, the lobbying firm he was associated with has cut ties with him and has instead offered legal support to the victim. Stuart Seldowitz's abuse is already being investigated by the NYPD as a hate crime. The former Barack Obama aide has since apologised.

Here's some of what he said:

Seldowitz threatened the vendor that he would send his photo and information to his friends in the Immigration Department and later to his connections in the Egyptian intelligence agencies.

"The mukhbarat in Egypt will get your parents," he threatens. "Does your father like his fingernails? They will take them out one by one."

Accusing the food vendor of being pro-Hamas, Seldowitz says "If we killed 4,000 Palestinian kids, it wasn’t enough."

Now, if you're a Muslim or someone who's perceived to be a Muslim on German Twitter, this vile encounter will feel creepily familiar. This is because it's now a public knowledge that the social media space on Twitter is dominated by the right-wing and far-right trolls. Even more so since Musk took over and turned it into "X". Sadly, it is not just the right-wing and far-right trolls. Many with politically centrist views and many of those claiming to be progressives and from the left-wing also engage in this practice. They feel particularly emboldened in the wake of the 7th October terrorist attack in Israel by Hamas. You'd see some of the most vile and anti-Muslim racist structures being reproduced. And when called out, they conveniently pretend to be fighting anti-Semitism. As if that somehow made their racism justified and legitimate. Publicists Ruben Gerczikow and Monty Ott in their guest article for the German-language Jewish paper Jüdische Allgemeine also called out the right-wing “Zionists” who appear to show agenda-driven solidarity with Israel.

There is one difference between the German Twitter and the Stuart Seldowitz incidence: the latter is being pursued by the NYPD as a hate crime whereas the hatred on German Twitter goes without any consequences. The truth is, the racist and anti-Semitic structures are so similar, that the fight against anti-Semitism and racism goes hand in hand. It is ironically embarrassing when a wildly racist person pretends to fight anti-Semitism with racism.