No to the Division of Punjab

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Türkiye have signed the Makkah Joint Defence Agreement on 7 August in 2026 and this signing is far more significant than what ceremony and symbolism it carries. Signed in Makkah by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, the deal provides that an armed attack against any one of the three countries will be considered as an attack against all the three countries.  But its sincerity was greatest not in the denouncing of a specific enemy but in an understanding of the strategic environment which has produced an enemy. It is not a moment for defining the agreement as an “anti-Iran, anti-Israel, anti-American pact. There’s no mentioning of any of these states being specifically called out as the target state. Instead, the agreement seems to be part of a larger strategic pivot amid a more complicated security landscape in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan have divergent agenda in foreign-policy, but all three countries have an interest in lessening strategic vulnerability while gaining more ‘room for manoeuvre’. For the capital of the Hejaz, the key strategic priority is defending its territory, which contains important military bases, energy resources and trading lines, set in a much-changing environment. Saudi Arabia has close relations with Washington, but its foreign policy in recent years has been firmly founded on a strong sense of need for building more than one strategic partnership with the outside world. As such, the Makkah deal is more a tool for “strategic hedging” and less a statement of opposition to a specific regime. The participation of Türkiye is especially significant. While Ankara is a NATO country, it is also developing an autonomous regional foreign policy. In particular the dealings of its government with Iran, Russia, the Gulf monarchies, Europe, and the United States make it difficult to pigeonhole current Turkish strategy into a neat geopolitical box. The importance of this in the context of Türkiye’s presence in the country is such that shooting multi-alignment rather than sectarian or bloc confrontation. On the other hand, Pakistan has years of defence cooperation with Saudi Arabia and a growing institutionalized strategic ties with Türkiye. The deal provides Islamabad a chance to take the existing military cooperation into a larger strategic partnership. However, Pakistan needs to prudently guard its ties with the neighbouring country Iran as well as its ancestral ties with Saudi Arabia and also protect and carry forward its strategic partnership with China. The most sensible thing for Pakistan to do, then, is not bloc politics but calibrated multi-alignment. Particularly noted is Egypt’s non-participation in the defence pact, but it is too early to draw a clear conclusion that the country had been denied its membership due to the influence of any other country, including the United States and Israel. Indeed, Egypt has been continuing its strong partnerships with Saudi Arabia, Türkiye and Pakistan within the framework of R4. In June 2026, all four countries’ foreign ministers met in Cairo and reiterated their efforts in the realm of consultation and regional stability and coordinated diplomacy.  This isn’t necessarily a foreign veto in action, then, that Egypt is not a party to a certain military arrangement, but could be partly because of its own strategic decisions. The same level of skepticism should be applied towards the general pronouncements about Israel. As Türkiye’s rival relationship with Tel Aviv and the Saudi Arabia’s major role in the Arab-Israeli conflict weighs in, Israel will increasingly be considered a part of the “strategic equation” of the region. However, to date there is no visible evidence that the Makkah agreement was essentially a plan against Israel. Likewise, any potential Pakistani naval base at Pasni or the potential major shift of Pakistan’s maritime strategy should be viewed currently not as policy, but as potential options. The rising significance of geography at sea is much more evident. National security is entangling in increasing ways with the Arabian Sea, the Gulf of Oman, the Red Sea and network of commercial and energy corridors. Nowadays, ports and shipping routes are not just economic infrastructure, but strategic assets, in a world of geopolitical dynamics and fragile supply networks. This geographical locational aspect highlights the significance attributed to Pakistan as going beyond its geographical limelight in geography. Chances are on the rise that China will play a key role in this new order. Beijing has already got noticeable economic presence in Pakistan and the Gulf countries, and importantly, it has built a long-term strategic presence in the Indian Ocean via the Belt and Road Initiative and CPEC. However, China has tended towards more flexible economic and diplomatic ties rather than military alliances. Saudi-Türkiye-Pakistan cooperation thus puts Beijing in a stronger position to maintain room for manoeuvre within the new framework without having to join it formally. The emerging picture is rather not that of a straightforward American power-substitution than one of an American power-displacement. Instead, the Middle East seems to be shifting towards a more pluralist and networked security configuration, in which governments have multiple relations with rival entities at the same time. Saudi Arabia can cooperate with the US and work towards closer ties with Pakistan and Türkiye; Türkiye can be in NATO and yet have a policy of its own in the region; Pakistan can have closer relationship with China, and Saudi Arabia and Türkiye; and at the same time take part in the dialogue between Pakistan and Iran and the West. After signing the Makkah agreement, its ultimate effect will be determined. Though it might turn into a regular framework of intelligence sharing, joint exercises, defence production and operational co-ordination it could serve as a lasting centrepiece of regional security. Its impact will be more limited, if it is kept largely declaratory. But at this time the most credible inference is that the Makkah pact is far from being an alliance against a common enemy but rather a strategy for the breakdown of one

Today, the world faces unprecedented challenges, including the spread of unbridled unilateralism, the weakening of the fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter, the illegal recourse to force, the imposition of unilateral and indiscriminate sanctions, and the instrumental use of economic and financial mechanisms to exert political pressure. Members of the international system, particularly states as its primary actors, must defend multilateralism, respect for national sovereignty, sovereign equality of states, and the rule of law in international relations. Since June 2025, the nation of the Islamic Republic of Iran has experienced its bitterest days. The martyrdom of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution—as the highest political and religious authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran—the tragic attack on the Minab school resulting in the martyrdom of 168 school children, the testing of America’s latest lethal weapons and cluster missiles in the attack on the city of Lamerd in Fars Province and the indiscriminate assassination of its defenseless people, along with attacks on medical and healthcare facilities, educational environments, and universities, and the continuation of these crimes demonstrate that when a superpower turns rogue, international peace and security are put at risk. By imposing war, the U.S. government has driven several rounds of negotiations with Iran into a deadlock. The mediatory efforts of Pakistan to restore peace and tranquility to the region are commendable, and Iran has respected this vital role. It is crystal clear that wars are always initiated by one side, but ending them requires the presence and role of both warring parties. If the Americans, who imposed this war, desire to end it, they must respect the Pakistan Memorandum of Understanding and stop trying to impose peace on Iran through their own self-authored rules. However, it appears the United States seeks to dictate its demands upon Iran, whether through war or through peace. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. The Americans want everything at once and afford no standing to the opposing side. The blatant violation of the terms of the Pakistan MoU, continued attacks on transportation infrastructure, drinking water facilities, fishing boats, local commercial vessels, meteorological centers, and other civilian infrastructure are clear instances of violations of international law and international humanitarian law, as well as a stark example of the ongoing policy of resort to force and disregard for international obligations. The Islamic Republic of Iran underscores its firm resolve to defend its sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. The U.S. government is an untrustworthy and law-defying regime that does not adhere to international rules, regulations, and agreements. For this reason, many political analysts believe that U.S. conduct regarding West Asian regional issues poses a threat to the stability of the international community. What Trump has been asserting since last year regarding a U.S. victory and the defeat of Iranian military forces is merely a strategic mirage; continuing Trump’s self-destructive policies will pull America into a deep quagmire, demonstrating that they lack a proper understanding and perception of Iran’s history and its people. Direct U.S. intervention in the implementation of security and maritime arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz, alongside the re-imposition of a naval blockade, has once again endangered the security of one of the world’s most strategic waterways and disrupted the normal flow of international commercial shipping. The principled policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran has always been grounded in dialogue, diplomacy, good-neighborliness, and regional cooperation. We firmly believe that lasting peace will only be realized when aggression, occupation, threats, and double standards give way to mutual respect, the impartial execution of international law, and genuine commitment to international obligations. Although the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding was signed by the presidents of both Iran and the United States, neighboring and regional countries—especially the Arab states of the southern Persian Gulf, acting as “Middle Eastern allies” of the U.S. government—are required under Articles 1 and 2 of this agreement to cooperate toward an immediate and permanent end to the war and the establishment and maintenance of peace. These countries must not forget that their territories were used to commit aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that such acts of aggression persist. Whether the territory of these nations was placed at the disposal of the United States, or the United States exploited their territory against Iran without their consent, makes no difference, as ultimately their facilities and capabilities were utilized against us. Consequently, these states form part of the war front against Iran, and they too must remain faithful to the Pakistan MoU. Brad Cooper, Commander of United States Central Command (CENTCOM), explicitly announced the involvement of several Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (PGCC) member states and Jordan in the United States’ military aggression against Iran. If this claim is merely a falsehood, these countries must officially and transparently refute it. The pervasive insecurity and raging fires across the region are the exclusive byproduct of continuous aggression against Iran, and regrettably, the territory of certain states serves these destabilizing actions. The Islamic Republic of Iran reserves its inherent right to self-defense to protect itself. We hope our neighboring countries reach a common understanding that the actions taken by Iran do not stem from hostility toward regional nations. We all believe that we are neighbors and will remain neighbors. Iran has repeatedly emphasized the logic of a “Strong Region,” believing that the entire region must become powerful—a region capable of resolving its own issues and challenges without relying on foreign forces, which are themselves the source of instability and insecurity. This region is a shared home; its security belongs to all its nations, and everyone must endeavor to create and maintain peace, security, and prosperity.

Development is the process of creating lasting improvements in the lives of people by addressing their genuine social, economic, and public needs and not merely constructing new infrastructure, completing projects, impressive photographs, or utilising the allocated public funds. In a true sense, the real measure of development is whether the real problem has been solved, and whether the interventions have created sustainable public value and an evident change in social or economic conditions of the society. A project should begin with a clearly defined problem and public need. Its vision, goals, activities, and measurable indicators should follow the problem. In professional project management practices, all these elements are recorded in the planning and design phase. In Pakistan, we have mastered the art of reporting these elements without achieving any meaningful results. Imagine a public park surrounded by a steel fence. Children and families using the park are visible from the road. If funds are available and privacy is the genuine concern, the executing agency can add steel sheets, plant trees, or use temporary screens. Each solution is inexpensive and retains the existing structure. However, if the focus is primarily on expenditure, the agency may remove the functioning fence and replace it with a new brick wall. This may have a longer life, but is not necessarily the most economical or appropriate solution. Considering Pakistan’s fragile economic outlook, many major development projects are financed through foreign loans. Such funds are eventually repaid, often with interest. Money spent on an unnecessary intervention is no longer available for genuine public need. This is a recurring weakness in Pakistan, where success is measured by the money spent, not by the effectiveness of the solution. This recalls Peter Drucker’s observation. “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” The continued existence of infrastructure built during the Mughal and British periods is in contrast with contemporary projects, which deteriorate within years. This might be a romantic comparison, influenced by the fact that we see only the structures that survived, but durability and long-term public value are not central to our project culture. The same mindset is evident in urban beautification schemes. Imagine a local government installs a 15-foot-high statue. The project is indeed beautiful and will produce attractive photographs for official reports, but if the same statue is mounted on thoughtfully designed columns, the shaded seating can be utilised by daily wage workers who gather at bus stops, on footpaths, and in other public spaces because no designated facility is available. This is not an encroachment issue, but a planning failure. Planners and designers should use one intervention to achieve multiple objectives. Imagine a decades-old roundabout, with a working fountain surrounded by grass. During hot afternoons, labourers and children visit the site to cool themselves in the fountain’s spray. Officials might consider this behaviour undesirable and wish to block access. They can barricade it through small trees or shrubs, but the typical response will be to uproot the entire structure, construct a new fountain, and replace the grass with artificial green carpet. The public behaviour may reflect the unavailability of affordable recreational areas or public bathing facilities. Yet, the official solution destroys a functioning public asset, removes a natural green area, and spends substantial funds without addressing the underlying need. Needs assessment appears in project reports, but they are rarely conducted with sufficient depth. Imagine a posh housing society, where tubewells were eventually replaced by private borewells. Residents have spent a considerable amount to arrange their own water supply. Now, if any government agency has received funds for water distribution, they should spend it in areas where the people are still digging borewells or have no access to clean drinking water. However, again the typical response will be to spend millions in this posh area, where households have already arranged their own water supply. The fall of the water table is the real problem, which in this case will persist after spending millions. Pakistan has an extensive planning structure, which includes the federal and provincial bodies, planning departments in government organizations, consultants, and project management units. In 2025-26 alone, the National Economic Council approved the national development portfolio of 4.224 trillion. Such substantial expenditure should produce visible and lasting improvement in people live. The problem, therefore, is not insufficient funding, but how projects are identified, designed, approved, and evaluated. The same problem is visible in education, health, and administrative projects. Consider a basic health unit or education facility with a leaking roof. The available funds should be directed to fix the roof. However, funds are allocated to boundary wall, new signage, and in some cases, for an entirely new building. Similarly, for decade, government departments are trying to digitise their operations. For a quick solution, these departments procure specialised softwares, which has high licensing costs, and inadequate training mechanisms. After years of implementation, enforcement, and expenditure, the same departments revert to paper files or to a new software. The first step should be, to strengthen the capacity of all relevant staff in problem identification and root cause analysis. Every project initiation document should clearly identify the problem, public need, examine alternatives, and link the proposed intervention to public value. These elements should always be in quantifiable terms. Moreover, the project indicators should measure the extent to which the problem is solved and the post-completion evaluation should validate the visualized public benefits. Institutions move energetically, spend heavily, and report extensively, but bypass the original problem. Pakistan does not simply need more projects; it needs projects to solve problems; it needs interventions that respond to genuine needs, preserve what already works, and provide sustainable public value. The true measure should not be the amount spent but the resolution of the problem. Unless problem-solving becomes central to planning and evaluation, fund utilisation will continue to be mistaken for development and detour away from progress we seek. Writers  Dr. Sikandar Bilal Khattak  Academician with Research Interest in Sustainable Systems Can be

By Syed Tahir Rashidi Democracies do not usually die in a dramatic moment. Their decline is usually quiet. Elections are still held constitutions are still there on paper and institutions that represent the people are still around.. Beneath these democratic rituals the things that make constitutional government work gradually get weaker. What people think starts to matter more than what people know institutions start to lose their authority and politics starts to reward show more than leadership. These problems were already being talked about in Athens, the city that first came up with the idea of democracy long before they became issues in modern democracies. The people of Athens had to deal with a paradox that still affects societies today: how can a system that is based on freedom protect itself from the bad effects of too much freedom? How can the power of the people avoid being controlled by emotions, populism and demagoguery? Plato, one of the thinkers in history was very concerned about these questions. His criticism of democracy is often seen as the complaints of an aristocrat who did not like the idea of the people having power.. That is not a complete understanding of his thoughts. Plato was worried because he saw what happened in Athens especially when his teacher Socrates was put to death by a jury. This event made Plato realize that a democracy could allow great injustices to happen through its institutions. In his book The Republic Plato talks about democracy not as a system of government but as a way of life. It is a society where what people think matters more than what they know, where emotions control reason and where freedom, if not limited loses its value. Plato said that if people are too free they will eventually become disorderly. When people want much freedom they become impatient with authority, expertise and discipline.. This impatience can lead to the rise of a leader who promises to restore order by taking control. History has shown us that this paradox is real. When there are many factions in a country people often want a strong leader to take charge. Democracies can inadvertently create the conditions for authoritarianism if they do not have institutions to limit power. This transition from democracy to authoritarianism rarely happens suddenly. It happens gradually as the norms of democracy get weaker. People start to value certainty over discussion. Physicists use the term entropy to describe the natural tendency of complex systems to drift from order towards disorder unless sustained by continual effort. Democracies are no exception. When constitutional norms weaken, institutions lose their independence, and public trust steadily erodes, political systems begin to experience what may be called institutional entropy: a slow but relentless decay in the structures that preserve constitutional order. Democracies seldom collapse because elections cease. They falter because the institutions that give elections meaning gradually lose their authority. Plato was not the one who saw these dangers. Thucydides, who wrote about the Peloponnesian War said that democratic Athens was surrendering to the power of leaders. Aristotle, who was more sympathetic to democracy than Plato also warned that democracy could fail if the law did not control life and emotions took over. For both thinkers democracy needed institutions that could control power, including the power of the majority. These old ideas are still relevant today because they point out a weakness in politics. Elections alone do not guarantee government. Having a majority is important for democracy. It is not enough. There also need to be institutions, a system of laws and informed citizens. Without these things democracy can become just a numbers game than responsible government. This is especially important in countries where politicss about personalities rather than institutions. When election wins are seen as mandates rather than responsibilities governments start to confuse popularity with legitimacy. Politics becomes more divided public debate becomes more about parties than issues and the quality of government is measured by rhetoric than competence. The experience of Athens is not just a historical curiosity; it is a warning for today. The questions that Plato and Aristotle asked are still relevant for every experiment that tries to balance the power of the people with the need for a constitutional order. Pakistans democratic journey, with its recurring crises and contested political authority must be understood in this broader historical context. The challenge for Pakistan is not just to keep procedures but to build democratic institutions. Voting can give legitimacy. Legitimacy alone cannot produce effective government. Constitutions can proclaim rights. Rights are only meaningful if institutions are independent and credible enough to protect them. Democracy survives not just because people vote,. Because both rulers and the ruled accept that power must be limited by law, restraint and accountability. The relevance of this dilemma is clear in Pakistan. Since it was founded Pakistan has said it is committed to government. Constitutions have been written and suspended elections have been held and disputed assemblies have been. Dissolved.. The fact that democratic rituals have continued has not necessarily meant that democracy has become stronger. The recurring crisis has been less about the lack of elections than about the weakness of institutions that can turn legitimacy into constitutional governance. This distinction is crucial. Democracy is often mistaken for the act of voting but its survival depends on a much broader system of limits. Independent courts, impartial bureaucracy, professional legislatures, autonomous regulatory institutions and political parties based on ideas than personalities are not just nice to have; they are essential for democracy. Without them elections can become contests for power rather than ways to hold government accountable. Plato illustrated this problem with his allegory of the ship of state. A ship with a crew may have a great structure but without knowledge of navigation it will not reach its destination. The story was not meant to argue against participation but to show how important competence, wisdom and responsibility are in government. This allegory is still relevant today in

South Korea is one of the most remarkable countries in the world. Shortly after the mid-20th century, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world. According to World Bank, it had a per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) of roughly 159 USD in 1960. The Helen Kellogg Institute For International Studies (University of Notre Dame) points out that South Korea’s per-capita income in early 1960 was lower than Haiti, Ethiopia and Yemen and over 40% of the South Korea’s population was suffering from absolute poverty. However, with right public policy actions implemented in the right direction, South Korea was among the most rapidly growing economies in the world by the start of 21st century. Do you know that South Korea had exponentially increased its per-capita GDP to 12,710 USD (in 2000) that then sky-rocketed to over USD 36000 in 2025? A question that one would ask is, what formed the basis of this rapid economic growth and a resulting reduction in poverty in South Korea? A World Bank report “Republic of Korea: Four decades of equitable growth” points out that South Korea has experienced rapid economic growth in 1990, where its real GDP grew by over 5 percent each year except 1998. Absolute poverty decreased incredibly in South Korea during 1975 – 2001. Those who remained poor were either had low educational achievements or were unemployed or underemployed. In 1975, South Korea earned USD 12.4 billion through trade that then skyrocketed to a trade volume of USD 314.6 billion in 2002. Thus, in a span of 27 years, trade volume of South Korea increased over 25 times which is nothing less than a remarkable success story. A journey that helped South Korea to achieve rags-to-riches status in 3 decades time. In my opinion, education made a significant difference in South Korean society and made it more socially resilient to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. As we all know that with education and the use of common sense, we make better life choices that then helps us is attaining better results for us and our families. Do you know that South Korean society is one of the most educated societies in the world? As per Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), over 58% of masses in South Korea has tertiary education. In-fact, South Korea performed better than Luxembourg, Australia, Norway, Netherlands and several other countries when it comes to percentage of masses (25 – 64 years) who have completed tertiary education in 2025. Highly educated masses mean highly qualified labour that can help any country in commencing sustainable social and economic development over a sustained period. We all are familiar with Samsung Electronics and the leading role it plays in connecting countries and people across the globe. Do you know that Samsung Electronics is a South Korean company? In 2025, Samsung Electronics declared a revenue worth a whooping USD 233.3 billion. Similarly, Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd is another South Korean motor vehicles and parts manufacturing company. According to Forbes, in 2025, Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd declared a financial revenue worth a whooping USD 128.4 billion including a profit of USD 9.1 billion. Hyundai Motor Company pointed out that it sold over 4 million vehicles worldwide out of which close to a million vehicles were electrified vehicles. Likewise, Kia Corporation is South Korea’s oldest motor vehicles manufacturing company and has a capacity to produce over 1.4 million vehicles each year. Kia Corporation has over 40,000 employees and normally reports an annual revenue of over USD 17 billion each year.  LG Electronics is another South Korean tech giant that reported a revenue of USD 62 billion in 2025. Finally, SK Hynix Inc is another South Korean company that manufactures semiconductor products and had reported an annual revenue of USD 51.2 billion in 2025 with profits over USD 18 billion. It is crucial to mention here that SK Hynix Inc is among the largest memory chip manufacturer’s in the world and acts as a rival to Samsung. Moreover, it is an important memory supplier to Apple and the components supplied by SK Hynix Inc are widely used in iPhone, iPad and MacBooks. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace reports that South Korea’s gross domestic product (GDP) was USD 1.71 trillion in 2023 and its per-capita GDP was USD 33,121. Do you know that in 2020, South Korea invested USD 112.9 billion on domestic research and development (R&D). Globally, it stood on fifth position when it comes to spending on R&D. Top spending on R&D in 2020 was commenced by United States with USD 720.9 billion, followed by China with USD 582.8 billion, Japan with USD 174.1 billion and Germany with USD 143.4 billion. Despite commencing rapid social and economic development, South Korea has not compromised on environmental conservation. According to The Korea Times newspaper, South Korea planted roughly 10 billion trees from 1960 to 1980. As a direct result of this, Korea Forest Service (KFS) reported that South Korea’s forest growth rate exponentially increased from 50 cubic meters per hectare in 1990 to 148 cubic meters per hectare in 2015. Thus, in a span of 25 years, forests in South Korea observed nearly 3 times increase in growth rate. It serves as an excellent example that we can commence economic growth, eradicate absolute poverty and conserve environment simultaneously. The already discussed example shatters the paradigm that we must compromise and degrade environment to commence economic growth. A successful reforestation program in South Korea proves the fact that we can commence economic growth and protect environment simultaneously. Do you know that trees are the most inexpensive carbon capture and storage devices? Moreover, healthy forests help us to decrease the concentration of carbon dioxide gas in atmosphere, mitigate climate change, prevent biodiversity loss, avoid landslides and provide clean air and water by decreasing pollution. We must understand this basic fact that for our commenced economic growth to be sustainable, we must preserve and protect environment. In-fact, Sustainable Development has 3 pillars

As the fourth week of the US–Israel military campaign against Iran unfolded in March 2026, a major geopolitical shift reshaped South Asia and the Middle East. For years, India’s rise under Narendra Modi had dominated regional diplomacy while Pakistan faced marginalization and economic struggles. However, the outbreak of war in West Asia created an opportunity for Pakistan to leverage its geography and relationships to regain global relevance. Within weeks, Pakistan mounted a proactive and unified diplomatic effort led by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and military chief Field Marshal Asim Munir, reversing its isolation and, according to observers, redirecting diplomatic pressure toward India. This “peace offensive” highlighted Pakistan’s strategic agility and exposed perceived weaknesses in India’s foreign policy, marking a striking turnaround in regional influence. This resurgence began after the US and Israel launched their offensive against Iran on February 28, 2026, forcing countries into difficult alignments. Pakistan instead positioned itself as a neutral stabilizer, maintaining ties with both the United States and Iran while emphasizing its stake in de-escalation due to its shared border with Iran. A rare civil-military unity drove this strategy: Sharif engaged the Muslim world and framed mediation as a moral duty, including direct outreach to Iran’s president, while Munir used high-level connections in Washington to open backchannel communications. His rapport with US leadership enabled message exchanges between American and Iranian officials, helping establish a temporary de-escalation and cementing Pakistan’s role as a key diplomatic intermediary. The effectiveness of this two-pronged approach became evident when President Trump announced a conditional pause on plans to “obliterate” Iranian energy infrastructure. In his announcement on the Truth Social platform, Trump cited “VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE” conversations, a tacit acknowledgment of the behind-the-scenes efforts being made by Pakistan. Building on this momentum, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif made a formal, public offer on March 24, 2026, stating that Pakistan “stands ready and honoured to be the host to facilitate meaningful and conclusive talks” between the United States and Iran. In an extraordinary diplomatic signal that underscored the shift in Washington’s attitude toward Islamabad, President Trump reposted Sharif’s offer on his Truth Social account. This repost was widely interpreted by analysts and officials in Islamabad as Washington’s de facto endorsement of Pakistan’s emerging role as a credible and neutral mediator, capable of hosting what would be a historic breakthrough in one of the world’s most volatile conflicts. While the White House cautioned that such talks remained speculative, the very fact that Pakistan was being discussed as a potential venue—and that its leadership was publicly coordinating with Turkey and Egypt to secure a fragile pause in hostilities—represented a monumental diplomatic victory for a nation that had spent years trying to shake off its image as an international pariah. The strategic ramifications of Pakistan’s diplomatic surge extend far beyond the immediate conflict in West Asia, striking directly at the heart of India’s long-standing foreign policy objectives under Prime Minister Modi. For years, a central pillar of India’s global strategy was the policy of isolating Pakistan, portraying it as a sponsor of terrorism and an unstable, economically faltering state. By deepening India’s strategic partnerships with Western powers, including the United States, Israel, and the Gulf monarchies, New Delhi sought to limit Islamabad’s diplomatic space and marginalize its influence on the world stage. However, Pakistan’s performance as the lead mediator in the US-Iran conflict has fundamentally challenged this narrative. By demonstrating that it possesses “strategic synergy” and can act as a “responsible nuclear power” and a stabilizing force, Pakistan has proven itself to be an “indispensable actor” in a crisis where a larger power like India cannot provide the same utility. This development has been described by scholars like Vali Nasr as a calculated and highly effective move to prove that Pakistan is more than a “problem child,” capable of “walking the talk” on global peace. This reversal has been so stark that it has prompted open criticism of the Modi government from within India itself. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, a prominent voice in the Indian opposition, issued a series of scathing statements on March 24, 2026, acknowledging that Pakistan’s diplomatic engagement and narrative management had been “markedly superior to that of the Modi Govt”. Ramesh went further, stating that the international media reports identifying Pakistan as a potential intermediary represented a “severe setback and rebuff to India”. He directly attributed this disadvantage to the “self-styled Vishwaguru” (world leader) foreign policy of Prime Minister Modi, arguing that despite India’s military successes, its diplomatic space in the region had shrunk over the previous year. A key point of criticism was Modi’s “ill-advised” visit to Israel just days before the US-Israel strikes on Iran, a move that Ramesh and other analysts argued fatally compromised any claim India might have had to neutrality in the conflict. In contrast, Pakistan, despite being a close US ally, was able to maintain a balanced posture, leveraging its ties with both Washington and Tehran to become the preferred interlocutor. The once-celebrated “hug diplomacy” of Prime Minister Modi, which sought to build deep personal relationships with global leaders, was now being characterized by critics as “brutally exposed,” unable to compete with the practical, geostrategic value that Pakistan was able to offer in a moment of acute crisis. The architect of Pakistan’s success in securing such favorable access to the US administration is widely acknowledged to be Field Marshal Asim Munir, whose efforts to rebuild ties with Washington began long before the war with Iran erupted. Throughout 2025, Munir engaged in a methodical campaign to reverse the diplomatic isolation that Pakistan experienced during the Biden administration. A pivotal moment came when Pakistan nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing his role in de-escalating tensions between India and Pakistan. This shrewd move, which played to Trump’s well-known desire for the prestigious award, was rewarded with an invitation for Munir to a one-on-one White House lunch—a privilege rarely granted to a foreign military leader who was not also a head of state. Furthermore, Pakistan aligned