Saudi-Pakistan defense pact: Reshaping security architecture in West and South Asia
By Mohammad Molaei | Press TV | September 27, 2025
In the intricate web of West Asian and South Asian geopolitics, where alliances often hinge on the precarious balance of power, energy dependencies, and ideological affinities, the signing of the strategic defense pact between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia marks a pivotal evolution.
This pact represents a calculated maneuver to fortify the alignment of defenses between the two Muslim-majority countries amid waning US commitments. Drawing from operational analyses of similar pacts, like the US-Japan security treaty or the erstwhile CENTO framework, this agreement integrates conventional military interoperability with implicit extended deterrence, potentially altering the calculus of regional power projection.
At its core, the agreement formalizes a mutual defense commitment, stipulating that an armed attack on either party constitutes an assault on both, triggering joint responses under Article 51 of the UN Charter for collective self-defense.
This language echoes NATO’s Article 5 but is tailored to the Persian Gulf’s hybrid threats, encompassing not just conventional invasions but also proxy warfare, cyber intrusions, and ballistic missile salvos. The pact builds on a 1982 protocol that already facilitated Pakistani troop deployments to Saudi Arabia—historically involving up to 20,000 personnel in advisory and training roles—but elevates it to a comprehensive framework for integrated operations.
Militarily, the agreement spans a spectrum of cooperation modalities. Joint exercises will intensify, drawing from existing bilateral drills like the Al-Samsam series, which have honed mechanized infantry maneuvers and anti-tank warfare using platforms such as Pakistan’s Al-Khalid main battle tanks (MBTs) and Saudi M1A2 Abrams variants.
Technology transfers are a cornerstone. Pakistan, with its robust defense-industrial base—including the production of JF-17 Thunder multirole fighters co-developed with China—will share expertise in low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like the Burraq, equipped with laser-guided munitions for precision strikes.
In return, Saudi Arabia’s petrodollar-fueled arsenal offers access to advanced air defense systems, such as the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) interceptors, potentially integrating with Pakistan’s HQ-9/P (export variant of China’s FD-2000) to create layered anti-ballistic missile shields.
Arms procurement and co-production feature prominently, with provisions for joint ventures in missile technology—leveraging Pakistan’s Shaheen-III intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) with a 2,750 km reach—and electronic warfare (EW) suites.
Intelligence sharing via secure datalinks will enhance situational awareness, focusing on various threats. Logistically, the pact enables forward basing: Pakistani Special Forces could embed with Saudi Rapid Intervention Forces for counterterrorism operations, while shared maintenance facilities for F-15SA Eagles and AH-64E Apache helicopters streamline sustainment in prolonged conflicts.
This blueprint for operational synergy mirrors how the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (PGCC) integrates air assets under Peninsula Shield Force, but with Pakistan’s battle-hardened infantry adding asymmetric depth.
Saudi Arabia’s pursuit of this pact stems from a pragmatic recalibration of its security posture, driven by the kingdom’s Vision 2030 imperatives to reduce oil dependency. Riyadh views Pakistan as a Muslim-majority regional powerhouse with a professional army of over 650,000 active personnel, battle-tested in counterinsurgency campaigns against the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and capable of rapid deployment via C-130J Super Hercules transports.
The kingdom’s goals are multifaceted: first, to hedge against US retrenchment, as evidenced by Washington’s equivocal responses to the 2019 Abqaiq attacks, which exposed vulnerabilities in Saudi Patriot PAC-3 batteries despite their 90 percent intercept rates against subsonic threats.
Second, the pact bolsters deterrence against Iran’s symmetrical arsenal, including medium-range ballistic missiles and tactical ballistic missiles, which have ranges covering the Arabian Peninsula. By aligning with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia gains indirect access to a nuclear-capable partner, complementing its own nascent uranium enrichment program under IAEA safeguards.
Economically, it secures preferential access to Pakistani manpower—over 2 million expatriates already remit billions annually—while channeling investments into Pakistan’s defense sector, such as upgrading the Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) for co-producing Al-Zarrar tanks.
A critical flashpoint is whether the pact extends Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella to Saudi Arabia. Pakistan possesses an estimated 170 warheads, deliverable via Ghauri MRBMs (1,500 km range) or Ra’ad ALCMs (air-launched cruise missiles) from F-16C/D platforms, adhering to a “minimum credible deterrence” doctrine focused on India but adaptable to West Asian contingencies.
The agreement’s text maintains strategic ambiguity—no explicit mention of nuclear sharing—but statements from Pakistani government officials suggest availability “if needed,” implying extended deterrence similar to US commitments to NATO allies.
Analyses indicate this isn’t a formal nuclear-sharing arrangement like NATO’s B61 gravity bombs in Europe; rather, it’s a de facto assurance where Pakistani assets could be forward-deployed in extremis, perhaps via submarine-launched Babur-3 SLCMs from Agosta 90B-class boats.
Saudi funding has historically supported Pakistan’s program, per declassified US cables, but proliferation risks loom under the NPT, which Pakistan hasn’t signed. The pact stops short of a binding nuclear clause to avoid IAEA scrutiny, opting instead for “all necessary means” language that preserves deniability.
The pact’s ramifications cascade across the region, amplifying fault lines and complicating the Persian Gulf’s A2/AD dynamics. For the broader West Asia, it fortifies a new bloc, potentially integrating with the UAE’s Edge Group UAVs or Bahrain’s naval patrols under the Combined Maritime Forces (CMF). This could escalate proxy conflicts in Yemen, where Saudi-led coalitions already employ Pakistani advisors, or in Syria, straining Russian-mediated de-escalation zones.
However, the agreement does not pose any threat to the Islamic Republic, given Pakistan’s role as Iran’s most important security partner, underscored by recent bilateral agreements on border security, counterterrorism, and economic cooperation, including efforts to combat smuggling and joint patrols.
Iran has welcomed the pact as a step toward “comprehensive cooperation among Muslim nations,” reflecting shared interests in regional stability through frameworks like the SCO.
Islamabad’s clarification that the agreement is “defensive and not aimed at third countries” is reassuring, preserving economic lifelines like the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline (delayed but vital for Pakistan’s energy security). Joint border patrols under the 2019 MoU persist, though the pact might divert Pakistani resources—e.g., diverting FC (Frontier Corps) units from anti-smuggling ops to Persian Gulf deployments.
Open-source indicators reveal keen interest from several nations in acceding to this framework, potentially evolving it into a multilateral shield. The UAE, with its Mirage 2000-9 fleet and ambitions for a “Persian Gulf NATO,” tops the list—Abu Dhabi’s prior defense MoUs with Pakistan (including pilot training) align seamlessly, and sources suggest imminent talks for integration.
Qatar, despite Al Udeid’s US basing, eyes the pact for diversified deterrence post-2022 blockade scars, with indications of exploratory discussions. Egypt emerges as a likely candidate: Cairo’s Sisi administration seeks Saudi funding for its T-90MS MBTs and could contribute expeditionary forces, as noted in geopolitical analyses.
Bahrain and Jordan, already in Saudi-led coalitions, have expressed interest via diplomatic channels, bolstering maritime interdiction in the Strait of Hormuz. Even Oman, traditionally neutral, monitors developments for selective engagement in counter-piracy ops.
Mohammad Molaei is a Tehran-based military affairs analyst.
West’s grip slips with Saudi–Pakistan security deal
Riyadh’s pact with Islamabad redraws alliances, weakens Indian leverage, and hints at a new Muslim deterrence framework beyond western control.
By F.M. Shakil | The Cradle | September 23, 2025
On 17 September, Riyadh rolled out the rare royal purple carpet for Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif – an honor previously reserved for global power players like US President Donald Trump.
Accompanying him on the trip was Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir. His presence highlighted that Riyadh values its defense pact with a nuclear power that, despite economic challenges, remains militarily strong.
Nuclear umbrella over Riyadh
The centerpiece of their visit was the signing of a “Strategic Mutual Defense Agreement” (SMDA), which declares that an attack on either country will be considered an attack on both.
Described by a senior Saudi official to Reuters as covering “all military means,” the pact has triggered speculation that it includes a nuclear umbrella, which would be a game-changing development in the military balance of West Asia.
With 81 percent of Pakistan’s weapon imports coming from China, the agreement implicitly aligns Saudi Arabia with the Chinese military-industrial orbit, whether by design or default. The kingdom has long been reliant on US arms, training, and security guarantees.
The pact was signed just two days after an extraordinary joint session between the Arab League and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) was called, following the 9 September Israeli airstrikes on Qatar – a major non-NATO ally and Gulf neighbor – with no substantial response from Washington, reinforcing perceptions that western security commitments are both selective and expendable.
Mushahid Hussain Syed, a former information minister and chairman of Pakistan’s Senate Defense Committee, tells The Cradle that the US has pivoted away from Arab allies toward Tel Aviv, leaving the region disillusioned and increasingly leaning toward alternatives.
“The strategy of ‘Greater Israel,’ spearheaded by Netanyahu, has involved military actions against five more Muslim nations. Pakistan’s recent triumph against India has demonstrated its capacity to contest Israel’s significant ally, India, and establish itself as a strategic alternative for Gulf nations.”
Toward an Islamic NATO?
Iraqi Prime Minister Mohammed Shia al-Sudani recently called for an Islamic military alliance, akin to NATO, in response to Israel’s airstrike on Doha. His proposal echoed Egypt’s earlier attempt to revive a joint Arab defense force under the 1950 treaty – an initiative blocked by Qatar and the UAE, reportedly under US pressure.
A similar proposal has also come from Islamabad when Pakistan’s Defense Minister, Khawaja Asif, urged Muslim countries to band together in a NATO-like military alliance in light of the Israeli aggression in Doha.
During an appearance on Geo TV last week, Asif drove home the point that a united Muslim military front is essential to tackle common security issues and fend off outside dangers. Asif invoked the wider role of the west in instigating instability in West Asia, emphasizing the intricate network of US support for Al-Qaeda and the CIA’s covert actions that led to Osama bin Laden’s relocation to Sudan or the regime change war in Syria.
Is nuclear deterrence a part of the Pact?
The nuclear dimension of the Riyadh–Islamabad pact remains opaque, but highly significant. While no official statement from either side confirms the presence of a nuclear component, Asif hinted that Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities could be shared with Saudi Arabia as part of the agreement.
Syed, however, clarifies to The Cradle that Pakistan’s nuclear doctrine is India-centric and that its deterrence posture is South Asia-specific and does not extend to the Persian Gulf.
“A novel security framework for the region appears to be taking shape, focusing on Global South nations such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, whereas the Indo-Israeli Axis, previously supported by the US, now finds itself significantly diminished.”
The defense agreement between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, he says, represents a notable achievement for Pakistan, establishing it as a pivotal entity within the geopolitical framework of West Asia, particularly among Muslim countries.
“The agreement is shaped by three significant elements: the perceived neglect of Arab allies by the United States, Israel’s proactive maneuvers in areas such as Iran, Qatar, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen, and Pakistan’s recent triumph over India in May.”
New Delhi, Tel Aviv on alert
Foreign media and analysts are already warning that the pact may have unintended consequences for India and Israel, despite claims that it targets neither. Others predict that this pact is really about Riyadh’s ambitions to counter Iran and Yemen’s Ansarallah-led government in the region.
Dr Abdul Rauf Iqbal, a senior research scholar at the Institute for Strategic Studies, Research and Analysis (ISSRA) at Islamabad’s National Defence University (NDU), tells The Cradle that New Delhi views the pact with unease as it formalizes Saudi–Pakistani security ties that could entangle Riyadh in South Asian rivalries, especially the India–Pakistan border tensions over Jammu and Kashmir:
“It represents a setback for Prime Minister Modi’s foreign policy, potentially leading to Saudi involvement in a prospective Indo–Pak conflict. Furthermore, future Saudi investments in Pakistan’s Gwadar port and economic corridors would challenge India’s regional influence and initiatives such as the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC).”
He adds that Saudi Arabia’s pivot toward Pakistan reflects a broader alignment of Muslim powers and could push Tel Aviv to recalibrate its war on Gaza. It also pressures Tel Aviv by placing Pakistan – a vocal opponent of Israeli expansionism – into West Asian affairs.
“This agreement is not meant to counterbalance Iran’s regional influence, but rather to promote the Saudi Iranian reconciliation, as Pakistan maintains friendly relations with both nations. By formalizing ties with nuclear-armed Pakistan, Riyadh secures a credible deterrent as US security guarantees weaken. While western think tanks view it as an effort to contain Iran, the Arab world emphasizes it as strengthening Gulf deterrence independently of Washington.”
Indian concerns also stem from fears that the pact’s NATO-style clause could complicate ongoing operations like Sindoor, which remains active in a limited capacity following the skirmish between the two nuclear powers in May, especially given that the Gulf states’ swift mediation to resolve the crisis reflects their own interests with India and makes any military action against it unlikely.
Secondly, India is strategically analyzing Pakistan’s nuclear capability, which could see a boost if Saudi Arabia, having no such capacity, begins channeling funds to share Pakistan’s nuclear assets.
A post-western Gulf order?
While Tel Aviv and New Delhi remain publicly silent, both capitals are undoubtedly scrutinizing the fallout. Israel’s failed assassination attempt on Hamas leaders in Qatar, and India’s pressure campaign along the Line of Control, suggest that the axis is nervous about the consequences of a Saudi–Pakistani alliance. Israeli media downplayed the Saudi–Pakistan defense deal, seeing it as a show of force after Riyadh failed to influence Trump or West Asian policy.
As Syed notes, “The traditional ‘Oil for Security’ framework, which once defined US relations with the Middle East [West Asia], now serves as a remnant of a bygone era. As Saudi economic power increasingly reinforces China’s backing of Pakistan, India may feel vulnerable and isolated.”
Mark Kinra, an Indian geopolitical analyst with a focus on Pakistan and Balochistan, tells The Cradle that this development holds particular significance for India. New Delhi, he argues, has sustained robust economic and diplomatic ties with Saudi Arabia for many years, and the influx of Saudi investments in India continues to expand:
“India will be meticulously observing the progression of this agreement, particularly given that its specific terms are not publicly available. Any alteration in the regional security equilibrium may influence India’s strategic assessments, energy security, and diplomatic relations.”
As Washington’s selective security guarantees falter and Israel escalates unchecked, Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia are looking eastward for credible deterrents and strategic autonomy.
By aligning with nuclear-armed Pakistan, Riyadh is asserting greater independence from the western military order. It also signals the emergence of a multipolar Persian Gulf security architecture –one increasingly shaped by Global South coordination, not western diktats.
Pakistan expands nuclear umbrella to cover Saudi Arabia
MEMO | September 22, 2025
A source close to the Saudi government said on Sunday that Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella will now extend to Saudi Arabia, just days after the two allies signed a surprise joint defence agreement.
The source revealed that the agreement had been in the works for several years, and added that Saudi Arabia expects India — Pakistan’s long-standing rival — to understand the Kingdom’s security needs.
When asked whether the agreement meant that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons could be used to defend Saudi Arabia, Saudi writer and analyst Ali Shihabi, who is close to the royal court, confirmed: “Yes, that is correct.”
Shihabi added that nuclear protection is an integral part of the agreement, noting that Pakistan understands Saudi Arabia had effectively financed and supported its nuclear programme during times of international sanctions.
He also said he believed India would understand Saudi Arabia’s security requirements, describing current relations between Riyadh and New Delhi as “excellent.”
According to media reports, Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, told a local radio station that the country’s nuclear programme would be available to Saudi Arabia if needed, following the signing of the defence pact.
Pakistan says ‘door open’ for more Arab states to join mutual-defense pact
The Cradle | September 20, 2025
Pakistan’s Defense Minister Khawaja Asif said on 18 September that “the doors are not closed” for other Arab states to join the new defense pact signed with Saudi Arabia.
Asif emphasized that there was no clause preventing Pakistan from extending similar arrangements to other nations.
The agreement was signed in Riyadh by Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) during Sharif’s day-long visit, and declares that aggression against one country will be considered aggression against both.
A joint statement said the deal “reflects the shared commitment of both nations to enhance their security and to achieve security and peace in the region and the world.”
Asif also confirmed that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is included within the framework of the pact, describing it as a joint shield that leaves “no doubt” either side would respond if attacked.
“What we have, our capabilities, will absolutely be available under this pact,” Asif told Pakistani broadcaster Geo News.
He stressed that Pakistan had always placed its nuclear facilities under inspection and had “never committed any violation.”
“This agreement will not be a hegemonic arrangement but a defensive arrangement,” Asif emphasized.
“We don’t have any plans to conquer territory or attack anyone. But our fundamental right can’t be denied to us and we exercised that yesterday,” he added.
The minister drew comparisons with NATO, saying Muslim states had the same right to collective defense. “I think it is a fundamental right of the countries and people here, particularly the Muslim population, to together defend their region, countries, and nations.”
Pakistan has long stationed troops and air force units in Saudi Arabia, training Saudi forces and providing advisory support.
“I think that relationship has been more defined now and that understanding has been given the form of a defense agreement,” Asif explained.
Pakistani External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India would assess the implications for its national security, adding that the government remained committed to “ensuring comprehensive national security in all domains.”
Asif also tied the pact to Pakistan’s longstanding role in protecting Islamic holy sites in the kingdom, describing it as a “sacred duty.”
Sabotage in the Skies: Was Pakistani General Zia-ul-Haq Murdered by Mossad?
The death of Pakistan’s military ruler remains one of the great unsolved puzzles of the 20th century
José Niño Unfiltered | August 17, 2025
37 years ago today, on August 17, 1988, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq died in a mysterious plane crash that eliminated nearly every member of Pakistan’s military high command in a single devastating blow. The crash of Pak-1, a specially configured C-130 Hercules aircraft, near Bahawalpur claimed not only the Pakistani president and army chief but also Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Akhtar Abdur Rahman, several senior Pakistani military officers, U.S. Ambassador Arnold Lewis Raphel, and Brigadier General Herbert M. Wassom, head of the U.S. military aid mission to Pakistan.
Zia’s Strategic Legacy: Architect of Pakistan’s Nuclear Ambitions
Before examining the mysterious circumstances of his death, Zia’s foreign policy accomplishments merit recognition. During his rule (1978—1988), Zia transformed Pakistan from a middling regional actor into a regional power with the ability to change the strategic landscape. His most significant achievement was shepherding Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program to near-completion while successfully balancing Cold War pressures.
After India conducted its first nuclear test—codenamed Smiling Buddha—on May 18, 1974, Pakistan moved swiftly toward its own weapons program. In response to this move, then-Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto pledged that his nation would not be left behind.
“We will eat grass or leaves, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own,” he declared. Pointing to the existing arsenals of other faith-based powers, he remarked: “There is a Christian bomb, a Jewish bomb and now a Hindu bomb. Why not an Islamic bomb?”
When Zia took power in 1978, he continued the Pakistani ruling class plan to turn the South Asian nation into a nuclear power. In 1987, Zia told the Carnegie Endowment that Pakistan sought sufficient nuclear capability “to create an impression of deterrence.” His bold proclamation that Pakistan was “a screwdriver’s turn away from the bomb” sent shockwaves across intelligence communities worldwide.
The nuclear program’s success vindicated Zia’s vision. Pakistan conducted its first successful nuclear tests on May 28, 1998, becoming the world’s seventh nuclear power.
Pakistan’s Unpredictable Foreign Policy Under Zia
Zia’s foreign policy demonstrated remarkable strategic acumen. As the primary architect of the Afghan resistance against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, he successfully convinced initially reluctant Americans to provide massive military aid. CIA veteran Bruce Riedel emphasized that “the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan was run by Zia, not by us.” Zia rejected President Carter’s initial $400 million aid offer as “peanuts” and ultimately secured $3.2 billion in military and economic aid from the Reagan administration.
Simultaneously, Zia pursued deeper ties with China and maintained complex relationships with Iran despite sectarian pressures. During the Iran-Iraq War, Pakistan officially maintained neutrality while covertly supporting Iran. Zia described Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as “a symbol of Islamic insurgence” in 1979 and was one of the first countries to diplomatically recognize the Islamic Republic of Iran. Pakistan reportedly conducted clandestine arms deals that saw Chinese and U.S. weapons sent to Iran, including Silkworm and Stinger missiles originally intended for Afghan mujahideen, which played a decisive role for Iran in the “Tanker War” against Iraq.
The Fatal Flight: August 17, 1988
The events of that fateful day began routinely. Zia had traveled to Bahawalpur to witness a demonstration of the U.S. Army’s M1 Abrams tank at the Thamewali Test Range. After the successful demonstration, organized by Major-General Mahmud Ali Durrani, Zia and his delegation departed by army helicopter before transferring to the specially configured C-130 for the return flight to Islamabad.
At 3:40 PM Pakistan Time, Pak-1 took off from Bahawalpur Airport with thirty people aboard, including 17 passengers and 13 crew members. The aircraft had been equipped with an air-conditioned VIP capsule where Zia and his American guests were seated, walled off from both the flight crew and passenger sections. For two minutes and thirty seconds, the plane rose into clear skies. Takeoff was smooth and without problems.
At 3:51 PM, Bahawalpur control tower lost contact. Witnesses cited in Pakistan’s official investigation reported that the C-130 began pitching “in an up-and-down motion” while flying low before going into a “near-vertical dive” and exploding on impact. The plane crashed with such force that it was blown to pieces, with wreckage scattered over a wide area. All 30 people aboard died instantly.
Brigadier Naseem Khan, flying a French-made Puma helicopter in the vicinity, was among the first to arrive at the crash site. “I walked all around it,” he later recalled. “The plane had crashed at an almost perpendicular angle. I first spotted the cap worn by Gen Wassom, and then Gen Akhtar Rahman’s peaked cap. Then my eye fell upon a dismembered leg, wearing a black sock and black shoe. I suspected it belonged to Gen Zia.”
The Cover-Up Begins
Pakistan’s board of inquiry concluded that the most likely cause of the crash was a criminal act of sabotage within the aircraft. Investigators suggested that toxic gases rendered passengers and crew unconscious, preventing any distress call from being made. Curiously, despite prior C-130 models being fitted with flight recorders, none was found after the crash.
The American response proved equally suspicious. According to former New York Times South Asia Bureau Chief and Council on Foreign Relations member Barbara Crossette’s investigation, Ambassador Robert Oakley and General George B. Crist of CENTCOM rejected an attempt to have the FBI investigate a crash that killed the U.S. ambassador and an American general. Instead, they arranged for the Pentagon and State Department to hold an inter-departmental inquiry. Both officials later apologized to Congress for this decision.
Within two months of the crash, the American government was alone in promoting the theory that mechanical malfunction brought down the plane. On the other hand, most Pakistanis assumed assassination from the start.
Ambassador John Gunther Dean’s Shocking Revelations
The most explosive allegations about Zia’s death came from an unexpected source. John Gunther Dean, who in 1988 served as U.S. Ambassador to India, was a distinguished diplomat with four decades of service who had held more ambassadorships than most envoys. Dean was uniquely positioned to observe the aftermath of Zia’s death, and what he suspected would end his diplomatic career.
Dean believed the plot to eliminate General Zia bore the hallmarks of Israel, specifically the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. His suspicions weren’t outlandish. Dean had personal experience with Israeli operations. Eight years earlier, while serving as Ambassador to Lebanon, Israelis had sought his support for their local projects, assuming that a fellow Jew would be willing to cooperate with them. When Dean rejected those overtures and declared his primary loyalty was to America, an attempt was made to assassinate him.
On August 28, 1980, Dean, his wife, daughter, and son-in-law narrowly escaped serious injury in a motorcade attack in suburban Beirut. The munitions were eventually traced back to Israel. Dean later discovered the Lebanese group claiming responsibility was an Israeli-created front organization used to carry out Mossad terrorist attacks.
Barbara Crossette’s Investigation
In 2005, after 17 years of silence, Dean finally revealed his suspicions to Barbara Crossette, in what would become a landmark investigation. Crossette’s 5,000-word article “Who Killed Zia?” appeared in the prestigious World Policy Journal, published by The New School in New York City under academic Stephen Schlesinger.
Dean’s theory centered on Israel’s alarm over Pakistan’s nuclear program. A few years before his death, Zia took bold steps to develop a nuclear weapons program. Although his primary motive was balancing India’s nuclear arsenal, Zia promised to share such weapons with other Muslim countries, including those in the Middle East. This possibility created major concerns in the Israeli national security community.
According to journalist Eric Margolis, Israel repeatedly tried to enlist India in launching a joint assault against Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. After careful consideration, India declined. This left Israel in a quandary. Zia was a proud military dictator with very close U.S. ties that strengthened his diplomatic leverage. Pakistan was 2,000 miles from Israel and possessed a strong military, making any long-distance bombing raid similar to the 1981 strike against Iraq’s Osirak reactor virtually impossible. That left assassination as the remaining option.
The Diplomatic Retaliation
Dean chose proper diplomatic channels rather than media disclosure. He immediately departed for Washington to share his views with State Department superiors and other top Administration officials. Upon reaching Washington, Dean was quickly declared mentally incompetent, prevented from returning to his India posting, and soon forced to resign. His four-decade career in government service came to a screeching halt.
Dean was sent to Switzerland to “rest” for six weeks before being allowed to return to New Delhi to pack his belongings and resign. He lost his medical clearance and security clearance because of his views about the crash. The accusation of “mental imbalance” effectively ended any investigation into his allegations.
One might expect such explosive charges from such a solid source would provoke considerable press attention, but the story was instead totally ignored and boycotted by the entire North American media. Stephen Schlesinger, who had spent a decade at the helm of World Policy Journal, saw his name vanish from the masthead shortly after publication, and his employment at The New School came to an end.
Ron Unz observed, with some shock, that the article is no longer available on the World Policy Journal website, though the text remains accessible via Archive.org. Even Dean’s detailed New York Times obituary portrayed his distinguished career in flattering terms while devoting not a single sentence to the bizarre circumstances under which it ended.
Zia’s Legacy Lives On
The patterns established during Zia’s era continue influencing Pakistan’s foreign policy today, often creating tension with traditional allies. Pakistan’s integration into China’s Belt and Road Initiative through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor represents the kind of independent alignment that characterized Zia’s approach to international relations.
However, recent attacks on Chinese nationals working in Pakistan have troubling parallels to the covert plans to potentially target Pakistan’s nuclear program in the 1980s. What was envisioned as a secure trade and energy corridor linking Xinjiang to Gwadar has instead become a flashpoint for insurgency. Baloch separatists, particularly the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), have repeatedly targeted Chinese personnel and infrastructure in a campaign to derail Pakistan’s partnership with China.
These efforts have ranged from the killing of nine Chinese engineers at the Dasu Hydropower Project in 2021, to Operation Dara-e-Bolan in January 2024, and the March 2025 hijacking of the Jaffar Express that left 59 dead. Each new CPEC agreement, including six signed in 2023, has provoked fresh waves of violence, underscoring the project’s vulnerability. Far from isolated incidents, this sustained series of attacks highlights how militant groups and their great power patrons see undermining CPEC as central to weakening the Chinese-Pakistani alliance.
Speculation about Western intelligence support for Balochi separatists has gained currency in recent years. The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), with documented ties to Israeli intelligence, launched a Balochistan Studies Project in 2025. This initiative highlighted Balochistan’s strategic importance for monitoring Iran’s and Pakistan’s nuclear program, suggesting Israel’s continued interest in leveraging regional ethnic tensions for broader geopolitical objectives.
The Imran Khan Parallel
The 2022 removal of Prime Minister Imran Khan bears striking similarities to the pressures Zia faced for maintaining independent foreign policy positions. Khan’s insistence on neutrality regarding the Russia-Ukraine conflict angered Washington, just as Zia’s support for Iran during the Iran-Iraq War created friction with Reagan administration officials.
The leaked diplomatic cable published by The Intercept revealed that U.S. State Department official Donald Lu explicitly linked Khan’s removal to his Russia policy. “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister,” Lu stated. “Otherwise, I think it will be tough going ahead.”
Khan was removed through a no-confidence vote on April 10, 2022, exactly one month after the threatening meeting with U.S. officials. The parallel with Zia’s fate thirty-four years earlier is unmistakable: Pakistani leaders who pursue independent foreign policies will face tremendous pressure from Washington and could be unceremoniously removed from power.
Iran-Pakistan Relations: From Conflict to Cooperation
The January 2024 tit-for-tat missile exchanges between Iran and Pakistan initially appeared to represent a dangerous escalation. Iran struck Balochi separatist targets in Pakistani Balochistan on January 16, killing two children. Pakistan retaliated two days later, targeting Balochi militants in Iranian Sistan-Baluchestan province, killing nine people including four children.
However, the rapid diplomatic resolution echoed Zia’s approach to managing regional relationships. Within days, both countries agreed to de-escalate through diplomatic channels. The now-deceased Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian visited Pakistan on January 29, 2024, leading to agreements on enhanced security cooperation and intelligence sharing. This swift return to cooperation reflected the kind of pragmatic diplomacy Zia employed during the Iran-Iraq War.
This move also reflects the new challenge of challenging Judeo-American perfidy with respect to the activation of Balochi militants against the security interests of both Iran and Pakistan. Iran and Pakistan have been increasingly alarmed by the growing nexus between Baloch separatists and Israel, which both states see as a direct threat to their security. As Mansur Khan Mahsud of Pakistan’s FATA Research Centre told The Cradle, “During the recent 12-day standoff between Iran and Israel, Tehran noticed a tight-knit connection between Baloch separatists and Israel. Their sharing of intelligence with Tel Aviv led to significant human and infrastructure losses for Iran.”
Tehran has gone further with its accusations, directly implicating Tel Aviv and accusing Israel of recruiting and deploying mercenaries through the Balochistan Liberation United Front (BLUF). Abdullah Khan of the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies warned: “Iran is enhancing its ties with Pakistan in the background of militants’ increased alignment with Israel. Their liaison with Tel Aviv would further crystallize when Iran shifts its policies and takes action against BLA and BLF sanctuaries within its territory. India has cultivated strong ties with both groups, enabling it to serve as a bridge to connect them with Israel.”
The Multipolar Reality
Today’s geopolitical environment increasingly resembles the complex balance Zia navigated during the 1980s. Pakistan’s alignment with China and Iran in various contexts, from CPEC to regional security cooperation against Israel’s Judeo-Accelerationist foreign policy, represents the kind of hedging strategy Zia pioneered.
The emergence of a multipolar world order, with China and Russia challenging American hegemony, provides Pakistan with alternatives to complete dependence on Washington. This mirrors the strategic space Zia created by balancing Cold War pressures while pursuing Pakistan’s independent interests.
The emergence of India as a strategic partner for both Israel and the United States creates new pressure points for Pakistan. This convergence of Israeli and American interests regarding Pakistan mirrors the strategic calculations that may have motivated action against Zia in 1988. Pakistan’s continued opposition to India, combined with its growing alignment with China and Iran, places it squarely in opposition to the emerging U.S.-India-Israel axis.
Just as Zia-ul-Haq’s demise brought one era to a close, the unresolved questions surrounding his death continue to haunt Pakistan’s foreign policy decision-making in a world where old alliances fade and new fault lines emerge.
World rallies behind Syria as Israel tears away at it
Press TV – July 18, 2025
International organizations and a whole host of countries have expressed outright condemnation of the Israeli regime’s escalating deadly and destructive attacks against Syria under the pretext of protecting the country’s Druze minority.
A torrent of statements followed the regime’s attack on various areas in the country on Wednesday, including areas lying in its south, in reported support for the Druze.
The attacks came as fighting between members of the minority and Bedouin tribes has killed hundreds of people, with the Israeli involvement being feared to be aimed at intensifying the confrontations and further destabilizing Syria.
UNSC calls for end to Israel’s ‘impunity’
Addressing the situation, Pakistan, which holds the United Nations Security Council (UNSC)’s rotating presidency, denounced the Israeli aggression.
Ambassador Asim Iftikhar Ahmad noted that the attacks resembled Tel Aviv’s atrocities against the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Iran, and Yemen, all of which violated the international law. The envoy also called for an end to the regime’s impunity.
Mohamed Khaled Khiari, UN assistant secretary-general, denounced the Israeli escalation on the part of the world body’s chief, Antonio Guterres.
He said the attacks amounted toa violation of Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and further destabilized the country amid the already sensitive situation.
The official also advised that Tel Aviv respect the 1974 agreement that has mandated its refusal to conduct violations against the Arab nation.
China calls for Israeli withdrawal
Geng Shuang, China’s deputy UN ambassador, said Beijing called on “Israel to immediately cease its military strikes on Syria and withdraw from Syrian territory without delay.”
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian also said the attacks amounted to a flagrant violation of international law and Syria’s sovereignty, saying the Arab country had to be spared of whatever measure that could lead to further crisis and tension.
Turkey: ‘Terror state’ Israel using Druze as excuse
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called the Israeli regime a “terror state.”
“Israel, using the Druze as an excuse, has been expanding its banditry into neighboring Syria over the past two days,” he said in a televised speech.
Erdogan said Turkey would not allow Syria’s partition, saying Tel Aviv’s actions showed it was not after peace.
PGCC: Israel after irresponsible escalation
The Persian Gulf Cooperation Council’s Secretary-General, Jasem Mohammed Albudaiw,i also said the Israeli regime’s atrocities indicated its efforts at irresponsible intensification of standing tensions.
The Israeli aggression, he added, also showed the regime’s disregard for the international community’s efforts at realizing stability and ensuring security in Syria.
Hamas: Israeli aggression ‘systematic terrorism’
The Palestinian resistance movements, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, called the atrocities “organized terrorism.”
The latter also said Tel Aviv was trying to fragment the region through violence, reaffirming solidarity with Syria and supporting its right to resist by all means.
Ansarullah: Israeli attacks part of ‘imperialist scheme’
Yemen’s Ansarullah resistance movement denounced the Israeli strikes as part of a larger “imperialist scheme” to dominate the Arab and Muslim world.
It called for a unified Arab-Islamic response and an end to silence in the face of the aggression.
Muslim states hold intensive talks
Foreign ministers from various regional Muslim countries have, meanwhile, held intensive talks concerning the state of affairs.
The talks were held among top diplomats from Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait, Lebanon, and Egypt.
The discussions that were held with the aim of helping the countries in question adopt a unified stance in the face of the situation saw the officials reiterate support for Syria’s security, unity, stability, and sovereignty.
They called on the UNSC to assume its legal and moral duties towards guaranteeing the withdrawal of the Israeli regime from Syria, and bringing about an end to its aggression by obliging it to abide by the 1974 agreement.
Malaysia: Israel threatening international peace
Malaysia also called for the international community “not to tolerate the continued aggression by the Israeli Zionist regime against other countries, threatening regional and international peace and security.”
Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said after decades of hardship, the Syrian people deserved peace, not further violence and external interference.
Norway’s foreign minister has also said he was “deeply concerned about recent Israeli airstrikes and rising domestic tensions.”
Pakistan won’t remain silent if US, Israel target Ayatollah Khamenei: Senator
Press TV – June 30, 2025
A Pakistani senator has condemned a threat by the US and Israel to target Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, saying it will trigger a response from all Muslim nations, including Pakistan.
Allama Raja Nasir Abbas Jafari, a member of the Pakistani Senate, described Ayatollah Khamenei as a religious leader and a Marja (religious authority), who is also a political leader.
Religious authorities issued a fatwa (religious decree) that says anyone who threatens the Leader is an enemy of God, whose punishment is death in Islam, he noted.
Between June 13 and 24, Israel waged a blatant and unprovoked aggression against Iran, assassinating many high-ranking military commanders, nuclear scientists, and ordinary civilians.
On June 22, the United States also jumped on the bandwagon and bombed three Iranian nuclear sites in a grave violation of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
During the 12-day war, US President Donald Trump claimed that Ayatollah Khamenei was “an easy target.”
Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel also ranted that the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei would “end” the war.
The Pakistani senator said Trump and Netanyahu should know that if an attack is carried out, it will not just be an attack on Iran, and all Muslims in the world will respond to it.
“We will respond in Pakistan as well; if such an action is taken, no American will remain in Pakistan. We will not remain silent when they (Trump and Netanyahu) do not abide by any law,” he added.
On Sunday, senior Iranian clerics Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi and Grand Ayatollah Hossein Nouri-Hamedani issued religious decrees against any attack or threat to Ayatollah Khamenei.
They said that any person or regime that threatens or attacks the leadership and religious authority to harm the Islamic Ummah and its sovereignty is subject to the ruling of confrontation.
Pakistan breaks ranks, backs Iran in war with Israel
By F.M. Shakil | The Cradle | June 19, 2025
Despite Islamabad’s official denials of providing military or material support to Iran in its confrontation with Israel, recent developments suggest a dramatic shift in regional alignments. Today, Pakistan and China appear to be coordinating closely with Tehran, offering tangible strategic advantages as Tel Aviv escalates its hostilities.
As war clouds gathered, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi held urgent discussions with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi on 14 June. That same day, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian spoke with Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who expressed Islamabad’s “resolute solidarity” with Iran. He also added that the country “stands firmly with the Iranian people in this critical hour.”
China and Pakistan’s role
In the immediate aftermath, reports emerged of Pakistani military delegations arriving in Tehran amid the hostilities. Although swiftly denied by Islamabad, the timing and context fuel speculation of deeper collaboration. Similarly, Beijing reportedly greenlit the transfer of its BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS) technology to Iran, formalized in a new bilateral MoU – an upgrade that dramatically enhanced the precision of Iranian missile strikes.
Though Pakistan continues to reject claims of missile transfers to Iran, its stance in recent days paints a different picture. On 16 June, members of the Iranian parliament chanted “Thank you, thank you Pakistan” following remarks by Pezeshkian, who praised Pakistan for standing by Iran. These developments fly in the face of Pakistan’s non-alignment rhetoric and indicate an ideological and strategic realignment by Islamabad.
It was only early last year that Iran launched missile and drone strikes into Pakistan’s Balochistan region on 16 January, targeting extremist militant group Jaish al-Adl positions. Pakistan retaliated two days later on 18 January, conducting air and missile strikes into Iran’s Sistan and Baluchestan province in an operation dubbed Marg Bar Sarmachar. The tit-for-tat was remarkably friendly in the final analysis, and appears to have settled some critical border cooperation issues between the two states.
The fact that these former adversaries – who had just engaged in direct military exchanges – have now adopted “resolute solidarity” is nothing short of breathtaking.
Beijing’s embrace of Iran is grounded in energy security and strategic depth instead. Its ambitious, multi-trillion dollar Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) aimed at linking the Eurasian landmass hinges on the stability of Tehran and Islamabad, with the Gwadar and Chahbahar ports forming key arteries in China’s westward expansion.
China also supplies J-10 fighter jets and HQ‑9 air‑defense systems to Pakistan, which played key roles in the extraordinary May 2025 skirmish between India and Pakistan – marking major testing ground for Chinese weapons. A parallel circumstance is present in Iran. China must acknowledge Iran because it is a crucial supporter of China’s energy needs and trade operations.
“The enemy of my friend is my enemy” may well define the new tripartite logic binding Iran, Pakistan, and China in resistance to Israeli and western designs.
Colonial ambitions and nuclear red lines
Tel Aviv’s recent strikes on Iranian military and nuclear infrastructure mark a new phase in a decades-long western strategy aimed at dismantling Muslim powers resistant to colonial domination. Iraq, Syria, Libya – all were destabilized under similar pretexts. The 2001 plot, conceived by the US, its European allies, and Israel, has entered its second phase, targeting Iran initially and Pakistan subsequently.
In a 2011 interview with Channel 2, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu laid bare the logic: Iran and Pakistan are the primary targets of this containment strategy, he stated blankly. “These radical regimes … pose a significant threat,” he said, stressing the need to prevent them from acquiring nuclear capability.
But recent Israeli provocations have instead triggered multipolar resistance to those plans. Speaking to The Cradle, Abdullah Khan of the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies (PICSS) reveals that Israeli drone operators had recently attempted to sabotage Pakistan’s nuclear facilities during the India–Pakistan crisis:
“Israeli drone operators were stationed in Indian operation rooms during the recent Pakistan–India conflict, trying to target Pakistan’s nuclear facilities. However, prompt action from Pakistan thwarted their efforts, preventing them from causing any damage to the nuclear assets of Pakistan.”
Defensive posturing or new axis?
A source in Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry reveals to The Cradle that Islamabad has quietly warned Washington of a potential nuclear escalation should Israel attack Iran with such weapons.
“If such a situation arises, it will spill beyond Iran. The region will enter a new, unpredictable security phase,” the source states.
The warning was soon echoed in Tehran. On 16 June, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) General Mohsen Rezaei declared on state television:
“Pakistan has told us that if Israel uses nuclear missiles, we will also attack it with nuclear weapons.”
Meanwhile, Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif caused a stir with an incendiary post targeting exiled Iranian royal Reza Pahlavi, the son of the ousted shah of Iran. In response to Pahlavi’s BBC interview, Asif wrote on X:
“If Iranian people are energized and motivated, according to you, show some balls and go back and lead them and remove the regime. Put your money where your arse is, bloody parasitical imperial whore.”
Bilal Khan, a Toronto-based defense/security analyst and the co-founder of independent think tank Quwa Defence News & Analysis Group, tells The Cradle that Islamabad perceives itself as under coordinated pressure from the US, India, and Israel.
“The Pakistani security elite perceive that the US and its counter-proliferation regime are imposing penalties on Pakistan, although it was India that brought the nuclear issue to South Asia. “There exists a structural perception in Rawalpindi that the US, along with its allies India and Israel, is targeting Pakistan’s nuclear program. Nonetheless, it remains uncertain how Pakistan will handle the situation. Certainly, increased investment in air defense systems, enhanced domestic intelligence capabilities, and strengthening the air force with next-generation J-35 stealth fighters are all essential to take on any possible Israeli actions.”
From denial to celebration
While Islamabad has offered no formal commitment of military aid to Tehran, Iranian media and parliament are now rallying around Pakistan with chants of “Pakistan Zindabad.”
Diplomatically, Islamabad has backed Tehran’s call for a UN Security Council session on Israeli aggression and explicitly defended Iran’s right to self-defense. Alongside Algeria, China, and Russia, Pakistan played a key role in amplifying Iran’s initiative, marking a coordinated diplomatic front that signals a deeper convergence within the Eurasian bloc. This is no small gesture from a country once considered a possible target of Israel’s preemptive doctrine.
In a move that exposes Washington’s alarm, Pakistan’s army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, was quietly summoned to the US Central Command headquarters in Florida. His absence from a key national parade in Islamabad has raised questions at home. While the Pakistani embassy remains tight-lipped, Dawn cited sources anticipating “uncomfortable conversations” in Washington.
Whether Munir’s US visit results in a recalibration or further consolidation of Islamabad’s alignment with Tehran and Beijing remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Pakistan is no longer sitting on the fence.
Pakistan calls for Muslim states to unite against Israel
RT | June 16, 2025
Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif has called on Muslim nations to unite against Israel following its strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites. He warned that failing to act collectively would only encourage further attacks across the Middle East.
Speaking in the National Assembly on Saturday, Asif argued that Israel “did not act alone” and had received “intelligence, cover, and support.” He said the Muslim world remained “militarily vulnerable” and urged a joint response.
“Just as Israel is currently targeting Yemen, Iran, and Palestine, if the Muslim world does not unite today and continues to prioritize its own interests and agendas, then everyone’s turn will come,” he told lawmakers.
Asif called for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to convene and devise a strategy to confront Israel. “Wherever there are diplomatic ties with Israel in the Muslim world, they should be severed,” he said.
“We stand behind Iran and will support them at every international forum to protect their interests,” the defense minister added.
On Friday morning, Israeli jets bombed military and nuclear sites across Iran and carried out assassinations of several senior Iranian military commanders and veteran nuclear scientists. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the strikes were aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In response, Iran launched multiple ballistic missiles at Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv.
While the US denied involvement, President Donald Trump endorsed Israel’s operation. Iran has since suspended nuclear talks with Washington.
BJP-led team returns from West Asia
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | June 4, 2025
The multi-party delegation led by the BJP Vice-President and spokesman Bijayant Panda which toured four countries in the Gulf region — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Algeria — to rally support for the government’s war on terror against Pakistan has returned. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar “lauded their efforts,” per media reports.
This was the most consequential delegation out of the five delegations that the government mounted to mobilise international opinion. The tidings from the Gulf have great ‘grassroots resonance’ in India’s domestic politics.
A member of Panda’s team said, “We briefed the EAM … that India’s growing economic might and position in the world order, secured by PM Narendra Modi’s diplomatic push during his tenure and visits to several nations, are key when it comes to the world’s decision to stand with us as partners both in international trade as well as on the issue of zero tolerance against terrorism.”
West Asia is India’s ‘extended neighbourhood.’ And India’s West Asian diplomacy does carry the imprimatur of Modi. For that reason, an ex-Foreign Secretary was included in Panda’s team to navigate the tricky mission. What comes to mind is Panda’s challenge was similar to Nikita Khrushchev’s as the Commissar of the Red Army at the Stalingrad Front in World War II.
Khrushchev shouted at the commanders of the 62nd Army and the 64th Army on the Stalingrad Front, ‘Comrades, this is no ordinary city. This is Stalingrad. It carries the name of the Boss.” The generals got the message and went on to crush the crack Nazi Panzer Divisions and turn the tide of the Battle of Stalingrad, which is still remembered as the bloodiest and fiercest battle of the entirety of World War II — and, arguably, in all of human history.
But Panda didn’t have such an option. His delegation received a warm reception. But the profoundly worrisome reality still continues, namely, the Gulf regimes are taking a ‘proforma’ attitude, voicing hackneyed words on terrorism but also echoing the burgeoning world opinion that India and Pakistan ought to find a solution to their issues through dialogue and negotiations.
The Gulf states have neatly sidestepped Pakistan’s alleged role in Pahalgam. They ask for ‘proof’! The top diplomat of a friendly country apparently remarked a few days ago in a private conversation as an aside that the Pahalgam terrorists physically checking out the religion of their victims first is nothing new in the subcontinent, and cited Khushwant Singh’s Train to Pakistan for reference.
What has Panda’s delegation brought home? Does it make a success story? A member of the delegation later told media in the mother of all quotes, “Every country we visited had already issued statements condemning the Pahalgam terror incident — these were reiterated by them in person to us.” But this is like reinventing the wheel.
Some profoundly troubling question arise here, especially as countdown has begun for the Shashi Tharoor moment in Washington. Tharoor also has a challenging mission. After all those decades in the UN where he handled public relations work, this must be a novel experience — to actually negotiate as a flag carrier.
Not a single senior US official is willing to name Pakistan so far — certainly, not Trump. They will wonder how this flashy neocon liberal from Delhi and an eloquent exponent of globalism in American publications all these years has shrunk and become a pale shadow of himself.
Who’s afraid of terrorism in 21st century? We are in an era where terrorism is becoming the preferred weapon to fight hybrid wars. Trump recently shook hands with the notoriously cruel ex-al Qaeda terrorist leader Ahmad al-Sharaa who committed unspeakable crimes against humanity, underscoring that yesterday’s terrorist can be tomorrow’s key ally.
That al-Qaeda was actually a creation of the Americans is known to everybody but Trump proclaimed himself openly as an admirer of al-Sharaa, telling Gulf sheikhs at a GCC conclave in Riyadh on May 14 after shaking hands with the tall six-footer Syrian that “he’s a “young, attractive guy. Tough guy. Strong past. Very strong past. Fighter.” Trump added, “He’s got a real shot at holding it [Syria] together. He’s a real leader. He led a charge, and he’s pretty amazing.”
Trump had better be right in his optimism because his entire gambit of betting on an ex-al Qaeda ally to reshape West Asia is a risky venture funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar who’d see in all this by the time Trump becomes history a pathway to sow the germane seeds of a third Wahhabi state modelled after them in the cradle of Islamic civilisation.
In Ukraine too, terrorism is the preferred weapon for the Western powers to bleed Russia in their proxy war when in military technology and defence manufacturing industry they cannot match Russia’s, and they are no longer capable of fighting a continental war either. The stark message coming out of the attacks on Russian military assets two days ago with technical support from NATO satellites — and possibly Elon Musk’s Starlink — is that terrorism can be a game changer in geopolitics.
Therefore, all this global campaign by our government against Pakistan may have a good optic domestically as our media hypes it up dutifully, but what is the net gain for diplomacy? Even if the whole world were to now bracket Pakistan with the US, UK, Saudi Arabia or Qatar as yet another state sponsoring terrorism, so what? Who cares?
Today’s papers have reported that according to a list of chairs of the subsidiary bodies of the UN that monitor international terrorism, Pakistan holds responsible positions as co-chair of the Taliban Sanctions Committee of the UN Security Council for 2025 and the Counter-terrorism Committee. Pakistan will also be the co-chair of the informal working groups on documentation and other procedural questions as well as the general UN Security Council sanctions issues.
How could the alleged epicentre of international terrorism be possibly a watchdog and decision-maker on counter-terrorism and sanctions in a world body? Clearly, international opinion ignores India’s diatribes against Pakistan, which is also currently an elected non-permanent member of the Security Council.
On the other hand, thanks to the Biden administration and Five Eyes, an impression gained ground in recent years that the Indian government is sponsoring assassination of political opponents abroad as a matter of statecraft. Not only have we suffered some ‘reputational damage,’ but the Pakistani claim that it too is a victim of terrorism gained traction. Countries seem to hyphenate India with Pakistan. It has become necessary for Delhi to disown responsibility when a train derails in Baluchistan or an improvised explosive device blows up a Pakistani army convoy or some notorious jihadi fellow meets with unnatural death on the streets of Lahore and Karachi.
This is becoming a vicious cycle which only helps to call attention to the unresolved Kashmir problem as posing threat to regional and international security. Put differently, ‘terrorism’ in the India-Pakistan context has become the objective co-relative of the Kashmir problem and Hindu-Muslim strife. Trump’s caustic remark about the millennial war speaks for itself.
It is high time that the ‘war on terror’ is removed from our diplomatic toolbox. Certainly, our parliamentarians have no role in it. As for the optics domestically, resort to some other means. By all means, meet terrorism with coercion — if that indeed helps. Deploy what Joseph Nye called ‘smart power’. But neither expect external support, nor canvass for it.
India, Pakistan and a bit of infowarfare
By Lorenzo Maria Pacini | Strategic Culture Foundation | May 27, 2025
The recent events involving India and Pakistan, in a short-lived, conventional and timely conflict, prompt us to reflect carefully on the use and management of media coverage of the conflict.
It is important to remember that the domination of information has to do with the domination of the mind; therefore, the way in which an event is narrated largely defines the perception that the masses will have of it. Controlling the narrative means controlling the majority element of the cognitive-perceptual dimension.
So, let’s look at the facts. A few hours after the massacre of 26 civilians in Pahalgam on 22 April, the main Indian media had already passed judgement. No investigation had yet been launched, no credible claim had been made, nor had any attempt been made to identify specific responsibilities, yet in a very short time the dominant narrative had been established: Pakistan was to blame.
What happened next represents a new critical point in the information war that now accompanies every moment of tension between India and Pakistan. In the days that followed, the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi suffered expulsions of staff, Pakistani citizens were ordered to leave India by 30 April, and a decisive digital offensive was launched. Significantly, the Indian authorities blocked Pakistani YouTube channels, froze social media profiles and targeted narratives coming from across the border.
From Islamabad’s point of view, this was not simply a response to terrorism through the media, but rather a form of information terrorism, an occupation of the narrative. This is a key turning point.
The conflict between the two countries has always been marked by propaganda, disinformation and narratives inflamed by the media on both sides and also abroad, where there is a constant attempt to identify with one faction or the other (as is to be expected); but in 2025, the information landscape is not only a subject of contention, it has become colonised territory.
Pakistan, increasingly marginalised in the large international digital spaces, finds itself fighting a narrative war at a disadvantage. The way in which the Indian media reported the Pahalgam attack follows a well-established script: vague intelligence sources, information presented as established facts, inflammatory talk shows launched well before any concrete evidence emerged. Even after Pakistan’s firm denial and request for a joint investigation, the Indian press continued its campaign. Outlets such as Times Now and Republic TV immediately ran alarmist headlines: ‘Pakistan-sponsored terrorism is back’, ‘It’s time for a military response’. Terms such as ‘atrocious’, ‘state-sponsored’ and ‘surgical strike’ dominated the broadcasts, while scientific investigations were still in their early stages.
No independent verification – note this detail – has been made public. The few Pakistani voices invited onto television programmes were promptly attacked. There was no editorial caution, no balance.
It is fair to acknowledge that Pakistan also has a complicated past with press freedom and control of narratives by the authorities, but what emerges today is not a symmetrical conflict, but rather an unbalanced silence.
On 25 April, the Indian Ministry of Information banned 16 YouTube channels, 94 social media accounts and six news sites linked to Pakistan. The official reason? ‘Protection of national security and sovereignty’. The concrete result: the blocking of almost any alternative or critical viewpoint, especially on issues such as Kashmir, the attack on Pahalgam or bilateral relations. Among the platforms affected were independent media outlets such as Naya Daur, channels run by Pakistani scholars abroad and cultural content with no political affiliation. At the same time, official fact-checking units launched a campaign to expose what they called ‘Pakistani disinformation,’ but the content removed also included material based on authoritative international sources, archive articles that were still valid, and statements taken out of context. The result was a sharp restriction of freedom of expression and access to certain local sources. Even diplomatic communications were not spared. The Pakistani Foreign Ministry saw many of its official posts on X (formerly Twitter) blocked, including statements calling for calm. On 29 April, the hashtag #FalseFlagPahalgam, widely shared in Pakistan, was virtually invisible on platforms accessible from Indian territory.
Tensions reached a new peak on 7 May 2025, when India struck civilian and military targets in Punjab and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, sparking fears of a serious escalation. Islamabad called the operation ‘a blatant act of war’ and announced that it had shot down five Indian military jets, three of which were also confirmed by international media. India has not yet officially responded to this claim, but anonymous government sources have said that three fighter jets crashed in Indian-controlled Kashmir, without confirming whether they actually belonged to India or Pakistan.
Geopolitical asymmetries
It is precisely in this disproportion that the real asymmetry can be perceived. India, thanks to its technological resources, its links with major global platforms and its ability to influence algorithms, controls the digital narrative. Pakistan, on the other hand, is often its victim. The result is a one-sided war of narratives, in which Delhi sets the terms of the debate and Islamabad is relegated to the role of designated culprit.
The internal consequences are no less serious: increased Islamophobia, similarities between Kashmiri identity and jihadism, and some localised tensions. Hashtags such as #PunishPakistan and #MuslimTerror have spread widely without control, while Pakistani responses denouncing violence or discrimination have been labelled as disinformation and deleted.
This double standard only fuels radicalism on both sides. It pushes young Pakistanis towards closed and polarised environments and makes it increasingly difficult to build peaceful bridges between the two peoples. What was once a space for cultural diplomacy is now a digital minefield. The silence of big tech and Western media in the face of India’s censorship is significant: when an authoritarian regime represses dissent, it is called tyranny; when India does so in the name of ‘national security’, it is praised as moderate. Pakistan has asked for the opportunity to defend itself in the information arena and has been effectively denied, leaving it at an international disadvantage.
The absence of real journalistic scrutiny signals a deeper evil: narrative has replaced facts. The struggle for dominance is now being fought with tweets, headlines and talk shows.
At this level of conflict, the gap between what is true and what is plausible becomes very difficult to discern. Do you understand how powerful this tool is? The frame within which the narrative is placed is what determines how the ‘truth’ of that event will be constructed.
The example of India and Pakistan teaches us that there is no need to fire guns, even in a historical conflict such as theirs. Words work much better. Because even when the guns have fired, there will still be ‘good guns’ and ‘bad guns’, and that value judgement will be made by the way people perceive what happened, not by an objective or rationally agreeable truth.
In all this, the great media victory is that a narrative front has been opened up that can easily be used by other global powers and could be employed by some of them to drag other adversarial countries into an information conflict. Russia, China, the UK and the US have interests at stake and could become part of this expanded infowar front. Because in the world of information, war does not have the space and time limitations of conventional warfare: everything is fast, fluid, constantly expanding and contracting, and knows no night or day.
Information warfare may save more lives, but it claims more victims. Lives are saved because direct killing can be avoided; victims are claimed because everyone involved will inevitably be hit by the weapon of information.
Featured Video
Prof. Ted Postol: Iran Already Achieved Nuclear Deterrence Against Israel
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
How the occupied mentality syndrome works
Saudi Arabia on the American chessboard – Part 3
By B. J. Sabri | American Herald Tribune | June 27, 2016
Read part 2: “The occupied mentality Syndrome“
Previously I argued whether Saudi Arabia’s repeated involvements in U.S. interventions and wars stem from free national will or in response to a specific condition. For starters, in Saudi Arabia there is no national will. In Saudi Arabia, the national will is the will of the Al Saud clan. Still, when a major Arab state allies itself with a superpower that committed unspeakable crimes against humanity in almost every Arab country, then something is wrong. This fact alone should compel us to examine the U.S.-Saudi relation for one exceptional reason. As a result of the U.S.-Saudi wars, hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia have lost their lives. Millions became displaced in their own homelands. And millions more rendered refugees.
Attributing the Saudi policies to the bonds of “partnership” with the U.S. is frivolous. There are no bonds between these two thugs except those of business, military deals, secret plots, and wars. Proving this point, bonds such as these have no space for the American and Saudi peoples to share significant cultural or societal exchanges. If partnership is not the reason for the Saudi contribution to the U.S. strategy of empire and imperialism, then another reason must exist.
This leads to three possibilities. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- REWRITING THE RISK? INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT’S VACCINE SAFETY MESSAGING
- “Davos Can Really Replace the UN”
- NIAID/NIH and USDA Fund Bioengineered Chimeric Influenza Viruses Built Using Pandemic H1N1 Components: Journal ‘Science Advances’
- Hezbollah hits Israeli warship off Lebanon’s coast, sets it aflame
- Iran slams US strikes on B1 bridge, Mahshahr petrochemical plants as ‘blatant acts of state terrorism’
- In letter to UN chief, Araghchi warns of dire consequences of US-Israeli attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities
- Why the CIA conspiracy to invade Iran with Kurdish militias failed
- Why Are Upbeat US Claims About Mission to Rescue Pilot ‘Highly Questionable’?
- Aircraft destroyed during US ‘rescue’ of downed F-15 pilot cost more than $100 million each
- Washington University removes professor who condemned US-Israeli war on Iran
- If Americans Knew
- In Iran, Israel-US take aim at “reason, research, and freedom of thought” – Daily Update
- US loses planes over Iran, Israel downgrades Lebanon war goals – Daily Update
- Israel Is Blocking Palestinians from Easter at Church Where Jesus Resurrected
- Plot to assassinate Palestinian activist follows harassment campaign promoted by Zionist groups and elected officials
- Prominent New York synagogue hosts presentation on why U.S. Jews should support the ethnic cleansing of Gaza
- Tapper vs. Piker: Is the CNN Anchor Auditioning for David Ellison?
- Shouldn’t Democrats Be Able to Condemn Genocide?
- Israel-US kill negotiators, destroy civilian structures, but Iran’s military capabilities still largely intact – Daily Update
- ‘War crime’: Global condemnation as Israeli ministers celebrate death penalty law targeting Palestinian prisoners
- 7 Ways Israel Is Turning Lebanon Into Gaza
- No Tricks Zone
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
- New Study: CO2 Is ‘Effectively Negligible’ As An Explanatory Climate Change Factor Since 2000
- Former Pfizer Toxicologist Dr. Helmut Sterz Tells Bundestag Hearing Pfizer Vaccine Should Have Never Been Approved
- Energy Expert: Germany’s Nuclear Phaseout Was A “500 Billion Euro Mistake”
- New Research: South Australia’s Mid-Holocene Sea Surface Temperatures Were 4°C Warmer Than Today
Aletho News 