Ebola Outbreak-The deadly Epidemic

By Waqar Malik The foundation of independent, responsible, and impartial journalism is balance, honesty, and fairness. Criticism is an essential part of journalism; however, a true understanding of any country’s situation requires a comprehensive view of its historical, political, economic, regional, and security circumstances. A one-sided analysis may highlight certain realities, but it cannot represent the complete picture. The German newspaper DW has raised several concerns and critical observations regarding Pakistan’s political, economic, and security situation. No country should be considered beyond criticism, and accountability is an important element of democracy. However, criticism must also be accompanied by balance, context, and a comparative perspective. If the challenges of a country are discussed, its sacrifices, achievements, and ground realities should also be presented with equal fairness. Pakistan is often portrayed as a country facing political instability, economic difficulties, and security challenges. However, an important question remains: is there any country in today’s world that is completely free from such challenges? Inflation, unemployment, political disagreements, social issues, and governance challenges are not unique to Pakistan. They are global realities affecting nations across the world. Germany, one of the world’s leading economies, is facing economic pressures, including rising energy costs, challenges within its industrial sector, concerns regarding employment, and economic uncertainty. Similarly, countries such as the United Kingdom, France, and the United States continue to experience inflation, political divisions, public protests, and social challenges. Therefore, highlighting the problems of one country while ignoring similar difficulties faced by others cannot be considered a complete and balanced analysis. Every nation must be understood within the context of its own history, geography, political environment, and security needs. Freedom of Expression: Is Pakistan Being Judged by a Different Standard? Pakistan is frequently criticised regarding freedom of expression, democratic values, and human rights. Such discussions are necessary in every democratic society. However, an important question must also be asked: is Pakistan being judged by the same standards applied to other countries? In Pakistan, political leaders, opposition representatives, journalists, lawyers, and members of civil society openly express their views on governments, state institutions, and national affairs. Political debates, speeches, and different opinions are widely discussed through media platforms. On various occasions, statements from detained political figures have also been reported prominently in the media. This raises an important comparative question: do individuals in custody in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, France, or Germany receive exactly the same level of media access and opportunity to express their political views? In many democratic countries, detention laws are strictly implemented, and access to media is regulated according to legal procedures. Therefore, discussions about Pakistan’s freedom of expression should also consider international comparisons and broader realities. The right to peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right, and Pakistan’s Constitution recognises this principle. However, every right comes with responsibilities. Pakistan has witnessed political protests that have continued for weeks and, in some cases, months. On certain occasions, major roads were blocked, public life was disrupted, and damage to public and private property was reported. Despite these challenges, governments have often chosen dialogue, patience, and political engagement instead of excessive use of force. In every democracy around the world, the right to protest exists within the framework of law. No democratic society allows violence, vandalism, threats, or the disruption of public order under the name of political expression. Pakistan should neither seek exceptional treatment nor be judged by different standards. The Role of Pakistan’s Armed Forces and National Defence Some analysts describe Pakistan’s political system as a hybrid system. However, another important perspective also deserves consideration. Pakistan’s armed forces have made significant sacrifices for national defence, security, and the fight against terrorism. Thousands of soldiers and officers have lost their lives while protecting the country’s sovereignty, stability, and security. Pakistan’s geographical position places it in a complex security environment. Located at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, Pakistan faces unique regional and international challenges. There is also criticism that Pakistan’s armed forces are involved in business and commercial activities. However, this matter can also be viewed from another perspective. Pakistan’s defence requirements are extensive, and investments in various institutions and projects are aimed at supporting defence needs, welfare activities, and reducing unnecessary pressure on national resources. Many countries around the world allow their military institutions to participate in research, technology, industry, development projects, and humanitarian activities. The United States and other developed nations have similar examples where defence-related organisations contribute to national development and innovation. Therefore, such policies should be assessed on the basis of national interest, transparency, effectiveness, and contribution to society rather than through criticism alone. For more than four decades, Pakistan has paid a heavy price due to regional conflicts and global security challenges. The consequences of the war in Afghanistan, participation in the international fight against terrorism, hosting millions of refugees, and the loss of thousands of precious lives have deeply affected the country. Pakistan has made enormous sacrifices in combating terrorism and has achieved significant successes in restoring security and stability. Despite these challenges, Pakistan continues to contribute towards regional peace and international cooperation. The Kashmir dispute remains one of the longest unresolved conflicts in South Asia. Pakistan supports the right of the Kashmiri people to self-determination in accordance with relevant United Nations resolutions and continues to advocate a peaceful and diplomatic solution. Pakistan’s stated position has consistently been based on dialogue, diplomacy, and peaceful engagement. Sustainable peace in South Asia can only be achieved through mutual respect, understanding, and peaceful resolution of disputes. The Situation in Azad Kashmir and the Government’s Approach The situation in Azad Kashmir demonstrates the importance of dialogue and political engagement during times of tension. A responsible state must ensure law and order, protect the lives and property of citizens, and seek constitutional and democratic solutions to public concerns. The right to protest is a democratic right, but it cannot justify violence, firing, destruction of property, threats against state institutions, or taking the law into

The third part of this series demonstrated that tax policy is never politically neutral. Every exemption, rate differential, withholding provision and collection mechanism determines who will bear the burden, who will receive protection and who will remain outside effective enforcement. The next question is unavoidable. Why do reforms that appear technically sound on paper repeatedly fail in Pakistan? The usual explanation is weak implementation. Successive governments announce that the policy was correct, while administrative capacity, political resistance or taxpayer behaviour prevented its success. This distinction between sound design and deficient execution is comforting because it preserves confidence in the original prescription. It also conceals an important reality: implementation is not external to policy. It is part of policy. A reform designed without considering the incentives of legislators, administrators, affected sectors and enforcement institutions is not technically sound. It is technically incomplete. Pakistan’s fiscal history is filled with such incompleteness. Broad-based taxation is announced, followed by exemptions. Documentation is promised, followed by presumptive and final taxation. Value added taxation is introduced, followed by reduced rates, fixed taxes, special procedures and restrictions on input adjustment. Taxpayer facilitation is proclaimed, followed by additional withholding obligations, automated demands, coercive recovery and delayed refunds. Each deviation is described as temporary. Temporary arrangements acquire permanent beneficiaries and eventually become defining features of the system. The problem cannot be explained simply by lack of expertise. Pakistan has received technical assistance from the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Asian Development Bank and other institutions for decades. Numerous committees, commissions and task forces have recommended broadening the base, reducing exemptions, simplifying rates, improving audits, integrating data and strengthening administration. The present IMF programme again calls for base broadening, rationalisation of tax expenditures, digital invoicing, risk-based audits and improved revenue administration. The prescriptions remain familiar because the institutional incentives producing the original distortions remain largely unchanged. Consider value added taxation. A genuine VAT is collected at successive stages of production and distribution, with tax paid on inputs allowed against tax charged on outputs. The mechanism creates a documentary chain because each registered purchaser has an interest in obtaining an invoice. Exemptions, fixed regimes and blocked input credits break that chain. Pakistan has retained the name of sales tax while repeatedly undermining its value added character. Multiple schedules, special rates, exemptions, extra taxes, further taxes, minimum value addition requirements and restrictions on input adjustment have converted a potentially coherent instrument into an intricate system of revenue extraction. The resulting complexity is then blamed upon taxpayers. Pakistan’s “innovation” has been to combine high statutory rates with a fragmented base, extensive concessions and aggressive collection from those already documented. The system punishes formalisation while expecting formalisation to expand voluntarily. The Tax Expenditure Report 2026 estimates revenue forgone during fiscal year 2024–25 through income tax, sales tax and customs concessions at approximately Rs. 2.353 trillion. This figure excludes the larger constitutional controversy created by keeping petroleum products outside the sales tax chain and collecting petroleum levy instead since March 2024. Sales tax concessions accounted for about Rs. 1.274 trillion, income tax concessions for Rs. 579.70 billion and customs concessions for Rs. 499.14 billion. The treatment of petroleum products reveals how implementation can defeat both tax design and constitutional distribution. Sales tax forms part of the divisible pool under Article 160 of the Constitution. Petroleum levy is a non-tax federal receipt outside that pool. Replacing sales tax on petroleum products with an ever-increasing levy therefore does more than alter the method of collection. It changes the distribution of fiscal resources between the Federation and provinces. A measure presented as revenue policy consequently modifies the federal bargain without formally amending the Constitution. Income taxation displays the same institutional pattern. A normal income tax determines taxable income after allowing legitimate expenses and then applies the appropriate rate. Pakistan increasingly taxes transactions, turnover and gross receipts without establishing real income. Withholding taxes, advance taxes, minimum taxes, final taxes and presumptive liabilities were initially justified as responses to weak enforcement. They gradually became substitutes for enforcement. The Revenue Division Year Book 2024–25 confirms the continuing centrality of withholding and advance collection within direct taxes. This model is administratively attractive. Revenue is collected through banks, employers, utility companies, registrars, import authorities and businesses without requiring the tax administration to investigate actual income. It also creates impressive collection figures before returns are filed and liabilities determined. The constitutional cost is rarely measured. Taxpayers become liable because they undertake transactions rather than because they earn taxable income. Private persons become unpaid collection agents. Refunds and adjustments remain blocked or delayed. Documented businesses carry the state’s administrative burden, while powerful informal sectors continue bargaining for concessions. Pakistan has even institutionalised the category of the “non-filer”. Instead of identifying income, making assessments and enforcing payment, the law imposes higher transaction-based rates upon persons whose names do not appear on the Active Taxpayers’ List. Non-compliance is monetised rather than eliminated. This is presented as behavioural taxation: higher deductions will supposedly encourage return filing. The state simultaneously acquires a fiscal interest in retaining non-filers because they yield higher collections. The instrument designed to eliminate a category becomes dependent upon its continued existence. No conventional textbook could have anticipated such an innovation. Retailer taxation provides another illustration. Every government announces that traders will be brought into the tax net. Every scheme begins with declarations of equality and documentation. Political resistance follows, negotiations commence, liability is diluted, and the final arrangement bears little relationship to actual income or turnover. The administration then turns to those who cannot collectively bargain: salaried persons, incorporated businesses, importers, banks, telecom users and consumers of electricity, fuel and essential goods. Agricultural income taxation has travelled a similar path. The Constitution assigns this field to the provinces. Provincial laws exist, returns may be filed and declarations may be recorded. Effective collection, verification and enforcement remain modest in comparison with the sector’s economic and political significance. The failure is not the absence of legal authority. It reflects the distribution of political power within provincial

On 14 August 1947, Pakistan emerged as a new country with enormous challenges but also extraordinary potential. Seventy-nine years later, the question is not whether Pakistan has achieved anything, it certainly has, but why a country that began with comparable hopes to many newly independent nations has struggled to convert its human and natural potential into sustained prosperity, strong institutions and a secure future. The comparison becomes uncomfortable when we look at countries that began their modern journeys around the same period. Singapore became self-governing in 1959 and independent in 1965. Bangladesh became independent in 1971 after emerging from the same Pakistan that had been created in 1947. Taiwan’s post-war transformation accelerated from the 1950s onward. South Korea, independent since 1948, also started from extraordinary hardship. Their histories are very different from Pakistan’s, so simplistic comparisons would be unfair. Yet they demonstrate one important principle, institutions, continuity, human capital and economic strategy can transform countries even when starting conditions are difficult. Bangladesh is perhaps the most striking comparison because it began as the poorer and more politically disadvantaged wing of Pakistan. In 1971, its future looked extremely uncertain. Today, Bangladesh’s nominal GDP per capita is substantially higher than Pakistan’s, the World Bank reports about $2,593 for Bangladesh compared with about $1,479 for Pakistan in 2024. Bangladesh’s total GDP has also grown larger than Pakistan’s despite having a much smaller land area according to world bank open data. Singapore represents an entirely different model. A small island with few natural resources, it concentrated on competent administration, education, trade, infrastructure, investment and institutional discipline. Its 2024 GDP per capita was approximately $90,674, compared with Pakistan’s approximately $1,479. World bank open data says. Taiwan and South Korea followed another path, export-oriented industrialisation, investment in education and technology, strong state capacity and, eventually, increasingly democratic institutions. These countries did not become successful because their people were inherently more capable than Pakistanis. They created systems that allowed capability to produce results. So what happened to Pakistan? The first failure was institutional continuity. Pakistan spent much of its history moving between civilian governments, military rule, political confrontation and constitutional crises. Instead of allowing institutions to mature, every political transition often became a struggle over who controlled the state. The second failure was the weak rule of law. A country cannot become prosperous when laws are applied selectively, institutions are politicised and citizens do not have equal confidence in justice. Democracy is not merely the holding of elections, it requires constitutional supremacy, independent institutions, accountable government and protection of fundamental rights. The third failure was education and human capital. Pakistan has a huge young population, yet education has too often remained underfunded, unequal and disconnected from the needs of a modern economy. Countries that transformed themselves invested heavily in the quality of their people. Pakistan has frequently treated education as expenditure rather than as the country’s most important investment. The fourth failure was economic inconsistency. Pakistan repeatedly moved between economic models without developing a stable, long-term national strategy. Political governments changed priorities, economic crises produced short-term fixes, dependence on external financing repeatedly returned. Meanwhile, countries such as Bangladesh built globally competitive export sectors, particularly garments, while East Asian economies moved aggressively into manufacturing, technology and high-value exports. The fifth failure was population planning and social development. Pakistan’s population has grown enormously, while economic growth has not consistently kept pace with the needs of its people. The World Bank’s latest figures show Pakistan with a life expectancy of around 68 years, compared with 75 years in Bangladesh and 83 years in Singapore. The sixth failure has been our inability to build a culture of accountability without political revenge. Accountability is essential, but when it becomes a weapon used selectively against political opponents, it destroys trust rather than strengthening the state. The seventh and perhaps deepest failure is that Pakistan repeatedly confused national security with national development. Security is essential, but a nation’s ultimate security comes from educated citizens, a productive economy, social cohesion, constitutional government and opportunities for its young people. Pakistan’s people, however, did not fail Pakistan. Pakistanis have demonstrated remarkable resilience. They built businesses, universities, industries, hospitals, technology companies and a vast overseas community. Millions of Pakistanis work abroad and send billions of dollars home. In 2024, remittances were equivalent to about 9.4% of Pakistan’s GDP, according to the World Bank. The real tragedy is that the capacity of the Pakistani people has repeatedly been greater than the capacity of the systems governing them. Independence was supposed to mean more than freedom from colonial rule. It was supposed to mean dignity, justice, representation and opportunity. After 79 years, Pakistan therefore needs a different question. Not who is responsible for our problems? but what kind of state do we want to become? The answer cannot be another political slogan or another temporary economic package or presidential system of government . Pakistan needs constitutional supremacy, civilian and institutional stability, independent justice, free media, serious investment in education and health, economic continuity, women’s participation in the workforce, export-led growth, technological development and genuine local governance. The comparison with Bangladesh, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea should not produce humiliation. It should produce reflection. We began with a dream. The unfinished task of Pakistan’s next generation is to turn that dream into functioning institutions, human development and dignity for every citizen. Seventy-nine years after independence, perhaps the most patriotic thing Pakistanis can do is not merely celebrate the birth of the country, but honestly ask why the promise of 1947 has still not reached every Pakistani.

When rain descends from the folds of clouds, it assumes the form of divine mercy for the earth—reviving parched soil and spreading smiles across the weary faces of farmers. Yet, when this very rain turns unbridled and the administrative apparatus built to welcome it pulls a heavy shroud of negligence over its eyes, this descent of mercy transforms into a harrowing shape of torment and sudden calamity. Gujrat, a historic and industrial city of Punjab that holds a unique global identity through its civilizational expanse, skilled artisans, and proximity to the Chenab River, presents the terrifying spectacle of a pond and a swamp every monsoon season. Here, urban flooding is no longer merely a climatic accident; rather, it has become a chilling confession of administrative apathy, unscientific planning, and a criminal denial of historical geographical realities. When the hydrological management of cities is evaluated on a global scale, the concepts of “Sponge Cities” are put into practice, but our reality stands in stark opposition. When the state of urban drainage in Gujrat is objectively reviewed through the corridors of history, one’s eyes are opened to the bitter truth that the rulers and elements who dominated this city consciously hollowed out its roots at every level for the gratification of greed. The city’s drainage and sewerage system, in particular, fell prey to the plunder of commission agents belonging to the corruption mafia. It is an immensely agonizing chapter of history that two decades ago, when a renowned international Japanese company completed a detailed survey of Gujrat, officially announced its complete reconstruction on modern lines, and promised a world-class drainage system, the hungry brokers sitting in the echelons of power burnt this magnificent project in the fire of personal lust. The people of Gujrat can never forget the actors who sacrificed the Japanese company’s dream at the altar of kickbacks. Later, when times changed and Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi assumed the helm of this region as Chief Minister, he released heavy, voluminous funds amounting to billions of rupees to radically improve and modernize Gujrat’s decrepit and worn-out drainage system. Yet the tragedy was that these billions of rupees in Gujrat’s history remained restricted to a few specific and powerful pockets, and to openly divide these funds, the entire system was mortgaged to a fostered contractor mafia. With an exceptionally substandard, superficial, and unprofessional approach, this mafia played a game of window-dressing that instead of fixing Gujrat’s sewerage system, ruined it permanently and turned the entire city into an artificial swamp. Today, the agony of drainage dancing through the city’s streets and roads offers no hope of deliverance from this terrifying urban flood unless a severe accountability of these true, deceitful culprits is carried out. The political leadership that followed also made efforts suited to their respective statures for the betterment of the city; and although their own technical errors consistently hampered this improvement, every resident of Gujrat continues to carry the heavy burden of those primary sinners who devastated Gujrat’s history, civilization, and urbanity. Last year, when urban flooding once again descended upon the city as a mortal torment, uproar echoed everywhere, the wheel of life halted, and the situation reached a point where the Chief Minister of Punjab had to personally make an emergency visit to Gujrat to rescue the district administration from this storm of incompetence. During this visit, a heavy downpour of announcements and promises took place, accompanied by the release of special funds worth billions for complete and sustainable improvement next year. Despite the sincere efforts and financial provisions of Honorable Maryam Nawaz Sharif, the district administration—entrenched in a colonial mindset—spent all its energies throughout the year on personal image-building and photo sessions rather than the timely completion of this vital sewerage project. As ill luck would have it, as soon as the monsoon season arrived once again this year, the colorful balloon of good governance and claims deflated entirely, exposing the bitter reality that this malaise of flawed planning persists and rainwater continues to rain down as a torment upon citizens’ lives. And when this rainwater has already devastated citizens’ lives, wounding their homes and businesses, only then do the traditional efforts of WASA and district institutions begin to bear fruit, with water finally receding from the streets after prolonged suffering. Success drums are then beaten over this very temporary performance, adding salt to the injuries of the citizens. A profound study of Gujrat’s urban geography reveals that its foundations and topography are deeply embedded in its centuries-old historical backdrop. Built during the Mughal era, the Akbari Fort serves as the greatest metaphor for the region’s military, political, and administrative history. Viewed from a geographical and topographical standpoint, the Akbari Fort is situated on a relatively high mound or plateau, and the city’s older structural layout spreads outward from this height in gradual slopes in all directions. Principally and naturally, this elevation of the fort and the surrounding natural slopes should have stood as an exceptional geographical blessing for a drainage system—provided the natural pathways of water flow had been preserved and left unmolested by grotesque tampering. The tragedy, however, is that over time, unbridled urban expansion and a flood of encroachments mutilated this natural sloping system so ruthlessly that today, that very height and slope have turned into a bane for the city. Unchecked commercialization and illegal constructions in and around the Akbari Fort and its adjoining low-lying areas have blocked all traditional water routes in such a manner that water finds no outlet. The consequence is that when rainwater flows down from the elevated parts of the fort, instead of finding an open path or paved drain ahead, it encounters dead alleys, narrow sewage pipelines, and an endless siege of encroachments. Consequently, this water accumulates in lower regions to form a permanent lake, leaving city residents weeping over their helplessness. Gujrat’s tragedy is not merely the accumulation of rainwater; it is a reflection of that collective apathy and corruption which wakes up with the arrival

 On the morning of June 23, 2026, oil traders watching screens in London and Singapore saw a rare combination: the price of Brent crude falling and tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz rising. The trigger was a one-page notice from the U.S. Treasury. Effective immediately, the United States would authorize the production, delivery and sale of Iranian crude oil and petrochemical products through August 21, a 60-day general license issued as American and Iranian officials concluded a first round of talks in Switzerland.   For a waterway that carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil consumption, the shift was significant. After months in which oil had spiked above $100 on fears of a closure of the Strait, Brent fell back below $85. European shares opened August higher on hopes that diplomacy would hold. The question now confronting energy markets and foreign ministries alike is whether this “Hormuz Corridor” arrangement marks the beginning of a stabilization of global energy security, or merely a tactical pause in a longer confrontation.   From Maximum Pressure to Managed De-escalation   To understand the current opening, it is necessary to recall how the Strait became a flashpoint. The Strait of Hormuz, a narrow channel 21 miles wide at its narrowest point between Iran and Oman, has long been the world’s most important oil chokepoint. About 20 million barrels of oil per day transit it, along with a third of global liquefied natural gas trade.   U.S.-Iran tensions over the waterway escalated sharply after 2018, when the United States withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and reimposed sweeping sanctions on Iranian oil exports. Iran, whose economy relies heavily on crude sales, responded by threatening to impede shipping and, at times, seizing tankers. The cycle repeated in late 2025 and early 2026, with a series of attacks and counter-threats that pushed insurance premiums for Gulf shipping to multi-year highs and forced major refiners in China, India, and South Korea to seek alternative barrels.   The talks that began in Switzerland in late June followed that period of acute risk. Mediated by Oman, Qatar and Pakistan, according to official statements, the first round concluded with what U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance described as a “good foundation for a successful final deal.” The resulting U.S. general license does not lift sanctions permanently. It is a temporary waiver, valid through August 21, designed to allow Iranian oil to flow legally while negotiators pursue a final peace framework within 60 days. Iran’s Foreign Ministry, for its part, said it was discussing a temporary safe route through the Strait and denied that direct bilateral talks were continuous, underscoring the fragility of the process.   For Washington, the calculus is twofold. Domestically, lower energy prices ahead of the autumn reduce inflationary pressure. Crude futures had risen sharply earlier in the year on supply fears, contributing to volatility in equities. Strategically, a temporary de-escalation allows the U.S. to reallocate diplomatic and military resources and to test whether Tehran is willing to agree to constraints on its nuclear program and regional activities in exchange for sanctions relief.   For Tehran, the incentive is economic. Iran holds the world’s third-largest proven oil reserves, but its exports had been curtailed to well below capacity. Even under sanctions, Iranian-linked tankers continued to move oil, according to tracking data, but at steep discounts and with high transaction costs. A legal channel to sell crude through August 21 provides immediate revenue and a measure of relief for an economy facing high inflation and currency pressure.   Market Relief and Market Skepticism   The initial market reaction has been cautiously optimistic. After reports that both sides had agreed on a roadmap, oil prices settled down more than 3 percent in a single session, with the more active August Brent contract settling around $73.86 to $79.04 per barrel in late June trading, down from earlier highs near $93. European equities, sensitive to energy costs, began August higher.   Analysts interviewed for this article point to two competing interpretations of this relief.   The optimistic view holds that the waiver creates a positive feedback loop. By allowing Iranian oil back into the formal market estimated at 1 to 1.5 million barrels per day of additional supply if fully utilized it eases global balances at a time when OPEC+ is managing voluntary cuts first announced in April 2023 and set to continue into August 2026. Lower prices reduce the incentive for further escalation, giving negotiators space to discuss the more difficult issues: the future of uranium enrichment, the status of Iranian support for armed groups, and verification mechanisms for any corridor through Hormuz that would give Iran a role in monitoring inbound traffic, as suggested in one proposal reported by Reuters.   The skeptical view, which currently dominates private commentary among Gulf-based energy executives, is that the structure of the deal itself reveals its limits. A 60-day license is, by design, reversible. It does not resolve the underlying lack of trust, nor does it provide long-term certainty for refiners and shippers to sign term contracts. Tanker operators continue to price in risk, and traffic data showed an initial uptick as talks progressed, but not a full normalization. One proposal that would give Iran formal control over inbound traffic through the Strait has alarmed some Gulf states, who have privately warned that such an arrangement could be used as leverage in the future.   Stakeholders Beyond Washington and Tehran   The implications extend far beyond the two principal parties.   For Gulf Arab states, particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the Hormuz arrangement presents a dilemma. They benefit from lower oil prices and reduced risk of a regional war that could target their own infrastructure, but they are wary of any deal that enhances Iran’s ability to control shipping lanes or that is reached without binding security guarantees. Iran’s recent warning that it could target Gulf states if the U.S. launches new strikes has reinforced that anxiety.   For

The visit of Pakistan’s Prime Minister and Chief of Defence Staff to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia on 6–7 August 2026 was officially presented as a meeting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), accompanied by the performance of religious rituals in Islam’s holy cities. Yet, diplomacy is often conducted between the lines rather than in official communiqués. French newspapers, Indian news agencies, and Israeli media all reported that Pakistan, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia were working toward a defence agreement expected to be signed on Friday. While no official confirmation has emerged, the reports have generated an important strategic debate. If such an agreement is indeed under discussion, what is its real agenda? Would it amount to a military alliance, and if so, against whom would it operate? More fundamentally, why would Pakistan and Türkiye, both facing considerable economic pressures, seek to enter such an arrangement? Or are we witnessing the gradual birth of a new regional security architecture in the vacuum created by the declining American military footprint in the Middle East, with Pakistan assuming an anchoring role?   The first narrative comes from Pakistan. Political analyst Parveen Sawamy argues that Pakistan is gradually emerging as the principal anchor of a broader Muslim strategic framework. According to this view, Islamabad has evolved from being merely a facilitator of dialogue to becoming a mediator and now potentially a guarantor of regional security. Among the members of the OIC, Pakistan enjoys a unique diplomatic position. It maintains working relations with almost every important regional actor, consistently supports the Palestinian cause, and remains outside the circle of states that have normalized relations with Israel. This balanced diplomacy provides Islamabad with credibility across the Muslim world.   Pakistan also possesses one of the most experienced armed forces in the Islamic world, capable of contributing to Gulf security should regional circumstances demand it. At the same time, Washington may not necessarily oppose such a role, particularly given the perception that General Asim Munir enjoys constructive relations with the Trump administration. Pakistan’s geographic proximity to Iran further strengthens its credentials, allowing it to maintain channels of communication with Tehran while preserving strategic partnerships with Gulf monarchies. If Islamabad succeeds in converting this diplomatic leverage into economic opportunity, a defence understanding with Riyadh and Ankara could mark the beginning of a new Muslim security framework based on deterrence, mediation, and regional peace rather than confrontation.   The second narrative revolves around Türkiye. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, despite facing domestic economic challenges, brings decades of NATO experience, an advanced defence industry, and diplomatic flexibility. Türkiye remains a NATO member, maintains dialogue with the United States, preserves working relations with Israel, and simultaneously engages actively with Asian and Muslim nations. Such strategic diversity enables Ankara to serve as a bridge between competing geopolitical camps.   From Türkiye’s perspective, participation in a trilateral framework would capitalize on its military technology and defence manufacturing capabilities while expanding economic cooperation with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Ankara also offers valuable diplomatic experience and could serve as a neutral venue for negotiations during future regional crises. If such cooperation enjoys quiet support from Washington, Türkiye would strengthen both its strategic autonomy and its influence across the Muslim world.   The third and perhaps most decisive narrative belongs to Saudi Arabia. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) seeks durable security guarantees to preserve investor confidence in Vision 2030 and mega-projects such as NEOM. Economic transformation cannot succeed without regional stability. Recent conflicts have exposed the vulnerability of Gulf infrastructure to missile and drone attacks, prompting Riyadh to reassess its long-term security strategy. MBS increasingly recognizes that American military bases alone cannot guarantee the Kingdom’s security in an era of rapidly changing regional dynamics.   Pakistan and Türkiye therefore emerge as relatively affordable yet credible strategic partners. Saudi energy sustains both economies, while Islamabad and Ankara can provide military expertise, training, and strategic reassurance. More importantly, MBS appears less interested in confronting Iran through perpetual military rivalry than in managing competition through diplomacy backed by credible deterrence. If this approach succeeds, it could reduce regional tensions while safeguarding Saudi Arabia’s ambitious economic transformation.   Whether the reported defence agreement materializes or remains diplomatic speculation, the convergence of Pakistan, Türkiye, and Saudi Arabia reflects an important geopolitical trend. All three states require economic stability, strategic autonomy, and a more reliable regional security framework. Their interests intersect around the need to protect trade, investment, energy infrastructure, and political stability. If this strategic triangle evolves into a formal partnership, its true success will not be measured by the strength of its military capabilities but by its ability to prevent conflict, encourage dialogue, and foster prosperity. In a region long defined by rivalry, the most enduring alliance may ultimately be the one built not for war, but for peace.