By Qamar Bashir

In a striking turn of global diplomacy, President Donald J. Trump has emerged as a singular force capable of diffusing one of the most dangerous confrontations in recent history: the Israel-Iran conflict. In a candid and widely viewed social media post, Trump not only declared the end of Iran’s nuclear threat following a limited U.S. airstrike but also, for the first time in modern American history, openly rebuked Israel’s military conduct, questioned its expansionist ambitions, and expressed fury over its violation of the ceasefire agreement mediated by the U.S. itself.

This bold diplomatic shift shattered decades of unquestioned American alignment with Israeli strategic narratives. Trump, a leader previously considered unshakably pro-Israel, surprised the world when he declared that Israel’s bombing campaign on Iran—triggered by an inconsequential rocket—was “unjustified, unprovoked, and unacceptable.” He condemned Israel’s use of force as disproportionate and excessive, noting that “they dropped bombs I’ve never seen before.”

Unlike his predecessors, who consistently offered Israel uncritical political, military, and financial support, Trump demonstrated both the courage and credibility to confront Tel Aviv. He made it unequivocally clear that he would not allow Israel to jeopardize a fragile regional peace, no matter the history or political cost. “I’m really mad at Israel,” he said bluntly, promising to use all necessary means to ensure Israel respects the ceasefire and refrains from further escalation.

In the same interview, Trump also launched a blistering attack on mainstream media outlets like CNN and other international broadcasters, accusing them of spreading misinformation and undermining the facts of the U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear sites. He described their reporting as full of “negativity, rumors, and distortions,” particularly those suggesting the airstrikes were ineffective. He clarified that the nuclear facilities targeted—Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz—were completely destroyed. “Those sites are gone. They’re finished. They’re not coming back,” he emphasized, thereby putting to rest widespread media speculation that Iran’s program remained intact.

Trump’s decisive messaging addressed two critical audiences: the American public, who demand transparency in foreign military engagements, and global analysts, who doubted the effectiveness of limited strikes. His words were both assertive and reassuring, highlighting his unique ability to project strength while pursuing de-escalation.

Beyond military strategy, Trump introduced a compelling rationale against Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He argued that Iran, rich in oil and natural gas reserves, has no legitimate energy-based need to pursue nuclear power. Unlike nations such as Pakistan or the United Kingdom, which developed nuclear reactors due to severe energy deficits, Iran enjoys energy self-sufficiency for generations to come. In Trump’s view, Iran’s insistence on uranium enrichment lacks urgency and raises suspicions about its true motives.

This reasoning was echoed by Senator Marco Rubio, who questioned why a peaceful nuclear program would require deep underground bunkers protected by layers of reinforced earth. “If there’s nothing to hide, why bury it?” he asked. The implication, supported by Trump, is that Iran’s secrecy signals a military dimension—one that justifies limited but precise preemptive action.

Iran, however, holds a different view. Its leadership maintains that its nuclear program is purely for peaceful scientific and medical research. Iranian officials argue that heavy metals and radioactive materials are essential for cutting-edge work in medicine, energy innovation, and space exploration. Moreover, they claim the bunkered architecture of their facilities is a defensive measure—a safeguard against historical sabotage by Israel and other actors determined to halt Iran’s technological advancement.

While both sides present arguments with merit, Trump’s position, grounded in geopolitical realism and economic logic, currently holds greater global sway. His administration’s strike—targeted, limited, and non-escalatory—was perceived by many as a calibrated message rather than an act of war. The world saw a leader who could punish violations while maintaining peace, and who sought to contain conflict rather than expand it.

Importantly, this confrontation revealed a deeper strategic truth. Despite its technological sophistication and military capability, Israel alone could not dismantle Iran’s hardened nuclear infrastructure. The Israeli strikes, though symbolically potent, required the direct intervention of the United States to achieve meaningful results. This reveals a critical geopolitical reality: Iran is no ordinary adversary. It is not like other Middle Eastern states that were toppled with ease—such as Iraq or Libya. Iran has emerged as a formidable regional power with significant political resolve, diplomatic reach, economic resilience, and military capability.

Even more revealing was the exposure of India’s clandestine alignment with U.S. and Israeli objectives during the operation. Long viewed as a close partner by Tehran, India’s alleged role in supporting covert drone bases, aiding target identification, and assisting surveillance against Iranian nuclear and military sites has caused deep offense in Iranian circles. These revelations, widely discussed in diplomatic backchannels, have been viewed as a betrayal of trust. For Iran, such interference by a country that invested in Chabahar port and projected itself as a regional partner now amounts to strategic backstabbing. This episode is likely to strain India-Iran relations significantly, forcing India to retract its covert footprint and reassess its role in the Persian Gulf, lest it permanently damage bilateral trust and Iranian sovereignty.

Trump’s repositioning also thwarted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s broader agenda of regime change in Iran. Netanyahu had hoped to repeat the past models used in Iraq and Libya—toppling adversarial governments and installing pro-Western regimes. He had even begun promoting remnants of the deposed Shah’s family as potential successors. Trump firmly rejected this path, stating that regime change only breeds chaos, civil unrest, and prolonged instability. “I don’t want chaos. I want peace,” Trump said.

While Trump did not directly mention Gaza or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his latest interview, many analysts believe that the resolution of the Palestinian issue—particularly the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza—should be the next logical step in reducing tension across the region. Given the central role that unresolved Palestinian grievances play in regional instability, it is widely hoped that Trump, having successfully mediated the Israel-Iran ceasefire, may eventually turn his attention to Gaza and the broader peace process.

This is not a confirmed policy statement by Trump, but a strategic inference based on the direction of his recent actions. Should he choose to engage, the potential exists for a transformative moment in Middle Eastern diplomacy.

Significantly, this ceasefire may also serve as a precursor to the normalization of relations between the United States and Iran. If sustained, it could open the door to lifting long-standing economic sanctions that have crippled the Iranian economy for years. It may also lead to Iran reestablishing full diplomatic ties with a broad spectrum of countries—except Israel—and reintegrating into the global economic system. This new chapter could unleash long-overdue prosperity and development for the Iranian people, allowing them to benefit from international trade, innovation, and financial systems previously closed off.

In many ways, the outcomes of this war—unexpected as they are—have proven more beneficial for Iran, for the Palestinian cause, and for regional peace than for Israel. Iran has withstood the pressure, preserved its sovereignty, and emerged with greater diplomatic standing. Palestinians have seen Israel’s unchecked power finally challenged. And the region has witnessed—for the first time in decades—clear limitations placed on Israel’s religiously driven expansionist policies and dangerous political agenda.

In the clearest terms yet, Trump committed to personally overseeing the enforcement of the Iran-Israel ceasefire. He warned that any further violations by Israel would have diplomatic repercussions, including a reassessment of U.S. support. This new doctrine—fueled by pragmatism, realism, and a vision for sustainable peace—places America once again at the center of Middle Eastern diplomacy, but with a markedly different tone.

Donald Trump has—whether through instinct or strategy—reshaped the regional calculus. He halted a potentially devastating war, imposed limits on Iran’s nuclear program, reined in Israeli ambitions, exposed covert regional players, and challenged both domestic and international narratives. His clear disapproval of Israel’s recent bombing, his condemnation of misleading media, and his bold new posture on balance and restraint present a sharp departure from past U.S. policies.

If Trump eventually directs his energy toward resolving the Palestinian question and advancing Middle Eastern integration, he may do what no modern leader has achieved: a reset in the region. His actions reflect more than political calculation—they suggest a profound realization that peace cannot be sustained through favoritism, but through fairness and courage.

Should he succeed, history may well remember him not just as a dealmaker—but as a peacemaker. Perhaps even a Nobel-worthy one.

By Qamar Bashir

 Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)

 Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France

 Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan, USA

Dr. AbdusSattar Abbasi

I was invited in a seminar at University of Punjab on June 20, 2025, titled, “Glass half full or half empty: Understanding social and political transformation in Pakistan through data”. The guest speaker was Mr. Bilal Geelani, the Executive Director of Gallup Pakistan. I had a mixed feeling after listening to Mr. Geelaniwho successfully showcased ‘glass half full’ with the help of data spanning last 25 years. Data is a collection of facts, opinions, figures, trends, numbers and patterns. To be data driven is generally considered good for the stakeholders to analyze the situation at hand. However, it is individual’s perspective which shapes conclusions from the data under consideration. The very first striking slide was the population growth from 1947 when we started our journey with 33 million and now being 240 million suggests that the country progressed significantly to fulfill requirements of such a huge population. But the fact which surprised me the most was the detail about life expectancy in Pakistan which was 44 years in 1960s and now it is 67 years with an exception of 74 years in the capital city of Islamabad. This improvement in the life expectancy indicates significant development in social and personal life domains. Because, life expectancy doesn’t improve with healthy intakes only, several other factors such as job opportunities, stress management, smoking patterns, health facilities and so on equally contribute to it. This improvement in life expectancy suggests advancement in several sectors. Use of tobacco has detrimental effects on health; data suggests there is significant reduction in the use of tobacco in the last 25 years from 38% users to 20% smokers today which is less than United States. But still there is a need to further curtail smoking to bring it to the level of most developed counties at least if not eliminated completely.

Alleviation of poverty and spending on education remain prominent concerns for everyone in the country. If you listen to Mr. Geelani, the situation of these two sectors is not that bleak as we usually think of. He contended that poverty reduced by 25 percentile in the last 25 years and stands at 20% as compare to 45% in the year 2000. We know that the GDP of Pakistan has grown substantially over the last three decades from 100 billion USD in 2000 to around 400 billion USD today. Now the question is where people spend their earnings and the answer is, in education especially higher education where enrolment has gone sky high from 0.3 million students in the year 2000 to 2.8 million students currently enrolled in HEIs of Pakistan. Higher education is a luxury, if there is such a huge increase in the enrolment of HEIs both in public and private universities; it means prosperity prevails in the society. Data presented by the speaker on literacy was amazing; our understanding remains that literacy rate in Pakistan in around 62%. But, he argued that the focus of our efforts during last two to three decades to improve literacy was the young population. If we look at the literacy of our population up to 25 years of age the data suggests it is 80%, which is the result of our effective policies to improve the literacy.

Data speaks truth and it suggests significant improvement in the yield of our major crops like wheat and maize. Recently we witnessed an interesting indicator of prosperity in the society especially in this region i.e. availability of the toilet to the households. According to the data almost 638 million people do not have access to the toilet in India. In Pakistan only 5% people do not have access to the toilet and that in the rural areas. Mobility stats have also significantly improved over the decades with sharp increase in motorcycle users.

Most interesting part of discussion was the political environment of the country which revolves around people less than 30 years of age. Pakistan’s 50% population is less than 30 years of age which is a real strength for the country from both economic and political point of views. In politics the age group between 18 to 29 years is shaping political discourse because they have started voting significantly during last two decades. Existing parties including PML (N) and PPP are continuously losing their vote bank for the last two decades which suggest that they probably failed to understand the sentiment of this segment of population between 18 to 29 years of age. People in this age bracket do appreciate schemes like laptops and infrastructure development but they consider it as their right. These young people aspire for identity and prominence on the global stage, they need a kind of leadership which can represent them with pride and honor. Traditional slogans have lost their attraction so does conventional political parties. There is a huge space for new thoughts, novel approaches and fresh vision to lead young population of Pakistan. PTI and TLP gained popularity in the same segment of the society. Existing parties have to completely revamp their image to accommodate thriving young population of Pakistan; otherwise new players will eventually cease their existence in coming years. This is what data suggests.

There are two factors of the portrayal of gloomy picture of Pakistan. First the availability heuristics, people believe in what they listen every day in their lives. Our mainstream media and social networking platforms both usually promote pessimism in the society broadcasting negative indicators. We hardly observe these encouraging trends in our mainstream prime hour debates. Therefore people start believing in what is available to them to watch. Second factor is the vested interest of a specific segment of the society which aims to win grants and privileges from Western countries and donors. They highlight undesirable affairs of the society to secure their interests. Therefore international audience also started to believe in the negativity as a preeminent indicator for Pakistani society. We have demonstrated our strengths to entire world during recent India Pakistan conflict with exceptional technological expertise, defeating one of the best fighter jet platforms available today. This speaks volumes about our abilities. We only need to propagate our strengths instead of indulging in untoward instances which are not uncommon to any society on this planet. Remember, glass is half full dear Pakistanis, let’s celebrate!

Dr. AbdusSattar Abbasi

COMSATS University Lahore Campus

[email protected]

Amina A Ghafoor

Manager Sales Technical & Commercial-BEE, MSPM 

I recently attended a professional development event that brought together a diverse group of attendeesmen and women from a range of industries and backgrounds. At first glance, the gathering appeared to reflect progress: inclusion, diversity, and collaboration. However, what unfolded during the session left me disheartened and frustrated. It served as a reminder that while there is visible respect for women in professional spaces, true inclusivity especially in practice still has a long way to go.

The session, unfortunately, was poorly planned. Although women were part of the audience, every activity, example, and interaction seemed to be designed exclusively with men in mind. From the outset, it was clear that no thought had been given to creating an inclusive environment. As a woman in attendance, I felt not only excluded but deeply uncomfortable. The discomfort didn’t stem from being in the minority, which is a familiar experience for many women in male-dominated fields like engineeringbut from the blatant disregard for gender sensitivity.

Throughout the session, patriarchal jokes were made, often at the expense of women. These jokes were not harmless or funny; they were offensive, tone-deaf, and completely inappropriate for a professional setting. What was more disturbing was the casualness with which they were delivered, and the laughter that followed from the majority of the male participants. The few women present accomplished, experienced professionalswere visibly uneasy, their confidence clearly shaken. Some made efforts to engage, but gradually withdrew as the environment did not foster equal participation. There were a handful of men who noticed the imbalance and tried to advocate for fairness and respect. But they were quickly dismissed or silencedeither directly or indirectlyby the dominant group, which seemed uninterested in examining its behavior. This experience was a powerful and painful reminder of why gender equity remains such a critical and urgent issue in our society, particularly in professional environments.

In sectors like engineering and technology, where women remain significantly underrepresented such experiences can be especially disheartening. They echo the early challenges many women face in their careers: often being the only woman in the room, constantly needing to prove their capabilities, working twice as hard to gain recognition, and confronting biases rooted in gender rather than merit.

There is often hope that things are moving in the right direction, that professional spaces are becoming more inclusive and equitable. Many individuals actively foster such environments by mentoring young women, advocating for diversity, and ensuring that all voices are heard and respected, regardless of gender. Yet, experiences like this serve as a sobering reminder that progress is not as widespread as it may seem. The attitudes encountered are not isolated incidents; they remain deeply ingrained in many areas of professional culture.

What’s most disheartening is recognizing that many young women entering the workforce today continue to face the same challenges that previous generations encountered. Despite progress in certain areas, the underlying structures of bias and inequality remain largely intact. This ongoing reality is not only disappointing, it’s deeply discouraging.

We must understand that the gender gap isn’t something that can be closed through token gestures or one-time diversity initiatives. It requires sustained, systemic change. And the first step toward that change is acknowledging that the problem exists. Too often, we dismiss concerns about gender bias as exaggerated or irrelevant. But those of us who experience it know the reality all too well.

In societies like ours, where patriarchal norms are deeply entrenched, the burden of change cannot rest solely on the shoulders of women. Men, especially those in leadership positions, must become active participants in the movement toward gender equity. They must be willing to listen, to learn, and to challenge the behaviors and attitudes that perpetuate inequality.

Achieving gender equity is not just a matter of social justice, it is an economic imperative. In a country grappling with economic instability, the exclusion of women from key industries and leadership roles is not just unjust, it is inefficient. We cannot afford to ignore the contributions of half our population. When women are empowered to participate fully in the economy, societies thrive. Yet, with such a slow pace of gender awareness and inclusivity, we are stalling our own development.

It is time to move beyond surface-level solutions and commit to deep, meaningful change. Gender awareness and sensitivity must be integrated into every realm of societyespecially in education, industry, and policy. Gender studies should be a compulsory subject from school through university just like our religious studies. Early education plays a critical role in shaping mindsets. Instilling in children the importance of valuing all genders equally helps lay the groundwork for a society that not only upholds equality in principle but actively practices inclusivity and equity in both every day and professional life.

Moving beyond awareness, professional environments must translate intent into action by fostering spaces where women are not just present, but genuinely included and supported. In fields like engineering and IT, where gender disparities remain stark, proactive measures are essential. Creating safe, inclusive, and equitable work environments, where all voices are heard and valued, should be more than a policy statement; it should be a cultural standard embedded in everyday practice.

Of course, it’s important to recognize that progress is being made. There are individuals and organizations that are actively working to close the gender gap, sometimes at great personal and professional cost. These trailblazers women and menare our hope. Their efforts may seem small in the grand scheme, but they matter. They create ripples that eventually lead to waves of change.

And so, while this recent experience was disappointing, it also strengthened my resolve. I am reminded of why we must continue to speak up, even when it’s uncomfortable. Why we must continue to challenge the status quo, even when it resists. And why we must continue to support one anotherespecially women who are just beginning their professional journeys.

One can hope for a future where no woman walks into a room and feels invisible, unheard, or out of place, a future where no young professional is made to question her abilities, shrink her presence, or conform to a space that was never meant to include her. A future where workplaces are not only diverse in numbers but inclusive in culture, where leadership reflects the richness of different perspectives, and where policies are not performative but transformative. One can hope that respect, opportunity, and equity are not things to be demanded, but values inherently upheld. And perhaps one day, voices won’t need to be raised, articles won’t need to be written, and reminders won’t need to be issuedbecause fairness and inclusion will be the norm, not the exception.

Those days are coming. But only if we keep working for them. Change doesn’t just happen. We build it together.