If​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ we look at Donald Trump’s erratic and dangerously efficient foreign policy style, it is clear that, inadvertently, it has resulted in a short-lived pause in the Russian airstrikes on Ukraine. This has brought a limited relief to the civilian population who had to endure extreme winter conditions without heating or electricity. However, this break might not be without the price.

The fear is that Trump’s expectations from this delicate ceasefire may be unrealistic. To get the Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a temporary stoppage of bombings, Trump would likely require that Ukraine make significant compromises—such as giving up strategic cities and defensive positions to Russia—in return, under the pretext of a longer ceasefire.

By doing so, Trump has in fact supported the wrong side in the Ukraine war and is now going in the direction of a military conflict with Iran that could become uncontrollable.

It is said that U.S. diplomats are urging the Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky to give up control of Donetsk area as well as big parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, which are the lands taken over by Russia in a very violent attack that has resulted in Moscow suffering around 1.2 million casualties.

On the other hand, Washington has stopped sending military aid to Ukraine, only providing intelligence support. This decision has left Ukraine’s power grid exposed to continuous Russian attacks, leading to millions of people being without light and heating. The United States’ former pledge to protect a democratic neighbor in Eastern Europe is disintegrating under Trump’s rule.

Simultaneously, Trump is putting on a tough guy act in the Middle East, bringing in a powerful fleet including the USS Abraham Lincoln to confront Iran. Trump’s ultimatum to Iran: scrap your hybrid nuclear program, get rid of your missile systems, and stop supporting militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

What is glaring in its absence is the backing of Iranian protestors—though America had earlier indicated support for those challenging the regime. Instead of attacking the main mechanisms of Iran’s authoritarianism to facilitate reform, Trump has now shifted to large-scale military threats without any clear strategy for after the conflict.

While Iran has continued to be a destabilizing element in the Middle East, any armed conflict initiated by the U.S. could lead to havoc that is beyond control. Iran’s political and economic structure is very vulnerable precisely because it is hugely dependent on the loyalty of those who have long supported the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Those very revolutionaries aid the insurgents’ tactics against foreign troops as witnessed during the U.S. occupation of Iraq, by the use of highly sophisticated explosive devices capable of destroying even heavily armored vehicles.

It may be that Trump is somewhat tempted by the economic aspect—once the Iran regime is overthrown, the oil companies of the U.S. will be able to exploit its reserves just like he imagined in Venezuela. Probably also, the removal of Iran will be seen by him as a victory for the Israelis since their main ideological enemy would then be gone.

However, the reality is that Iran is hardly a direct threat to the U.S.

On the other hand, Russia’s belligerence against Ukraine as well as its menace to NATO members such as Poland and the Baltic states is a security problem. These hostile actions put at risk the stability of democratic Europe and also the military facilities of the U.S. that are spread over the continent—such bases are indispensable for the U.S. to project its power, especially in the Middle ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌East.

In​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ case a US attack on Iran triggers a civil war there, the outcome would be a divided, chaotic terrain that the US would be unable to master, and that is what Washington would have to deal with. Not only do Iran’s paramilitary forces have the capability of fighting and are ideologically driven, but they also have a profound hatred for the West, especially the US, which they see as the main culprit because it has stood by Israel in their recent atrocities in Gaza – the UN has even said that these attacks are genocidal in nature, while the death toll is currently at over 80,000.

If Trump launches that war against Iran that he has been threatening for so long, the whole world will be faced with a massive wave of terrorism going as far as the U.S. itself and its allies.

Still, the U.S. needs to consider a better plan, one that would be in line with U.S. strategic objectives and also, be morally right. That would be helping Ukraine. Achieving victory for Ukraine is quite possible if they get the military equipment they need particularly air defense and long-range missile systems.

Trump, on the other hand, keeps harping on the fact that the European countries have to make a much bigger defense effort which they totally agree with. It could turn out very expensive for Western countries if they decide to ditch Ukraine now. According to the Kiel Institute, the damage Germany will suffer if it abandons Ukraine would be like 20 times the cost of the 1% aid to Ukraine, measured in GDP, it currently provides.

Many things could make Trump choose wisely. He could try to find one that is amoral; one that is on the side of Western values and is equally not a danger to American troops. It could be the one with Ukraine. The war has caused over 10 million people to flee their homes, and lost of Ukraine alone is as high as 6 million people who are now living in Europe.

Iran is at a crossroads internally and externally, if the turmoil within its borders gets out of hand, it will be on the part of terrorists who see Iran lining up with them in the world. On the other hand, Ukraine can come out on top even with little assistance, if they get it at all.

“I have noticed that people are saying that Ukraine is on its way down. I can’t be convinced of that. Figures and information suggest the contrary—they are Russian propaganda and U.S. circles that are doubting them,” said the President of Finland in a face-to-face meeting during the World Economic Forum in Davos.

Similarly were the opinions of a retired general Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg who had served as a special envoy to Ukraine and as an adviser to President Trump before the election. At Davos, he stated, “If the Ukrainians are able to withstand the winter, the momentum of war could be on their side by spring.” Russia had been losing a lot of troops and generals, the number of the officers being higher than 20.

Trump is known for supporting people who he thinks are potential winners. Europe as a whole, therefore, has to present the case to Trump in a way that conveys that there is a trifecta of strategic, economic, and humanitarian victories if the U.S. decides to help Ukraine.

Failing to recognize the above, and moving ahead with plans to bomb Iran would be a catastrophe that would engulf ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌everyone.

The article The India Trump Made by James Crabtree and Rudra Chaudhuri, published in Foreign Affairs in December 2025, offers a sharp reassessment of India–United States relations. It challenges the assumption that pressure from Washington naturally strengthens strategic partnerships. Instead, it argues that coercive American behavior reshaped India’s foreign policy thinking.

At the center of the essay stands a provocative claim. Assertive U.S. diplomacy, especially during the presidency of Donald Trump, did not bind India closer to Washington. Instead, it encouraged New Delhi to deepen strategic autonomy. Consequently, India refined a multialigned posture. This posture values flexibility over dependency. Therefore, the article holds major relevance for scholars of geopolitics and policymakers alike.

The Core Argument of The India Trump Made

American Pressure as a Structural Force

Crabtree and Chaudhuri argue that American pressure acted as a structural force in Indian decision-making. Washington relied on tariffs, public threats, and transactional diplomacy. These tools sought compliance rather than consensus. As a result, India reassessed the costs of close alignment.

Rather than reacting emotionally, New Delhi responded strategically. It recalibrated expectations. It accepted cooperation but rejected subordination. Thus, American bullying shaped outcomes opposite to U.S. intentions.

Moreover, the authors emphasize that pressure did not occur in isolation. It coincided with global uncertainty. Power transitions intensified. Consequently, India valued strategic room for maneuver more than ever.

Historical Roots of Indian Strategic Autonomy

The Legacy of Non-Alignment

India’s foreign policy never embraced formal alliances easily. Since independence, Indian leaders preferred autonomy. The Non-Aligned Movement reflected this instinct. Even after the Cold War, this tradition persisted.

Crabtree and Chaudhuri stress that Trump-era pressure revived this legacy. It reminded Indian policymakers of past vulnerabilities. Hence, strategic autonomy regained salience.

Furthermore, autonomy does not imply isolation. India still engages major powers. However, it avoids binding commitments. Therefore, continuity matters as much as change in Indian diplomacy.

Trump’s Transactional Diplomacy and Its Effects

A Style That Alarmed New Delhi

Trump’s foreign policy style emphasized deals over norms. He framed alliances as cost-benefit calculations. He often questioned commitments publicly. This approach unsettled partners. India felt similar unease.

For instance, sudden tariff hikes and trade threats eroded trust. They signaled unpredictability. Consequently, Indian officials questioned long-term reliability.

Meanwhile, Washington expected strategic loyalty. It sought support on China. Yet, it offered limited reassurance. Thus, imbalance emerged. India responded by hedging its bets.

Strategic Cooperation Without Strategic Dependence

Security Ties With Limits

Despite tensions, India and the United States expanded defense cooperation. Joint exercises increased. Technology sharing improved. Dialogue mechanisms deepened.

However, India drew clear boundaries. It avoided alliance-like commitments. It retained freedom of action. For example, India refused to align fully with U.S. positions on every global issue.

Therefore, cooperation coexisted with caution. This duality defines modern India–U.S. ties. The article highlights this nuance effectively.

Multialignment as a Deliberate Strategy

Beyond a Binary Worldview

One of the essay’s strongest insights concerns multialignment. India no longer views global politics through binary blocs. Instead, it cultivates diverse partnerships.

India strengthens ties with European Union, Japan, and Gulf states. Simultaneously, it manages relations with China despite rivalry.

This strategy maximizes options. It reduces vulnerability. Consequently, India avoids overreliance on any single power. U.S. pressure accelerated this shift rather than preventing it.

Trade Disputes and Economic Reorientation

Tariffs as a Turning Point

Economic friction featured prominently during the Trump years. Tariffs targeted Indian exports. Preferential trade status ended. Negotiations stalled.

These actions forced introspection in New Delhi. India recognized economic exposure risks. As a result, it diversified markets. It sought deeper ties with Europe and East Asia.

Moreover, India promoted domestic manufacturing. It linked economic resilience with national security. Hence, trade coercion produced long-term structural change.

The China Factor in U.S.–India Relations

Shared Concerns, Divergent Approaches

Both Washington and New Delhi view China with caution. Border tensions heighten Indian concerns. U.S. strategy emphasizes containment.

However, India avoids outright confrontation. It prefers calibrated engagement. The authors argue that U.S. pressure complicates this balance. Excessive demands reduce flexibility.

Thus, India resists rigid alignment. It cooperates where interests overlap. Yet, it preserves independent judgment. This balance remains central to Indian strategy.

Diplomatic Signaling and Perceptions of Respect

The Politics of Status

Crabtree and Chaudhuri underline the importance of respect in diplomacy. India seeks recognition as a rising power. Public pressure undermines that aspiration.

Trump’s rhetoric often ignored diplomatic sensitivities. He framed negotiations as victories or losses. This style clashed with Indian preferences.

Therefore, Indian elites grew wary. They viewed autonomy as dignity. Hence, strategic independence became not only practical but symbolic.

Implications for Future U.S. Policy

The Risk of Strategic Alienation

The authors issue a clear warning. If Washington persists with coercive tactics, it risks marginalization. India will not accept junior status.

Future U.S. administrations must adjust. They must emphasize consultation. They must respect India’s priorities. Otherwise, influence will erode gradually.

Therefore, partnership requires patience. It requires mutual accommodation. The article frames this lesson persuasively.

India’s Expanding Diplomatic Horizon

Regional and Global Engagement

India increasingly invests in regional institutions. It strengthens ties in the Indo-Pacific. It engages Africa and the Middle East.

This diversification reflects confidence. It also reflects caution. India prepares for uncertainty. Multialignment serves that goal.

Thus, American pressure ironically validated India’s long-held instincts. The essay captures this paradox clearly.

Important Features of The India Trump Made

• It challenges alliance-centric assumptions in U.S. foreign policy

• It links Trump-era behavior with long-term Indian strategy

• It explains multialignment as a rational outcome, not ambiguity

• It integrates history with contemporary analysis

• It highlights economic policy as a strategic driver

• It emphasizes dignity and status in diplomacy

• It warns against coercive partnership models

Authors’ Scholarly Perspectives

Complementary Expertise

James Crabtree brings expertise in global political economy. He analyzes power shifts with clarity. Rudra Chaudhuri, as Director of Carnegie India, adds deep regional insight.

Together, they combine theory with empirical observation. Their collaboration strengthens credibility. It also ensures balance between global and local perspectives.

Critical Reflections on the Argument

Strengths and Limitations

The essay offers a compelling narrative. It avoids simplistic conclusions. It recognizes cooperation alongside friction.

However, critics may argue that U.S. pressure alone did not shape Indian policy. Domestic factors matter too. Leadership preferences influence outcomes.

Still, the authors acknowledge complexity. They avoid determinism. Thus, their argument remains persuasive rather than absolute.

Conclusion: A Partnership Transformed, Not Broken

The India Trump Made reframes how analysts view India–United States relations. It shows that pressure reshapes behavior in unexpected ways. Instead of dependence, it fosters autonomy.

India today pursues cooperation without constraint. It balances partnerships with independence. This strategy reflects history, experience, and ambition.

Ultimately, the article offers a vital lesson. Great powers cannot coerce rising states into loyalty. Respect, consistency, and dialogue matter more. For Washington, adaptation remains essential. For New Delhi, strategic autonomy remains non-negotiable.

As​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ Pakistan moves into 2026, it carries a load of challenges that it has been facing for a long time — the growing threat of militancy, the weak economy, and the increasing denial of civil liberties. These have been the issues for a while, but the change is in the disturbing sense that the state seems to be just coping with these crises and not actually resolving them — which is becoming more and more a short-sighted policy.

Militant violence is the biggest threat. The recent suicide bombings targeting the security forces in Bannu and North Waziristan, a deadly blast near Islamabad’s district courts and ongoing incidents in Balochistan stand as harsh testimonies to the fact that the militant networks have not only survived but are still operating at a high level. The attacks have no geographical or symbolic limit anymore — they are spreading randomly.

Still, the government’s anti-terrorism strategy relies mostly on using the army and the police to carry out operations instead of turning around the causes of the problems. The absence of a serious police force, local judiciary, governance, and political engagement in the troubled areas result in the very little impact of the operations. If the internal affairs of the country are not changed, then 2026 will be just another year of the officials protesting and superficial investigations while the core problems being ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ignored.

On​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌ the economic front, the situation smolders more slowly but is no less dangerous. A partial privatization of PIA was seen as the long-awaited success, however, it also came to represent how rare decisive policy making has become. One high-profile deal cannot replace the need for comprehensive tax reform, restructuring of loss-making public sector enterprises and putting in place of consistent and credible policies. Without these basics, Pakistan risks being locked into a cycle of short-term relief measures, foreign bailouts, and extended stagnation.

The narrowing of democratic space is equally worrying. Just in the last year alone, long internet shutdowns, the crackdown on protests, increasing pressure on journalists, and punitive measures against dissenters have become regular features. Media outlets are being censored, social platforms are regularly blocked, and human rights defenders face harassment and red tape.

Temporary suppression of criticism through these methods leaves no room for accountability and thereby only alienates the public more — especially younger generations who have lost faith in the political system. A political framework based on force rather than agreement is unstable and will not be efficient, so it is self-defeating.

Going into 2026, the question of institutional integrity is a key one. Parliament needs to re-establish itself as the organ which through open debate crafts legislation rather than a tool for diktats. Courts are totting up brings trust if they are consistent, independent, and free from any influence.

For the economy to pick up, the very basics namely transparency, fairness, and unwavering policy making must be in place. Security measures have to be under the oversight of civilians and not just constantly in crisis mode. Most importantly, the government needs to be aware that it is repression that makes a country fragile. Control may have been the chief method — but the real strength of a country lies in inclusive, accountable ​‍​‌‍​‍‌​‍​‌‍​‍‌governance.

Pakistan and Afghanistan Step Back from the Brink After a Week of Violence

A Fragile Calm Returns to the Borderlands

The ceasefire agreement reached in Doha, Qatar, last night is considered by the parties involved as the way out they have long been waiting for. However, regional experts warn that this kind of very delicate peace is only a temporary relief in the storm unless Pakistan and Afghanistan take joint action to address not only the issue of militant sanctuaries in Afghanistan but also other problems.

Doha Ceasefire: A Hopeful Pause in the Conflict

The talks in Doha resulted in a major diplomatic breakthrough when Pakistan and Afghanistan agreed to a long-term ceasefire. Both sides pledged to hold talks and to cooperate to solve the issue of cross-border militancy, which has been the toughest problem of their relations for a long time.

Top officials of the two governments were present at the meeting, and the negotiation was facilitated by the mediators from Qatar and Turkiye. According to diplomatic sources, both Islamabad and Kabul came to the conclusion that the ongoing conflict is what terrorist groups operating in the region will profit from and thus it will become more difficult to establish peace.

The decision to the ceasefire comes before the understanding that both Pakistan and Afghanistan will continue their talks, disengage from military activities, and construct the framework for sharing the intelligence gathered.

Mediation Efforts by Qatar and Turkiye

Qatar and Turkiye once again demonstrated their peacemaking skills in a region that is always on edge, South Asia. Without their joint diplomatic initiatives, it would have been impossible to see Pakistan and Afghanistan sitting together after weeks of blaming each other and border fighting.

After both countries reminded the Taliban in Kabul that they could not afford to lose contact and dialogue and by exercising their close relationship with the regime, they succeeded in convincing them to act reasonably and attend the talks. In fact, Qatar, which held talks between the U.S. and Taliban that eventually led to their peace accord, continues to mediate between the Taliban and other countries. Turkiye, on the other hand, has been very friendly with both Pakistan and Afghanistan, thus, a logical mediator.

After the next round of talks in Istanbul, they will discuss not only permanent border control but also exchanging information to stop terrorists who will then cross the border unseen.

Strained Pakistan-Taliban Relations

After the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, Taliban-Pakistan relations have gone downhill. They are not on the same side of the argument anymore as before, which is likely the result of a fallout between the two.

At first, Islamabad was happy with the Taliban power grab and believed that it would bring peace to the western border. However, in a matter of weeks, the positive trend was reversed as the number of attacks inside Pakistan exploded. The Pakistani authorities seem to think that the Taliban-controlled government is the real culprit in the matter of aid to the extremist groups as it has allowed them to operate freely; among these groups is Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) responsible for killing hundreds in the past few years.

As a result of this dramatic change, Pakistan, as a state that has been a staunch supporter of the Taliban, now finds itself in a predicament where it is threatened by enemies from the other side of the border.

Sanctuaries for the TTP and Other Militant Groups

One of the major security risks perceived by Pakistan is the potential existence of hideouts for terror groups in the neighboring country of Afghanistan. The outlawed TTP along with other jihadi groups are said to have sought refuge in the mountainous region after the Pakistani military’s came upon their bases inside Pakistan and therethey they killed and arrested their members.

Taliban promises notwithstanding, these groups keep conducting attacks on the other side of the border. Pakistani security sources have said that the movement areas of militants are not really different in both sides of the border which is only PK-Afghani wise ill-operated border security allows them to an exploiting them.

Through different sources, it has been discovered that TTP discontents plan to have their safe havens in the different Eastern provinces of Afghanistan where they can direct militant activities and logistically receive support with ease.

Rising Wave of Terrorism in Pakistan

Last year was filled with terrorist attacks that spread like wildfire throughout Pakistan. More than 600 incidents leading to losses of lives and in property of both civilians and security personnel were recorded, as per the reports of security officials.

The sources of these attacks have been targeted at police stations, military checkpoints, and public gatherings, especially in the provinces, which are bordering Afghanistan. The violent return has squeezed the security apparatus of Pakistan and the people’s wrath against Kabul for not delivering on its counterterrorism promises has been rekindled.

The analysts speculate that the Taliban’s stubbornness or their incapability to identify and disarm these groups agitates the bond between them more.

Pakistan’s Retaliatory Strikes Inside Afghanistan

Without the cooperation of the other party, Pakistan has sometimes gone beyond the brink and taken a few steps on its own territory. The Pakistani army, earlier this year, did some precision airstrikes on some militants’ hideouts in the Afghan region and said that it was a move for self-defense.

It is said that the operations targeted the TTP leaders, while the Afghan Taliban criticized the moves as breaches of sovereignty. The situations deteriorated the relations further and thus, fears of a war between the countries increased.
After the Doha agreement, Pakistan has suggested that it would be willing to keep such operations on hold if Kabul assured that it would not be the base for terrorists.

Balancing Military Action with Diplomacy

Pakistan is in a very delicate situation and according to experts in this field, the arabian country must cope with deterrence and diplomacy simultaneously. The use of force in the military might lead to the disappearance of the threat in the short term but only through discourse and collaboration can a lasting peace be realized.

If only military means are used there is a risk of escalation of tensions and the possibility that Afghanistan will turn its back on them completely. At the same time, if they continue doing nothing the militant groups will feel more confident. The challenge for the government in Islamabad is to find the right position- stay prepared for defense on one hand and have substantial talks with the Taliban on the other.
Taliban’s Pledge for Non-Aggression.

After the Doha meetings, the Taliban regime made a commitment that they would not allow any “hostile actions”against Pakistan originating from the Afghan territory. Nevertheless, Pakistan is still very skeptical since such commitments made in the past were broken shortly after.
The complication of the matter arises from the different points of view of the Taliban also. In the movement there are some factions which sympathize with the TTP while there are others which support the idea of peace with Pakistan. The Taliban’s pledges at Doha might turn into empty words if their leadership does not strictly supervise control over these factions.

Proposal for a Verification Mechanism

After the terrible terror attacks, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar suggested putting together a joint verification and monitoring system. To make sure there was a ceasefire and counterterrorism agreement, and to check if the security forces were carrying out their duties properly, Mr. Dar proposed this system.

Under the proposed arrangement, the parties would share intelligence, conduct regular border inspections, and have transparent reporting channels. If this framework were embraced by the parties involved, it might pave the way for new patterns of collaboration in the region. It would enable two sides not only to check on each other’s good faith but also to lower the possibility of incidents that fuel the resurgence of hostilities at the border with which both parties accuse each other.

Global Recognition of Taliban’s Responsibility

The international community is now turning its eyes toward the fact that Afghanistan is the main base of different kinds of radical groups. The United States, China, and the European Union altogether have sent a clear message to the Taliban that if they want to avoid cross-border violence, they should first and foremost ensure their area is safe for it not to occur.

Such an agreement inevitably brings the responsibility as well as the authority of the front-line holder under the limelight. In addition to being left without friends, Afghanistan becomes a danger not only for the neighborhood but for the whole world if the situation escalates further.

Different Militant Factions, Different Loyalties

There are discrepancies even among those who join the Taliban voices in Afghanistan’s military struggle. In particular, some such as Al-Qaeda and TTP might still keep in touch or acknowledge the Taliban’s leadership whilst on the contrary, groups mainly like IS- K are defiant and even hostile to them.

IS-K on the one hand has tortured and killed the Taliban forces and in the meantime has staged attacks on the foreign missions in Afghanistan. With such a situation, Kabul finds itself in a defensive dilemma from both within and without- it now has to fight an insurgency bringing diplomatic pressure from its neighboring countries as well.

The Taliban’s Role as a Governing Power

Being the de facto rulers in Afghanistan, morally the Taliban should be the ones who guarantee that their land will neither be a place for their neighbors’ harm nor for hostile activities against them. A secure Afghanistan does not only mean stability for the region but also increases peace, trade, and economic growth in the future.

The extent to which a group is recognized by the global community depends on how well it carries out its responsibilities. Allowing militant hideouts to continue without any intervention may result in alienation, economic decay, and losing the integrity of the global arena.

The Road Ahead: Hope Mixed with Caution

The Doha ceasefire is a move that brings some brightness to a pretty dark time of ongoing conflicts in the area. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be too optimistic and should rather acknowledge the situation as it really is. Throughout the history of the region, it can be seen that agreements regarding peace tend to be short-lived unless they are backed by the leaders’ strong will and proper enforcement measures.
From a diplomatic point of view, Pakistan could benefit greatly from this episode by re-establishing a relationship with Afghanistan which would be based not on mistrust but on mutual regional stability. For the Taliban, it means proving their capability to govern and take responsibility at the international level.

Conclusion: Opportunity for Peace Despite the Uncertainty

It is certainly the ceasefire anew between Pakistan and Afghanistan which is a move towards the right direction, albeit a delicate one and hence requiring care. The two countries should collectively reign in their shared frontier instead of pointing fingers at each other.
Peace in South Asia cannot be sustained without these elements: confidence-building, collaboration, and strong measures against terrorism. The entire planet is observing—and a fiasco cannot be contemplated this time.

Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Pact By Agha Zuhaib Khan. On September 17, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia formalized their long-standing military ties by signing a mutual defence agreement. While this pact strengthens their security relationship, its true potential lies in expanding cooperation across sectors like agriculture, energy, labour, industry, and infrastructure. Encouragingly, 2025 marks a shift from traditional financial aid to forward-looking strategic investments.

Earlier this year, Saudi Arabia approved a $1.2 billion deferred oil payment facility, disbursing $100 million per month until February 2026. Pakistan, meanwhile, is negotiating the extension of $5 billion in Saudi loans—$2 billion maturing in December 2025 and another $3 billion due by mid-2026—at a concessional 4% interest rate.

This month, a Saudi delegation is expected to explore potential investment opportunities in key sectors such as energy, information technology, agriculture, finance, semiconductors, and food, signaling growing economic synergy.

Thanks to Pakistan’s Special Investment Facilitation Council, trade processes have improved significantly, leading to a 22% increase in Pakistani exports to Saudi Arabia, now exceeding $700 million. Analysts believe this signifies the transition from a donor-recipient relationship to one of mutual investment, aligned with Saudi Arabia’s ambitious Vision 2030.

Narrow Trade Base and Missed Opportunities

However, Pakistan’s long-term stability won’t come from defence cooperation alone. It must become an integral part of the Gulf’s broader economic transformation.

Currently, Saudi Arabia is among Pakistan’s leading trade partners, with annual trade volumes ranging from $5 billion to $6 billion, heavily influenced by oil prices. Yet, the trade mix is narrow—Pakistan imports mostly oil, while its exports are limited to rice, textiles, leather, and surgical tools. There’s untapped potential in sectors like pharmaceuticals, IT services, and processed agricultural products. Still, poor planning, low productivity, and the lack of preferential trade agreements hamper growth.

Saudi sovereign wealth funds are actively investing in infrastructure, mining, and tech globally, but Pakistan has attracted only a fraction of this capital. Projects like the $10 billion refinery announced in 2019 have seen repeated delays due to political instability and regulatory challenges. While Pakistan claims to have addressed many legal and administrative barriers, ongoing political uncertainty and rights issues remain hurdles. A more stable and unified domestic front is critical to unlocking investment. Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Pact By Agha Zuhaib Khan

Agriculture, Energy, and Labour: The Pillars of Partnership

Agriculture is one sector ripe for transformation. If Pakistan adopts modern farming techniques—improved seeds, efficient irrigation, and cold-chain logistics—it could play a pivotal role in securing Saudi Arabia’s food supply. Gulf investment in Pakistani agriculture could also uplift rural economies and generate employment.

Energy cooperation is another major opportunity. As Saudi Arabia invests in renewable energy, hydrogen, and smart city infrastructure under Vision 2030, Pakistan continues to grapple with energy shortages, rising fossil fuel costs, and circular debt. This presents a clear synergy: Saudi Arabia needs green energy partners; Pakistan needs affordable, clean energy. With vast potential in solar and wind power, Pakistan could attract Saudi capital, especially through Islamic green bonds. Yet, concrete renewable energy collaborations have yet to materialize.

Remittances from Saudi Arabia remain vital, with Pakistani workers sending home over $9.3 billion in FY2025. However, most of the 2.5 million Pakistani workers in Saudi Arabia hold low-skilled jobs. As the Kingdom transitions toward high-tech and knowledge-based industries, unskilled labour will no longer suffice. To remain relevant, Pakistan must invest in re-skilling its workforce. Establishing vocational and digital training centres could prepare Pakistanis for high-demand fields like healthcare, IT, and engineering, boosting both remittance value and Saudi productivity.

Beyond Defence: Building a Shared Future

Religious ties between the nations are deep, with hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis performing Hajj and Umrah annually. Yet, beyond religious tourism, cultural exchange remains minimal. As Saudi Arabia opens its cultural and tourism sectors, there’s an opportunity for both countries to launch joint tourism initiatives, cultural events, and academic partnerships to strengthen people-to-people bonds.

Importantly, Pakistan must not limit its vision to Saudi Arabia alone. The broader Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)—comprising the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Oman—represents a $2 trillion economy with vast sovereign wealth and dynamic energy transition strategies. Pakistan’s trade with the GCC is still heavily tilted toward oil imports and labour exports, but enormous potential exists in IT, renewable energy, engineering, and food processing.

Saudi Vision 2030, the UAE’s economic diversification plans, and Qatar’s knowledge-sector investments all highlight a regional demand for strategic partners. Pakistan, with its young population and growing tech capabilities, is well-positioned to meet this demand—provided it ensures policy stability and a clear regulatory framework.

Moreover, the Gulf region faces growing food security challenges. Pakistan could become a reliable source of food if it reforms its agricultural sector. Joint GCC-Pakistan food corridors, underpinned by Gulf infrastructure investments, could yield mutual benefits while helping Pakistan reduce its economic reliance on aid.

In this context, the defence agreement signed in September should be seen as more than a military milestone. It signals the beginning of a broader, strategic partnership. Pakistan’s real security lies not just in arms, but in embedding itself within the Gulf’s evolving economic landscape. Pakistan-Saudi Arabia Pact By Agha Zuhaib Khan

False Narrative of Recognition: Pakistan’s Firm Policy on Israel

In recent weeks, a flurry of claims has circulated suggesting that Pakistan is preparing to recognize Israel. These allegations, however, are baseless propaganda designed to create confusion, sow division, and weaken Pakistan’s national unity. For decades, Pakistan’s stance on Israel has remained clear, principled, and unwavering: recognition of Israel will only be considered after the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on pre-1967 borders, with Al-Quds Al-Sharif (Jerusalem) as its rightful capital.

Introduction: The Latest Propaganda and Its Motives

False narratives are not new in geopolitics. They often arise at critical junctures, aiming to distort public perception and manipulate political discourse. The recent rumors about Pakistan shifting its stance toward Israel fall squarely into this category. By spreading misinformation, hostile actors seek to weaken Pakistan’s credibility in the Muslim world and undermine its long-standing support for the Palestinian cause.

Pakistan’s Clear and Consistent Policy on Israel

The Pre-1967 Borders and Al-Quds Al-Sharif

Since its inception, Pakistan has aligned itself firmly with the Palestinian struggle for independence. Islamabad’s policy rests on a simple principle: no recognition of Israel until Palestinians are free. This includes the restoration of lands occupied after the 1967 war and the recognition of Al-Quds Al-Sharif as the capital of Palestine.

Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar’s Reaffirmation

Recently, Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar reiterated this position in unequivocal terms, silencing speculation about any secret deal or policy shift. His statement reaffirmed Pakistan’s role as a staunch ally of the Palestinian people, committed to justice and international law.

Engagement Does Not Mean Recognition

The 21-Point Peace Framework from Washington

Pakistan’s endorsement of the 21-point peace framework proposed in Washington is being misinterpreted by critics. Participation in these discussions signals engagement in global diplomacy, not recognition of Israel. The framework, supported by multiple Muslim-majority nations, seeks to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and push for a sustainable resolution to the conflict.

Constructive Diplomacy vs Misleading Narratives

Engagement in diplomatic initiatives is fundamentally different from abandoning national principles. Pakistan is leveraging its position to strengthen the collective Muslim stance, not dilute it. Suggesting otherwise is both misleading and damaging to the broader cause of Palestinian freedom.

Historical Consistency vs Political Hypocrisy

Imran Khan’s Endorsement of the Two-State Solution

Critics often accuse the current government of softening its policy on Israel. However, these claims ignore past actions. For instance, Imran Khan’s government also openly endorsed the two-state solution, a position aligned with international consensus and the stance held by successive Pakistani governments.

Backchannel Contacts and Political Opportunism

Over the years, there have also been reports of backchannel communications between Islamabad and Tel Aviv under different governments. Yet, critics selectively highlight or conceal such incidents depending on their political agendas. This double standard reveals opportunism, not genuine concern for principles.

Pakistan’s Moral Authority in the Muslim World

The Gaza Humanitarian Crisis and Pakistan’s Voice

As Gaza reels from humanitarian catastrophe, Pakistan’s unwavering commitment to the Palestinian cause gives it credibility and moral weight in the Muslim world. By consistently opposing Israeli aggression, Pakistan emerges as a voice of justice and compassion, standing shoulder to shoulder with the oppressed.

Strengthening Muslim Unity Through Diplomacy

Pakistan’s role goes beyond rhetoric. By engaging diplomatically and supporting collective Muslim initiatives, Islamabad strengthens unity within the Islamic bloc. Its voice helps transform compassion for Palestinians into tangible political and diplomatic pressure on Israel.

Why False Narratives Emerge and Their Impact

Disinformation as a Tool to Undermine Unity

False claims about Pakistan recognizing Israel serve one clear purpose: to weaken internal unity and erode public trust in state institutions. This disinformation campaign distracts from the real issue—ending Palestinian suffering.

Media Manipulation and Its Geopolitical Agenda

Global and regional actors often exploit media narratives to push geopolitical agendas. By fabricating stories about Pakistan, they aim to divide the Muslim world and reduce Islamabad’s influence as a champion of Palestinian rights.

Conclusion: Staying True to Principles Amid Pressure

Pakistan’s position on Israel remains unchanged and unwavering: no recognition until Palestinians achieve sovereignty on pre-1967 borders with Jerusalem as their capital. Engagement in peace frameworks does not equate to recognition; rather, it reflects Pakistan’s constructive diplomacy to ease suffering in Gaza and advance a just solution.

Amid propaganda and political opportunism, Pakistan continues to uphold its moral responsibility—standing firm with Palestine, uniting the Muslim world, and turning compassion into meaningful diplomatic action.