Israel’s obligations remain in question

The Makkah Joint Defence Agreement between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Türkiye marks a serious step forward for regional security. The pact, signed on August 7, brings together three important Muslim majority countries under one collective defence framework. An attack on one member will now be treated as an attack on all three, a principle similar to what NATO countries follow among themselves. This is a significant moment for Pakistan’s foreign and defence policy. This newspaper understands that not every detail of a defence agreement can or should be made public. Military planning, operational details, and certain sensitive mechanisms between armed forces must remain confidential. No serious defence pact anywhere in the world publishes its full operational playbook, and Pakistan should not be expected to do so either. Some secrecy is necessary and reasonable when national security is involved. That said, this does not mean the public should be kept in the dark about everything. Broad information, such as who the pact covers, what kind of coordination it involves, and what its larger goals are, should be shared openly with citizens. Pakistanis have a right to understand the basic shape of agreements that affect the country’s security and foreign relations, even if the fine print stays classified. It is encouraging that information about this agreement is now steadily emerging. Türkiye’s Defence Ministry has spoken publicly about the new coordination mechanisms, joint military exercises, and plans for closer defence industry cooperation. Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, has also come forward to clarify the scope of the agreement. This kind of openness, even in limited form, is a good omen. It shows that the state is willing to explain its major decisions to the public rather than leaving citizens to guess or rely on rumours.

Iran has told Pakistan that it is ready to talk with the United States again. This is good news. It gives hope that a long and dangerous conflict may finally move toward peace. According to reports, Iran wants the talks to happen step by step. The first step would be about the Strait of Hormuz. The next step would be about frozen Iranian money. The last step would be about the nuclear programme. Iran has also made it clear that it will not accept any plan to build a new route through the Strait of Hormuz. This waterway is too important for the world’s oil trade, and Iran sees any move to bypass it as a threat to its own control. Pakistan has a chance to play an important role here. Pakistan already helped bring Iran and America together once. That happened in Islamabad on June 17, 2026, when both sides signed an understanding. It led to a rare direct meeting between Iranian and American officials in Switzerland. Qatar also helped by hosting a round of talks in Doha. But that effort did not last. Talks broke down. Tensions turned into military conflict. Both sides blamed each other. Yet the fact that Iran is now willing to talk again shows that diplomacy is not dead. It shows that even after war, countries can choose peace over more fighting. The world should support this new chance for talks. War brings only loss. Diplomacy, even when it is slow and difficult, is always the better path. But support for talks does not mean forgetting the past. The United States must be honest about what happened last time. It broke the Islamabad memorandum once. This is not a small matter. When a country breaks a signed agreement, it becomes harder for others to trust it again. Iran has every right to ask why it should believe American promises this time. If Washington wants Iran to return to the table in good faith, it must do more than talk. It must offer strong and clear guarantees. These guarantees should be written down. They should be backed by other countries, including Pakistan and Qatar, who can act as witnesses. Words alone are not enough after a broken promise. Actions and guarantees are what will rebuild trust. Pakistan is in a good position to help here. It has earned the trust of both Iran and America through its past role. It should use this position to make sure this second chance is not wasted, and to make sure that Iran gets the guarantees it needs before it agrees to sit down again.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s call for a “grand dialogue” on Balochistan is welcome. So is Field Marshal Syed Asim Munir’s emphasis on development, stability and opportunities for the province’s youth. But after decades of conflict, political mistrust and economic grievances, Balochistan needs more than another declaration of good intentions. It needs a credible process that produces visible results. The most important point in the prime minister’s remarks is his acknowledgement that the people of Balochistan have a legitimate claim to the province’s natural resources. This is not a minor issue. Balochistan is rich in minerals, gas and other natural resources, yet many of its people continue to face poverty, unemployment and inadequate public services. The question, therefore, is not simply whether Pakistan owns these resources. It is whether the people living on this land feel that they receive a fair share of the benefits. This is where the proposed dialogue becomes important. Dialogue cannot mean inviting selected representatives to Islamabad, listening to speeches and then returning to business as usual. If the government genuinely wants to address grievances, the process must include a broad range of Baloch voices, including political parties, elected representatives, tribal elders, young people, civil society and other stakeholders. At the same time, violence cannot be accepted as a solution. The killing of workers because of their ethnic or provincial identity is indefensible. Ordinary citizens from Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or elsewhere should not become targets simply because they work in Balochistan. Protecting citizens and maintaining law and order is the basic responsibility of the state. But security alone cannot produce lasting peace. If every political or economic grievance is treated only as a security problem, mistrust will deepen. Similarly, blaming every problem on foreign interference may explain part of the situation, but it cannot replace an honest examination of local grievances. Field Marshal Asim Munir’s emphasis on Balochistan’s youth is equally significant. The province’s young people need universities, technical education, jobs, businesses and a genuine stake in the province’s economic future. Development projects should not merely pass through Balochistan; they should create opportunities for Balochistan’s people. The same principle applies to natural resources. Mining, ports and energy projects can transform the province, but only if local communities see tangible benefits. Transparency in contracts, employment for local people, revenue sharing and investment in education and health should be treated as essential parts of every major project. Also, infrastructure alone cannot create that future. Roads, airports and ports matter, but people must also believe that development is improving their lives. In this context, the vision of both Mr Sharif and Field Marshal Asim Munir for the people of Balochistan offers a clear direction for the government and the people. 

Pakistan has just done something worth celebrating. Standing alongside Saudi Arabia and Türkiye, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has helped bring to life the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, a pact that puts Pakistan right at the centre of a new chapter in regional security. This is not a small achievement. It is proof that Pakistan’s voice still carries weight where it matters most. For decades, Pakistan has built strong ties with Türkiye and Saudi Arabia separately. Now, those ties have been woven into one formal framework. Under this agreement, an attack on one country will be treated as an attack on all three. That is a serious commitment, and Pakistan’s inclusion in it says a great deal about how the region sees Islamabad’s role today. Some commentators have rushed to compare this pact to NATO or to label it a “Muslim NATO.” That framing misses the point. This is not a bloc built to threaten anyone. It is a defensive arrangement built on trust, shared history, and common interest. The three countries have been careful to describe it as a framework for collective security, deterrence, and regional stability, not as a tool aimed at any single rival. What makes this moment especially encouraging is what each country brings to the table. Pakistan offers a battle-tested military and decades of experience fighting terrorism, skills few nations in the world can match. Saudi Arabia brings economic muscle and political influence across the Muslim world. Türkiye contributes a fast-growing defence industry and modern military technology. Put together, these three strengths complement each other in a way that few alliances manage to achieve. For Pakistan, this is more than a defence pact. It is a diplomatic opportunity. Islamabad already maintains working relationships with Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Iran, China, and the United States. Few countries in the world can claim that kind of reach. This new agreement strengthens Pakistan’s hand further, giving it a bigger seat at the table when regional crises need calm heads and open channels of communication. There is good reason to feel hopeful here. The Middle East and South Asia face real security challenges, from shifting alliances to new military technologies. In this uncertain environment, countries that plan ahead and build partnerships based on trust will be better placed to protect their people and their interests. Pakistan, by joining hands with two important regional powers, has shown exactly that kind of foresight. Of course, agreements on paper only matter if they are followed by real action. The success of this pact will depend on how well Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye coordinate in the years ahead, and how seriously all three governments honour their commitments. But the foundation being laid here is a strong one. Pakistan has long punched above its weight in regional diplomacy. With the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement, it has taken another confident step forward, and that is something every Pakistani can take pride in.

The country is having an important conversation again. Should the country create new provinces to fix its governance problems? Or should it strengthen local governments and give real power to mayors instead? Federal Minister Mohsin Naqvi recently argued that the current system of governance has become outdated. He warned that without real reform, Pakistan will still face the same problems ten years from now. He is right that something needs to change. Large provinces, especially Punjab, are simply too big to manage efficiently from one provincial capital. But former State Bank Governor Dr Ishrat Hussain offers an important word of caution. He points out that creating new provinces means building an entirely new layer of bureaucracy. Each new province needs its own secretariat, its own cabinet, its own departments, its own buildings and vehicles. All of this adds permanent, recurring costs to a country that is already struggling with debt and financial pressure. Creating a new province does not solve a problem. It often creates an expensive new one. Dr Ishrat Hussain’s proposed solution deserves serious attention. He suggests that instead of drawing new provincial boundaries, Pakistan should strengthen mayoral systems and local governments in every major city. If cities like Lahore, Karachi and Faisalabad were given real financial and administrative powers, with elected mayors controlling budgets and development projects, this could fix governance problems without the heavy cost of new provincial structures. His argument makes sense. The real issue is not how many provinces Pakistan has. The real issue is that power has never properly reached the local level, where problems are actually felt and solved. This is a reasonable middle path. Strengthening city governments should be the first priority. Giving elected mayors genuine control over budgets, infrastructure and daily administration would bring government closer to the people it serves, without adding new layers of expensive bureaucracy. That said, there may still be a limited case for new provinces where genuine historical, linguistic and administrative grounds exist. Punjab is an unusually large province, and two regions within it, the Seraiki belt in the south and the Potohar region in the north, have long-standing and distinct identities, dialects and development needs that differ from central Punjab. If any new provinces are ever created, these two are the most defensible candidates, since they rest on real cultural and administrative logic rather than short-term political convenience. But this should remain the exception, not the rule.

Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif has told all ministries to meet their deadlines under the privatisation programme. This push for speed and coordination is the right instinct. Pakistan cannot afford more delays in selling off loss making state enterprises. The government has listed 27 public sector organisations for privatisation in three phases. Officials briefed the prime minister on progress at Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi airports. They also updated him on the sale of IESCO, FESCO and GEPCO. Expressions of Interest have already been invited for all three power companies. FESCO submissions close on August 7. GEPCO closes on August 21. IESCO closes on September 7, 2026. International investors are showing interest and roadshows are continuing. This pace is encouraging but Pakistan has been here before. The privatisation of Pakistan International Airlines dragged on for years through failed bids, legal challenges and political hesitation. That delay cost the national exchequer billions in continued losses. It also damaged investor confidence in Pakistan’s ability to complete a sale once it starts one. The government must not let IESCO, FESCO and GEPCO suffer the same fate. Speed alone is not enough. Every step of this process must remain transparent. Bidding criteria, investor qualifications and final sale terms should be made public and open to scrutiny. Citizens deserve to know that state assets are being sold at fair value, not handed over through backroom deals. The prime minister was right to direct that ZTBL continue serving farmers after privatisation. Agriculture remains central to Pakistan’s economy and food security. Any new owner must be bound by clear conditions to protect farmer access to credit. The economy needs the discipline that privatisation brings. But the PIA experience proves that half measures and delays only deepen losses. The government must finish what it starts, openly and on schedule.