By Tom Arms | London

The phrase “Special Relationship” was coined by Winston Churchill in postwar triumph. It survives today’s strain.

The call for Britain and America to continue their wartime alliance was a clarion call to defend against Soviet aggression.

It worked. The West won the Cold War and in the post-Cold War years the two countries have seen advantage – Britain more than the US—in continuing to cooperate in military and intelligence matters to counter terrorism and rogue states such as Afghanistan.

Of course, over 80 years, the “Special Relationship” has had its ups and downs. At the moment, it is having a serious down. King Charles’s successful visit has done little more than apply a sticking plaster to the widening transatlantic gulf.

However, the ties between Britain and the United States are more than political. As I make clear in my book “America Made in Britain” (note subtle plug), they cover the entire gamut of human relations and include language, trade, finance, philosophy, religion, law, sport, theatre, publishing…. The fact is that the two countries are joined at the historical hip and not even Donald Trump or JD Vance can change the past.

The political, military and intelligence ties that politicians call “The Special Relationship” would not be possible without our shared history.

Let us start with the law—the bedrock on which every nation is built. Every American state’s legal system is based on English common law. There is one exception—Louisiana’s French history means its legal system is based on the French. The federal courts and the Supreme Court use English common law and regularly refer to the Magna Carta medieval English court cases in their judgements.

Almost all the major American religions—Methodists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Quakers, Unitarians, Congregationalists, and Baptists—started in Britain before crossing the Atlantic. Roman Catholics secured their foothold in Maryland which was designated as a haven for Britain’s Catholics.

Britain and America are each other’s biggest foreign investor. American investment in Britain is $900 billion and creates 1.6 million jobs. Britain has $800 billion invested in the US and creates 1.4 million jobs.

Read: The future of the ‘special relationship’: What can Britain offer America?

America’s Declaration of Independence and constitution are the political expression of the English Age of Enlightenment. Sir Isaac Newton laid the foundations of the enlightenment in his 1687 “Principia” when he shifted the balance of society so that it was no longer based on faith and belief but on scientific observation and logically determined mathematical formulae.

Newton was followed in 1698 by John Locke who echoed the future words of Thomas Jefferson when he wrote in his “Two Treatises of Government that under “natural law” all people have the right to “life, liberty and property.” He further argued that that the governed have the right to overthrow incompetent rulers.

The lawyer William Blackstone was at the tail end of the English Enlightenment. His 1771 legal compendium “Commentaries” became the bible of constitutional law on both sides of the Atlantic. It was Sir William who established the systems of checks and balances which are at the heart of the American political system. All the basic tenets of America’s Bill of Rights were first enunciated in Blackstone’s “Commentaries.

It is one of history’s greatest ironies that England’s Age of Enlightenment found its ultimate expression in a successful rebellion against English authority.

It was not just noble thoughts that shaped America. British Wars, clearances, enclosures, the slave trade and political repression all contributed to the country’s demographic makeup. An estimated 42 million African-Americans—14 percent of the population—are descended from slaves who were transported across the Atlantic in British ships. Some 20,000 Irish prisoners of war were transported to America as indentured servants. A similar fate was suffered by about 10,000 Scots. More Scots followed Jacobite rebellions in 1715 and 1745 and after the Highland clearances forced them out of their crofts. And, of course, the major Irish migration followed the potato famine. There are about 40 million Irish-Americans and nine million Scots-Americans who live in America because of past British actions. Interesting enough, only seven million Americans claim descent from English stock.

The people traffic was two-way. During the English Civil Wars about a quarter of New Englanders sailed back to England to support the parliamentarians. Among them was an early Harvard graduate George (later Sir George) Downing. When Cromwell died, he switched sides to support the restoration monarchy and in the 1680s he went into the property business and built Downing Street. Sir George was later appointed British ambassador to the Netherlands and helped to lay the financial foundations of the British economy. Samuel Pepys said he was an unpleasant man.

In sport, baseball owes its existence to cricket and rounders. Boxing is based on rules set down by the Earl of Queensberry. Golf has its roots in Scotland. Tennis is quintessentially English and American football is linked to rugby, which was more popular and, in the US, won Olympic gold in the sport in the 1920 and 1924 Olympics.

Both American and British theatre are descended from the Shakespearean tradition as are its offshoots radio, television and films. Radio was something of an international cooperation venture, but the scientific foundations are British. Television is very British. It was invented by John Logie Baird and Britain might have dominated the industry if World War Two had not intervened. As it is, British actors regularly cross the Atlantic to appear on the American stage, in films and on television.

The English language is the strongest tie between the countries, despite efforts on both sides of the Atlantic to misunderstand each other. The common language means strong educational links, a transatlantic publishing industry and, of course the entertainment industry referred to above.

Churchill’s politically based “Special Relationship” was not created out of the ether. It was the fruit of ties going back to the first settlers in the thirteen colonies. The “Special Relationship” may currently be down. It may be going through a period of reassessment and readjustment. But history dictates that it can never be dead.

Read: Observations of an Expat: Energy Security

______________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “America Made in Britain,” two editions of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War” and “The Falklands Crisis.”

The post Observations of an Expat: Special Relationship first appeared on Sindh Courier.

• Islamabad repaid all $3.5B in debt to Abu Dhabi amid Pakistan’s mediation of US-Iran war
• Analysts link move to ‘new regional alignment and global positioning’ as Middle East conflict continues

Aamir Latif

Pakistan last week repaid $3.5 billion to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a development many viewed as showing the Gulf state’s displeasure over Islamabad’s policy on the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia, which inked a bilateral defense pact with Pakistan last year, immediately came to its rescue, injecting $3 billion in Islamabad’s foreign reserves.

The oil-rich kingdom, which has been at odds with the UAE on a slew of foreign policy issues from Yemen to Sudan, also extended an existing $5 billion loan for more than a year.

Some analysts view the developments with caution, warning of over-reliance on Riyadh’s financial support, which is equivalent to almost 50% of the State Bank of Pakistan’s total foreign reserves of $16 billion.

Others downplayed the UAE’s move, saying that it would help lead the South Asian nuclear country to long-term stability.

“What has happened is part of a new regional alignment and global positioning amid the ongoing Middle East conflict,” Ammar Habib Khan, a Karachi-based political economist, told Anadolu.

“This new alignment was all set even before the war, but now it has become clearer who stands with whom,” Khan said, referring to the UAE’s withdrawal of deposits, which were replaced by Saudi Arabia.

Describing the decision to repay the money to the UAE as simply a “routine financial transaction,” Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry, however, denied that the repayment is linked to the war in the Middle East, insisting there is no “gap” between Islamabad and Abu Dhabi.

According to Khan, Pakistan’s decision to stand alongside Riyadh is a “wise” move since the two sides already have a defense agreement.

“If you have to choose, then you go for long-term stability rather short-term stability. And Pakistan has wisely chosen,” he added.

Khan said Pakistan will not suffer much from the UAE’s move as Islamabad could have arranged this amount through other sources even if Saudi Arabia had not stepped in.

He added that Islamabad would have an opportunity to earn foreign reserves through potential sales of defense products following its defense pact with Riyadh.

Khan added that Pakistan’s ongoing mediation to end the Middle East conflict, especially the near-closure of the Strait of Hormuz, has elevated Islamabad’s geopolitical status and positioned it a “new security guarantor” in the region.

Islamabad, he went on to say, can find alternative markets in the Mideast and formalize its trade with Iran if international sanctions on Tehran are lifted in case of an agreement with the US.

Currently, thousands of people in Pakistan’s southwestern Balochistan province are involved in illegal fish exports and oil imports from Iran.

A 1,700-kilometer (1,056-mile) long Pak-Iran gas pipeline project, which aims to provide 750 million cubic feet of gas per day to Pakistan, has been lying incomplete since 2013. The project was supposed to be completed in 2015.

The US is said to have applied pressure on its ally to stay away from the project with Iran, though Pakistan officially denies this.

‘Over-reliance’

In addition to the withdrawal of deposits, the UAE has also conveyed to Islamabad the end of an ambitious Pakistani proposal to convert $1 billion of debt into investments in an army-linked consortium, the Fauji Foundation, Finance Ministry sources told Anadolu on condition of anonymity.

Shahid Hasan Siddiqui, a Karachi-based economist, said that although Riyadh’s financial assistance saved Pakistan from an “immediate shock” in terms of foreign reserves, it also added to Islamabad’s already over-reliance on foreign financing, particularly by Saudi Arabia.

“This should be seen only as a fleeting relief to counter an immediate threat to the country’s foreign reserves,” Siddiqui told Anadolu.

But, according to Siddiqui, the latest developments have increased “economic risks” and shrunk Islamabad’s financing resources.

“We put all our eggs in one basket. What if Saudi Arabia becomes unhappy with our foreign policy or the US doesn’t need us tomorrow?” he asked.

Acknowledging that Riyadh’s latest financing has helped Pakistan maintain its foreign reserves, Siddiqui said it must take short-term and long-term steps in addition to structural reforms to bolster its struggling economy and avoid a “foreign policy compromise.”

“A nuclear country cannot run like that, where its imports are double its exports, and foreign remittances are being used to cover the trade deficit instead of investing them,” he added.

Siddique called for taxing big foreign remittances to discourage money laundering.

“Currently, there is no tax on a foreign remittance whether it’s $10 or $100,000,” he noted, adding that the blanket tax impunity on foreign remittances is further weakening the country’s already scanty tax net.

Also, he added, at least 50% of the foreign remittances should be invested to bolster the country’s foreign reserves through “own money” rather than loans and deposits.

Economic ties

Shamshad Khan, a former Pakistani foreign secretary, said Islamabad is being penalized just because of internal rifts within the Gulf nations, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

“Pakistan has not only condemned war on Iran but also condemned attacks on the UAE and other Gulf states,” Khan said, adding that maintaining good relations with Iran and Arab countries simultaneously has been the cornerstone of Pakistan’s foreign policy.

“Let me make it clear, Pakistan has not made any changes in its traditional foreign policy vis-a-vis the UAE,” he maintained.

Pakistan’s relationship with the Gulf States are mainly based on economics. Huge amounts of remittances sent by expatriate Pakistanis in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and other Gulf states have a significant impact on the country’s economy.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE jointly host over 3.5 million Pakistanis.

Saudi Arabia, which hosts over 2.7 million Pakistanis alone, tops the list of countries with highest remittances to Pakistan – $9.64 billion in 2025, followed by the UAE, which is home to 1.8 million Pakistanis, who remitted $8.21 billion last year, according to State Bank of Pakistan.

Pakistan’s total manpower exports to various countries stood at 762,499 in 2025, with Saudi Arabia absorbing 69.5% of the total, official data showed.

Also, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are Pakistan’s largest regional trading partners, exporting goods and services to Pakistan, mainly oil.

Islamabad’s exports to UAE and Saudi Arabia in 2025 stood at $2.1 billion and nearly $750 million, respectively.

Read: Pakistan’s AI ambitions: Opportunity or Overreach?

_____________________

Aamir Latif is a Karachi-based senior journalist. He represents Anadolu, a Turkish news agency.

Courtesy: Anadolu Agency

The post Strategic friendship has its price tags first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Tom Arms | London 

Energy Security. The Ukraine War made it a hot topic for a Europe dependent on Russian oil and gas. The Iran War—alongside the climate change debate– has revived the issue for the rest of the world.

The world’s main fossil fuel production centers are unstable. As a result, demand is growing to replace oil and gas with renewable energy. Furthermore, the renewable energy should be produced in areas which the consuming countries control. Many countries are already doing just that. Some better than others.

Surprisingly, Trump’s “drill, baby, drill” America does well when it comes to renewable sources of energy. Forty-six percent of US electricity is produced by renewables. The bulk of it – 19 percent—comes from the world’s largest “fleet” of nuclear reactors—94 spread over 54 sites.

The next largest provider are the windmills that Donald Trump hates. They produce 10.8 percent of the country’s electricity. Nine percent comes from solar power and hydro is six percent. Energy from biomass brings up the rear with 1-2 percent.

Three of the worst countries for renewable energy—and thus heavily dependent on Middle Eastern oil—are Japan, India and South Korea. Japan (the world’s third largest economy) and India both derive only 25 percent of their electricity needs from renewables. But South Korea’s energy supplies are even less secure. Only about 9 percent of its electricity comes from renewables.

China is a bit better. Thirty-eight percent of its electricity comes from renewable sources. Solar and wind provide 18 percent, and China operates the world’s largest solar farm in Xinjiang. It covers 33,000 acres and is said to produce enough energy to power two million electric cars a year. Even larger solar farms are planned on the Tibetan Plateau.

The Tibetan Plateau is also the fount of another of China’s renewable energy sources—hydro power. The Himalayan mountain range is the source of many of the world’s great rivers which the Chinese have dammed to produce 13 percent of their electricity. But it is not as much as wind power which produces 18 percent of Chinese needs.

Read: How the War in the Middle East Is Affecting Energy, Trade, and Finance

European countries are at the top of the scale when it comes to renewables and energy security. In the EU, an average of 45 percent of all electricity was generated from renewable sources. One of the renewable source leaders in the EU is Spain with 57 percent of its energy from renewable sources in 2025. Some diplomatic observers maintain that Spain’s energy security contributed to Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s tough stance towards Donald Trump.

France depends heavily on nuclear energy for its electricity supply. It boasts the world’s largest “fleet” of nuclear reactors after America—56 plants on 18 sites. These plants supply 61 percent of the country’s electricity. Another 18 percent comes from hydro, 15 percent from wind, three percent from solar and two percent from biomass. Only about seven percent comes from oil and gas. Coal—in common with most of the rest of Europe– provides less than one percent of France’s energy needs.

Germany used to have a large nuclear industry—29 reactors. But the Germans started to de-commission their nuclear power plants after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. It revived slightly in the early 2000s and then plunged again after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan. The last German reactor shut down in April 2023. But Germany is still able to generate 56 percent of its electricity needs from renewable sources. Most of it comes from onshore windmills, but a growing proportion of the wind turbines are in the Baltic. Offshore wind energy is popular throughout northern Europe. In Germany, windmills produce 33 percent of the country’s electricity.

Wind is also a growing energy source in Britain, especially offshore wind. A third of Britain’s electricity is produced by windmills dotted around the coast and on hilltops. In total 52.5 percent of British electricity comes from renewable sources. Unfortunately, most of the remainder comes from fossil fuels, but not from the Middle East. Eighty-six percent of Britain’s fossil fuels come from oil and gas platforms in the British and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea. About nine percent is liquefied natural gas which crosses the Atlantic from America.

The UK is thought of as wet, cold and sunless. Despite the weather, a growing source of British energy is solar. In fact, near Newport, Wales (one of the wettest parts of the UK) is Llanwern Solar Park which supplies electricity to 108,000 households.

Llanwern is the second largest solar farm. The largest is Cleve Hill Solar Park on the North Kent coast. It was connected to the national grid in July 2025.It boasts 550,000 solar panels; a 150-megawatt battery storage system to stabilize supplies and supplies electricity to 120,000 homes.

Solar power is growing in popularity because it relies more on the number of hours of daylight rather than just the intensity of the heat generated by the sun. That is not to say that hot, desert countries do not have the advantage when it comes to solar power. They do.

Saudi Arabia, with its vast hot deserts, is perfect for solar power and it plans to generate half of its electricity from the sun by 2030. Morocco is hoping to become a solar superpower. Its Noor Quarzazate complex in the foothills of the Atlas Mountains already produces electricity for more than three million Moroccan homes and a power cable has already been laid across the Strait of Gibraltar to connect with Spain’s power grid. Morocco plans to derive more than half of its electricity from the sun by 2030 and Moroccans claim that they could in future supply half of Europe’s electricity needs.

Read: Observations of an Expat: The Cost

_____________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World” magazine and lectures of world affairs. He is the author of two editions of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War,” “The Falklands Crisis” and “America Made in Britain.”

The post Observations of an Expat: Energy Security first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Tom Arms | London 

Trump’s War against Iran has upended the world economy. And it has only just begun. As one economist said: “At the moment things are bad. They are going to get worse and they could become catastrophic.”

At the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) spring meeting of world finance ministers the IMF revised down world economic growth for 2026 from 3.3 percent to 3.1 percent. It then went on to warn that if the Iran War continued much longer there was a real risk of a global recession.

Of the world’s advanced economies, the UK is the hardest hit according to both the IMF and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Predicted growth in the UK is 0.8 percent for 2026, down from 1.3 percent.

Read: War Darkens Global Economic Outlook

Even harder hit are the Asia Pacific countries who are dependent on the Persian Gulf for their gas and oil-based energy. Asia is also the most populous continent and accounts for more than half of global manufacturing which means that economic hits to that region have major global impact. The UN Development Program (UNDP) reckons that the war has already cost Asia-Pacific countries $300 billion.

Fossil fuels are not the only vital commodity exported from the Persian Gulf. The region is the world’s major source of urea which is a derivative of natural gas and a major component of fertilizer. There is a real danger that the lack of fertilizer will hit global crop yields.

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has warned that forty-five million people could be pushed into “food insecurity” and that food shortages could reach “catastrophic levels.”

The Eurozone has also been hit. IMF growth predictions for the Eurozone have been revised down from 1.3 percent to 1.1 percent and inflation is expected to go up from 2.1 percent to 2.6 percent. Trump’s war has made it unlikely that the European Central Bank can cut interest rates. In fact, they may have to raise them. This view is being echoed by central banks around the world.

Germany is the hardest hit of the Eurozone countries. This is because its economy is heavily geared towards manufacturing which in turn is fuelled by oil and gas. Because France derives a large part of its energy from nuclear power plants it will escape a lot of the pain, but the French finance minister has warned about inflation and supply chain risks.

Europe has the added pain of having to increase defense spending because of the Ukraine war and Trump’s repeated threats to withdraw from NATO.

Ironically, the countries that one would expect to be worst hit—the Gulf oil producers—appear to be best-equipped to weather the storm. Qatari Finance Minister Ali Ahmed al-Kuwari told the IMF that Qatar could “ride it out for a year.” He added that the rest of the world would suffer. “A full-fledged impact is coming,” he said, “and it is not far away.”

The reason for the Gulf countries insouciance is their massive sovereign wealth funds which have grown to immense levels with the help of half a century of oil money. In total Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain have an estimated $4.1 trillion financial cushion.

That it is not to say that the Gulf countries will not escape entirely. To start with there is the damage that Iranian drones and missiles have wrought on oil and gas installations. But perhaps more important is the damage that the war has brought to the region’s reputation as an international hub for tourism, finance and trade. Seventy-two million tourists visited the Gulf countries in 2024 and spent $102.2 billion—ten percent of the region’s GDP. Those same tourists are unlikely to want to holiday in a war zone.

Unlikely to want to take their families to live in the region are the four million Europeans and Americans who hold the main managerial positions and are key to the region’s economic success.

Of course, the key country is the United States. It is the Americans who elected an erratic president who started the war. It is only Americans who can stop him.

The American love of affair with the automobile means that a crucial factor in their thinking is the price of petrol (or, if you prefer, gas). The price of a gallon of petrol at the pump has risen an average of $1.00, or about 36 percent since the start of Trump’s War. Most economists believe petrol prices will remain high until after the all-important midterm elections in six months’ time.

The growing unpopularity of the war and that of Donald Trump and the Republican Party, means that the Democrats will win control of the House of Representatives and may also win a majority of the Senate. The Democrats have already tried to vote an end to the war. They were blocked by the Republican majority. Come six months that could change. But what will be the state of the world economy after six months of a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz or, even worse, an escalation of Trump’s War?

Read: Observations of an Expat: Two-State Solution

________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He is also a regular contributor to “The New World” magazine and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “The Falklands Crisis,” two editions of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”

The post Observations of an Expat: The Cost first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Mohammad Ehsan Leghari

Recent events in the Gulf have brought the world perilously close to a third world war. Economist and geopolitical analyst Jeffrey Sachs has issued a blunt warning that the short but intense US-Iran confrontation nearly spiralled out of control. Iran had seized effective control of the Strait of Hormuz, the vital chokepoint carrying nearly one fifth of global oil supplies. Sachs points out that Israeli pressure for escalation had pushed the situation to the edge, describing the war itself as useless and ridiculous. A fragile two-week ceasefire, brokered by Pakistan rather than larger powers or alliances, now holds. In Sachs’ view, the planet has just dodged a catastrophe of immense proportions.

This episode serves as a powerful reminder of how proxy tensions, energy vulnerabilities, and miscalculations can rapidly entangle major powers in global conflict. The recent US-Iran clash, sparked by strikes and counter-strikes followed by Iran’s temporary blockade of the Strait, was never a simple bilateral affair. It contained the ingredients for wider involvement by Russia and China, direct US-Israeli military action that could mobilize broader Arab and Muslim forces, and an energy crisis capable of crippling economies across Europe and Asia. One wrong move, one lost tanker, or one additional strike could have ignited a conflagration beyond anyone’s ability to contain.

Sachs goes beyond mere criticism to offer a clear prescription for lasting stability. He argues that Israel must return to the borders established on 4 June 1967, as affirmed by the International Court of Justice and repeated United Nations resolutions in both the Security Council and General Assembly. Sachs condemns what he sees as Israel’s uncompromising and irrational stance, driven by zealots seeking a Greater Israel that encompasses all of former British Palestine. He portrays this behavior as that of a destabilizing actor unwilling to respect internationally recognized limits. Such expansionism, in his analysis, is not only unjust but dangerously reckless, repeatedly dragging the region and the wider world toward the brink, as the latest Gulf flare-up vividly demonstrated.

Even amid this recklessness, the same sequence of events offers genuine cause for optimism. The ceasefire and subsequent diplomacy highlight a fundamental truth often overlooked in headlines that frame outcomes as simple victory or defeat.

The direct talks that followed the ceasefire in Islamabad, Pakistan, may have ended without a comprehensive agreement, yet they mark a breakthrough of profound significance. US Vice President JD Vance led the American delegation through grueling sessions totaling 21 hours. Upon departure, Vance acknowledged substantive discussions had occurred, calling that the good news, while noting the absence of a final deal and suggesting the setback weighed more heavily on Iran. Disagreements persisted over the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s nuclear program, and long-term security assurances. Media outlets quickly labeled the outcome a failure.

Such a verdict, however, fundamentally misreads the nature of diplomacy. For the first time since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, high-level representatives from two states long locked in existential enmity sat face to face across the table with no intermediaries. No quiet channels through Oman or Switzerland were required. This direct, high-stakes engagement lasted more than 21 hours and had not occurred in 47 years. As Sachs’ broader critique of perpetual conflict implies, and as fresh Pakistani analysis in the Vlog “JD Vance returns: Islamabad’s most important news” underscores, these talks constitute the difficult yet essential beginning of a process that holds real potential to stabilize the Gulf region.

Diplomacy is never a single event judged by pass-or-fail criteria on one day. It is not a cinematic summit ending in handshakes and signed documents under bright lights. Instead, it unfolds as an iterative, often frustrating, and incremental journey conducted against a backdrop of deep-seated mistrust. The 1972 Nixon-Mao meetings did not immediately conclude the Cold War but cracked open a vital door. The Camp David Accords followed years of shuttle diplomacy and repeated setbacks. Even the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement emerged only after prolonged secret contacts in Oman and multiple public rounds that frequently appeared doomed.

The Islamabad sessions, despite yielding no final pact, delivered something irreplaceable. They allowed each side to hear the other’s positions unfiltered, to probe red lines in real time, and to build institutional memory and communication channels that previously did not exist. Iran received America’s best and final offer directly. The United States heard Iran’s demands for sovereignty and security guarantees without distortion. That raw exchange, tense as it was, supplies the foundation for future compromises. Those compromises will ultimately need to incorporate the regional de-escalation Sachs advocates, beginning with Israel’s adherence to the 1967 lines.

The path Sachs charts, one of realism, multipolarity, and deliberate de-escalation, depends on viewing diplomacy as a sustained endeavor rather than a discrete test. The current ceasefire remains tentative. Tensions surrounding the Strait and nuclear issues continue. Nevertheless, the just occurrence of direct talks mere weeks after active combat demonstrates that even the most bitter adversaries can opt for negotiation over battlefield ruin when the stakes reach mutual destruction.

History repeatedly shows that moments of greatest danger often precede the most meaningful diplomatic advances. The Cuban Missile Crisis did not end the Cold War yet produced the hotline and arms-control frameworks. The 1991 Gulf War ceasefire paved the way for years of inspections and containment, imperfect yet preferable to unending hostilities.

The recent Gulf crisis represented a narrow escape from third world war. The Islamabad talks were not a failure. They formed the first halting steps of a process that may yet forestall the next crisis. As Sachs reminds us, the world can no longer tolerate endless escalation or the logic of a destabilizing actor that rejects mandated borders and courts broader conflict. What is urgently required is steadfast persistence at the negotiating table, even when immediate results disappoint. In diplomacy, the act of showing up counts as the initial success. Remaining at the table while upholding justice and the 1967 baseline is how conflicts that nearly escalated into world wars are ultimately resolved.

As the dust settles on this close shave from catastrophe, Pakistan emerges as the undoubtable hero of the hour, a beacon of calm, courage, and visionary statesmanship in a region teetering on the edge of Armageddon. With bold initiative and impeccable neutrality, Islamabad not only engineered the fragile two-week ceasefire that yanked the world back from the precipice in record time, but also flung open its doors to host the historic, face-to-face US-Iran marathon in its very capital. In a theatre long scarred by proxy wars, great-power intrigue, and endless finger-pointing, Pakistan stood tall as the indispensable bridge-builder;  putting global peace above any narrow strategic calculus, silencing cynics, and proving that quiet diplomacy, when backed by genuine resolve, can still rewrite history. By stepping into the breach when no one else would; and by making Islamabad the venue for this landmark direct engagement; Pakistan has not only earned the profound gratitude of a relieved world but has also cemented its rightful place as a mature, indispensable guardian of stability in one of the planet’s most explosive arenas.

Read: No Kings: Power for the People

_____________________

Mohammad Ehsan Leghari is a water expert, former Member (Sindh), Indus River System Authority (IRSA), and former Managing Director, SIDA.

The post From Standoff to Strategic De-escalation first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Tom Arms | London

TWO-STATE SOLUTION. That is the only answer to the Palestinian conundrum; the Arab-Israeli problem and now, the Iran War.

Neither the US nor Israel can bomb the Palestinian issue out of existence. It only creates recruiting sergeants for future generations.

Hitler tried it with his Final Solution. Even though six million Jews died in horrific circumstances he failed. The Jewish state rose from the ashes of the Holocaust with a determination that they will never again face extermination and that the land of Israel is theirs by right of God’s promise to Abraham.

Problem was that the Biblical land was occupied by other people who called themselves Palestinians. They were not a state. They were more like a tribe within the Ottoman Empire and later the British Mandate. They had land. That land was taken from them by the Jewish state in wars in 1948, 1956 and 1967.

But Israel’s religious right-wingers demand the Biblical lands of Eretz Israel and the entire country fears that a Palestinian state on their borders will create a permanently hostile nation as their next-door neighbor.

Wake up Israel, a permanently hostile neighbor is exactly what you have created with decades of on-off bombing campaigns and land attacks. The only answer is a two-state solution which recognizes that both sides have more to gain from peace than war.

It will not be easy. It will take years of carefully crafted negotiations, and both sides will need to keep the goal firmly in sight. It will start with confidence-building measures. They can be trivial things which create an obvious benefit to both sides. Once those are in place and creating results than it will be more difficult to return to war because it will mean giving up the gains achieved with the confidence building measures.

This has been done before. The best formerly intractable example is Northern Ireland. In the 1970s no one could envisage an end to the Troubles in the province. The IRA and Ulster paramilitaries were busy shooting each other and the British army and government was caught in the political and military crossfire.

But even at the height of the troubles in the 1970s there were back-channel discussions between the British government and Gerry Adams for the IRA. These led to the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement which admitted the Irish government into the process in an advisory role. The Irish nationalists were encouraged by this largely symbolic but important gesture.

In 1994 the IRA announced a ceasefire. The Protestant paramilitaries followed suit. The ceasefire was followed by limited talks. The ceasefire quickly broke down, but it proved that the violence could be paused and talks could be held.

All sides agreed that an outside force was required and the United States was brought in with Senator George Mitchell as chairman of multi-party talks which included militants which had previously been considered beyond the pale. Mitchell established three ground rules for talks: A commitment to non-violence; disarmament and democratic methods.

The result was the Good Friday Agreement. The discussions started with limited practical steps; built habits of cooperation and then created institutions for talks. There were setbacks and all sides had to accept them and keep their eye on the goal of peace.

The agreement is not perfect. Many criticize it for being too rigid. There has been limited violence and dysfunctional politics, but the province is stable if fragile. Northern Ireland will continue to be a problem that needs to be managed but at least its different factions know that they can stop fighting each other.

There are other examples of confidence building measures helping to resolve intractable problems. In the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis a nuclear clash between the Soviet Union and the US seemed inevitable. Then in1963 the Washington-Moscow hotline was installed. The two sides started talking. This led to the SALT process, the gradual reduction in the nuclear arsenals of both sides and eventually the end of the Cold War.

Egypt and Israel were locked in perpetual war. Then Anwar Sadat flew to Jerusalem and President Jimmy Carter negotiated the Camp David Accords. The two countries have had peace ever since. Uneasy, but peace.

South Africa suffered apartheid for half a century. FW de Klerk realized that the Black majority could not be repressed forever. Confidence building talks were initiated with Nelson Mandela while he was still in prison. These reassured the White Nationalist government. Mandela was released. Further talks were held and South Africa moved to a Black majority rule in which the White minority could live and prosper.

In every case, slow, careful diplomacy has been the answer. Attempts to resolve issues with the sledgehammer of war have failed. So have the imposition of deadlines and threats. In the end they just create more problems.

In the case of the Iran War, it has changed the world’s perception of the United States. Many countries have been concerned that so much power is concentrated in one country. But they have accepted that America was a benevolent state. The attack on Iran has changed that perception it will be difficult for the US to regain its mantle of benevolence.

Read: Observations of an Expat: War Powers

___________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes on defense and diplomatic issues to The New World. Tom is also a member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs and lectures on world affairs. He is the author of “The Falklands Crisis,” two editions of “The Encyclopedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”

The post Observations of an Expat: Two-State Solution first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Prof. Dr. Abdullah G. Arijo

Pakistan’s economic landscape has once again been thrust into the spotlight with the government’s decision to repay a $2 billion loan to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) by the end of April 2026. This repayment, which includes a 6% annual interest rate, marks a significant moment in the country’s financial trajectory, raising questions about external financing, reserve management, and the delicate balance between diplomacy and economic survival.

Background of the Loan

The UAE’s deposit with the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) was part of a broader framework of financial support extended by Gulf allies to stabilize Pakistan’s reserves during periods of acute economic stress. These deposits, often termed “safe deposits,” are not conventional loans but rather short term placements that can be rolled over upon maturity. For years, Pakistan relied on such rollovers from the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and China to maintain reserve adequacy and meet IMF program conditions.

Initially, the UAE rolled over the deposit annually, providing Islamabad with breathing space. However, since late 2025, the rollover period was shortened to monthly extensions, signaling growing reluctance from Abu Dhabi to indefinitely sustain Pakistan’s liquidity. The final extension, negotiated by Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, expires on April 17, 2026, after which repayment must be completed.

Why Repayment Now?

The UAE’s insistence on repayment reflects both financial and geopolitical considerations. Regionally, Gulf States are recalibrating their external commitments amid shifting oil revenues, diversification strategies, and heightened geopolitical tensions. For the UAE, withdrawing the deposit reduces exposure to Pakistan’s fragile economy while reinforcing fiscal discipline at home.

For Pakistan, the decision was less about choice and more about necessity. With the UAE unwilling to extend further rollovers, Islamabad had little option but to commit to repayment. This underscores the vulnerability of Pakistan’s external financing model, heavily dependent on the goodwill of allies rather than sustainable inflows.

Economic Implications

The repayment carries profound implications for Pakistan’s economy:

• Foreign Reserves Pressure: The SBP’s reserves, already under strain, will face a sharp decline once the $2 billion is repaid. This could reduce import cover and heighten volatility in the rupee.
• External Financing Gap: Pakistan’s financing gap for FY2026 will widen, compelling the government to seek alternative inflows from China, Saudi Arabia, and multilateral lenders.
• IMF Program Challenges: The repayment complicates Pakistan’s ongoing negotiations with the IMF. Islamabad may need to request adjustments to the reserve targets set for June 2026, arguing that the repayment was unavoidable.
• Domestic Impact: Reduced reserves could tighten liquidity, affecting imports of essential commodities, fuelling inflation, and eroding public confidence in economic management.

Diplomatic Dimensions

Despite the financial strain, Pakistan’s repayment decision carries diplomatic weight. By honoring its obligations, Islamabad signals reliability to international partners, a crucial factor in securing future support. Relations with the UAE remain strategically important, encompassing trade, investment, and expatriate labor. Repayment, though painful, reinforces trust and may pave the way for alternative forms of cooperation.

At the same time, the episode highlights the limits of Pakistan’s reliance on Gulf deposits. While Saudi Arabia and the UAE have historically provided lifelines, their willingness to continue doing so is not guaranteed. This necessitates a broader rethinking of Pakistan’s external financing strategy.

Risks and Challenges

The repayment exposes several structural weaknesses:

• Debt Sustainability: Pakistan’s dependence on short term deposits underscores the fragility of its debt profile. Without long term reforms, the cycle of borrowing and repayment will persist.
• Investor Confidence: While repayment demonstrates commitment, it also reveals Pakistan’s precarious reserves position, potentially deterring foreign investors.
• Political Fallout: Domestically, the repayment may be criticized as evidence of poor economic management, especially if inflation and currency depreciation worsen.

Opportunities amid Crisis

Yet, the repayment also presents an opportunity for Pakistan to reset its economic priorities. By acknowledging the unsustainability of reliance on external deposits, Islamabad can push for structural reforms:

• Export Diversification: Expanding beyond textiles to sectors like IT, agriculture, and services could generate stable foreign exchange.
• Remittance Facilitation: Strengthening channels for overseas Pakistanis to remit funds can bolster reserves.
• Fiscal Discipline: Reducing reliance on external borrowing requires curbing deficits and enhancing domestic revenue mobilization.
• Strategic Partnerships: Beyond Gulf allies, Pakistan must deepen ties with China, regional blocs, and multilateral institutions to secure diversified financing.

Key point

Pakistan’s decision to repay the $2 billion UAE loan is both a financial burden and a diplomatic necessity. It underscores the fragility of the country’s external financing model, heavily reliant on short term deposits from allies. While repayment demonstrates Pakistan’s commitment to honoring its obligations, it also intensifies challenges for reserve management, debt sustainability, and IMF negotiations.

The coming months will be critical. Islamabad must navigate the immediate strain of repayment while pursuing long term reforms to reduce dependence on external lifelines. Success will hinge on balancing diplomacy with economic resilience, ensuring that the goodwill of others does not perpetually dictate Pakistan’s financial future.

Read: Pakistan’s Fuel Crisis: Causes and Consequences

________________

Dr. Abdullah G. Arijo is an academic and science writer committed to inspiring Pakistani youth to pursue emerging scientific fields and research-driven careers.                   

The post Pakistan: Repaying the UAE Loan first appeared on Sindh Courier.

The two most powerful leaders have unleashed an asymmetrical war against a sovereign nation on the pretext of a fake propaganda, to bury the ghost of Epstein Files and corruption charges and they intend to benefit from the deaths of thousands or probably millions of innocent people.

History contains numerous examples of heads of state using war to create a hysteria of existential threat among citizens to reverse plummeting approval ratings.  According to The Economist, President Trump’s ratings have plummeted, especially after the announcement of the immigration policy. Similarly, Netanyahu is again trying to bury corruption charges by seeking to increase his support with a win over Iran

By Nazarul Islam | USA

Amid a series of prevailing crises, a fresh crisis has hit the world, again courtesy US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The unprecedented war against Iran comes close on the heels of the US abducting the sitting President of Venezuela in the dead of the night and the continuing genocide in Gaza.

The Trump regime has offered a series of justifications for the war — ranging from Iran secretly enriching uranium to build nuclear bombs and posing an existential threat to Israel to helping the Iranians remove a tyrannical regime, and subsequently, posing an imminent threat to the US. Trump and his administration keep oscillating between these justifications. However, Trump’s main thrust has been to dispossess Iran of nuclear weapons and usher in democracy.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an intergovernmental organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and inhibit its use for any military purpose, has reiterated that it did not find any evidence of nuclear-grade uranium during inspections.

Several top global security experts, such as Joe Cirincione, who headed the Ploughshares Fund (a public grant-making foundation focused on nuclear non-proliferation and conflict resolution), assert that there was no imminent nuclear threat from Iran. Instead, the goal is to change the regime and expand hegemony in the region with Israel by turning Iran into a vassal state like other Gulf countries to control the world’s energy matrix. The US has so far failed to provide any credible evidence of an imminent danger from Iran.

The way Trump chose to accomplish these narratives, involved eliminating the spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and the top military brass through one of the most powerful conventional bombs in history. Besides, US and Israeli forces have blown up schools, hospitals and residential areas, which included the horrific murder of 160 primary school girls.

In lieu of this devastation, Trump has talked about installing a Great and Acceptable leader(s)” of his choice. Though he hasn’t mentioned it in so many words, the US has long been throwing its weight behind Reza Pehalvi, the eldest son of last King of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pehalvi, whose dictatorial regime was overthrown in a popular uprising led by the students. Shah Iran’s son Reza himself is pitching to lead a transitional government in Iran after the end of the current Iranian regime that would lead to free and fair elections. (Meanwhile, as per reports, Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba, has been chosen as Iran’s Supreme Leader by the clerical body).

The events leading to the unilateral, unjust, unprovoked, and imposed war clearly demonstrate that the justifications given by Trump and Netanyahu are far from the truth and they had other ulterior motives for starting it.

There are four main counterpoints that explain the tearing eagerness with which Netanyahu and Trump went for all-out war with Iran, a conflict that every day has put a colossal cost on American citizens. On the fifth day of the war, the Trump administration was slated to have put a bill of $850 billion to Congress to replace the depleted arsenal, which consisted of costly Tomahawk and Patriot missiles and lethal bombs.

Impending elections amidst corruption charges

Both Netanyahu and Trump are facing elections and both are witnessing dwindling public support because of serious corruption charges. Just days before launching a strike on Iran, Netanyahu appeared before the Tel Aviv District Court for the 79th time on February 23. According to the charges, Netanyahu maintained a bribery relationship with businessman Shaul Elovitch. As part of that relationship, Netanyahu and his family allegedly made various demands of the Elovitch family regarding media coverage of their affairs on the Walla news website controlled by Elovitch. The requests allegedly included limiting coverage of Netanyahu’s political rivals. The court proceedings are continuing amid deep divisions in Israel over Netanyahu’s formal request for a pardon from President Isaac Herzog.

Similarly, President Trump is facing an array of alleged corrupt transactions during his current term as the 47th President of the US. A tracker prepared by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC)— a non-partisan legal organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy—extensively catalogues the benefits Trump has put up for sale and what they cost, highlighting the most egregious examples and explaining how these transactions have adversely impacted the public.

The Ghost of Epstein Files

The steadily opening Pandora’s Box of the infamous Epstein Files is further eroding public trust in these leaders, just as it has done across the world.  The US House of Representatives Document Repository contains damning allegations against President Trump in the form of explosive tapes recorded by author Michael Wolff, showing a nexus between Trump and sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

In the latest developments, an under-pressure Department of Justice (DoJ) informed news outlets that 47,635 files were offline for additional review and are expected to be ready for re-production by the end of this week.

“Our team is working around the clock to address victim concerns, redact personally identifiable information and any images of a sexual nature,” according to Justice Department spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre. “All responsive documents will be repopulated online once proper redactions are made,” she added.

The United States DoJ was virtually forced to admit withholding this large tranche of Epstein Files, promising to post them online after redactions due to exemplary investigations by The Independent and NPR (National Public Radio).

On February 24, barely four days before President Trump joined the war against Iran, NPR, a US-based independent, non-profit media organization, revealed that the DoJ withheld some Epstein files related to allegations that President Trump sexually abused a minor. It alleged that the DoJ also removed some documents from the public database, which contained accusations against Epstein that also mention Trump.

NPR’s investigation found dozens of pages that appear to be catalogued by the Justice Department but not shared publicly.

The ghost of Epstein Files has also ostensibly made Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his coterie subservient to American and Israeli interests. This clearly reflects in the US diktat on allowing India 30 days waiver to buy Russian oil.

Israel’s Hegemonic Ambitions in West Asia

Right now, this may seem like a conjecture or conspiracy theory but there is a growing possibility that Trump was forced to join the war against Iran to further Israel’s hegemonic ambitions in West Asia. The key to this riddle is again embedded in the Epstein Files. Many documents released so far suggest that Epstein was a trained spy of Mossad.

Documents released by the DoJ revealed that a confidential FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) informant claimed to have become convinced that disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein was operating as an agent for Israeli intelligence.

The informant, referred to as a confidential human source (CHS) also alleged that Epstein had a close personal relationship with former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and claimed Epstein had been “trained as a spy under him.”

The suggested links between Epstein and Mossad give rise to speculation that Israel possesses the raw footage, photographs, or call logs implicating several world leaders, such as President Trump and several top US officials. This forced Trump to enter Israel’s war against Iran.

Plummeting Ratings

History contains numerous examples of heads of state using war to create a hysteria of existential threat among citizens to reverse plummeting approval ratings. According to The Economist, President Trump’s ratings have plummeted, especially after the announcement of the immigration policy. Trump’s net approval on inflation also remains negative at -24.

Early surveys after the beginning of the Iran war suggest the war is unpopular. According to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted a week before the first strikes, just 27% of Americans favored an attack. But experts agree that a quick result with few or no American casualties can help Trump turn the tide and seek public approval during the midterm elections in November this year.

Similarly, Netanyahu is again trying to bury corruption charges by seeking to increase his support with a win over Iran, similar to what occurred during his military successes against Hezbollah. Legally, the elections for the 26th Knesset (Israeli parliament) are scheduled for October 27, this year, but there is a strong chance that Netanyahu might move them earlier to September or July to encash his popularity.

Possible Scenarios After War Ends

There is no consensus on the post-war scenario. Pro-US and Israel hawk experts, such as former four-star General and former CIA Director David Petraeus and former National Security Advisor John Bolton (who advised Trump during his first term as US President), believe that this will end the tyrannical IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Core) regime and pave the way for a US- and Israel-friendly popular democratic regime. However, many caution that this action will turn Iran into a failed state with different ethnic insurgent groups, such as the Kurds and Baloch engaged in a power struggle.

Experts in Predictive History like Professor Jiang Xueqin (who successfully predicted Donald Trump becoming US President and attacking Iran alongside Israel) and Douglas Macgregor, former senior advisor to the US Secretary of Defence, claim that Iran will withstand the onslaught because it has learned sufficient, suitable lessons from previous attacks, and the US will lose. Prof Jiang argues that Iran will inflict enough damage on the critical infrastructure of the GCC countries which are the lynchpins of the US economy.

Regardless of what experts say, the fact remains that the two most powerful leaders have unleashed an asymmetrical war against a sovereign nation on the pretext of a fake propaganda, to bury the ghost of Epstein Files and corruption charges and they intend to benefit from the deaths of thousands or probably millions of innocent people.

History will not remember them very kindly!

Read: Chasing the Hopes and Promises

__________________

The Bengal-born writer Nazarul Islam is a senior educationist based in USA. He writes for Sindh Courier and the newspapers of Bangladesh, India and America. He is author of a recently published book ‘Chasing Hope’ – a compilation of his articles.

The post Living in a mad, mad world first appeared on Sindh Courier.

• An analyst noted that Iran has not run out of missiles and drones, and has not unveiled all of its capabilities. “It has not even used more than 30-40% of its stockpile. Its production capability annually exceeds 1500 missiles and 2000 drones.”
• Israel’s military leadership and opposition figures have warned that Israel’s military is nearing collapse under the strain of a multi-front war, citing critical troop shortages and a lack of clear strategy.

Rabia Ali 

ISTANBUL

One month into the war in the Middle East, the US, Israel and Iran are showing the strengths and limits of their military capabilities, as the war shifts from rapid military operation to a protracted confrontation.

The conflict, which began with a joint US-Israeli offensive against Iran in late February, has expanded into a region-wide confrontation, with Tehran launching retaliatory missile and drone attacks targeting Israel, US bases and American-allied infrastructure across the Middle East.

Experts said all sides are facing increasing pressure, as their stockpiles are being strained and costly systems are being used at a pace that is hard to sustain.

While US and Israeli forces have scored tactical gains by hitting thousands of targets, they are also using costly, high-end interceptors to counter far cheaper drones and missiles, according to a commentary published on the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI)’s website.

Analysts Macdonald Amoah, Morgan D Bazilian and Jahara Matisek, in their analysis ‘Over 11,000 munitions in 16 Days of the Iran War: ‘Command of the Reload’ Governs Endurance’, noted that US and its allies have expended 11,294 munitions in the first 16 days at a cost of approximately $26 billion.

Iran’s arsenal degraded

As the war enters its first month, analysts said Iran’s arsenal has been degraded, though the lack of official data makes it difficult to assess the scale.

Pre-war estimates placed Iran’s missile stockpile at around 2,500, though some analysts suggested it could be as high as 6,000.

Tehran’s arsenal includes missiles such as the Khorramshahr-4, Ghadr-110 and Emad, with ranges of up to 2,000 kilometers (1,240 miles). Some of the missiles used against Israel reportedly carried cluster munitions warheads, making them harder to intercept.

In the opening days of the war, Iran is estimated to have launched more than 500 ballistic missiles and over 2,000 drones.

Among the drones used by Iran are its Shahed-136 “kamikaze” drones, which can travel up to 2,000 kilometers and are relatively cheap to produce. As of early 2026, reports suggested that Iran possesses a stockpile of up to 80,000 Shahed drones, with the ability to produce drones every day.

Data compiled by Ibrahim Jalal, a senior researcher and policy advisor, indicates that by March 20, Iran had conducted more than 5,693 strikes across Israel, the Gulf countries, Iraq, Jordan and Syria.

Israel has faced more than 870 strikes, with drones making up the majority and missiles a smaller share.

Analyst Jalal noted that Iran has not run out of missiles and drones, and has not unveiled all of its capabilities.

“It has not even used more than 30-40% of its stockpile. Its production capability annually exceeds 1500 missiles and 2000 drones,” Jalal told Anadolu, adding that the country has been producing at scale for many years.

Matthew Powell, a lecturer in air power studies from the University of Portsmouth in England, told Anadolu that while Iran’s stockpile of missiles and drones has “undoubtedly” been depleted, Tehran has never publicly stated its initial stockpiles, therefore making it difficult to gauge how many it currently possesses.

He also noted that Iran is using their ballistic missiles more sparingly than at the start of the war.

“This suggests one of two things: the stockpiles of ballistic missiles are being reduced at a faster rate than expected and so Tehran is rationing their use to prolong the conflict or Tehran are reducing the scale of their attacks to prepare the way for substantial ceasefire and possible wider-ranging peace talks.”

Experts also highlighted recent reports of Iran launching a ballistic missile with a range of 4,000 kilometers against the island of Diego Garcia, which was later denied by Tehran.

“If Iran does possess them, it is unlikely that they will have them in significant numbers,” said Powell.

On the other hand, Jalal said Iran has intermediate-range ballistic missiles exceeding 3,000 kilometers, noting capabilities may not always be visible.

He pointed to the evolution of Houthi attacks between 2016 and 2024, which progressed from short-range to medium-range, and eventually to missiles reaching up to 1,800 kilometers, adding that the gradual expansion caught many observers off guard.

During the first 16 days of the war, Iran’s daily missile and drone attacks fell 80% – 90% from their initial peak, and after day five and beyond, it’s missile and drone attacks averaged 33 and 94 strikes per day, according to an analysis published by the defense and security think tank RUSI.

Israeli defenses under growing pressure

Experts note that Israel’s multi-layered air defense system has so far managed to absorb much of the Iranian strikes, though no system is fully effective.

“No air defense system is one hundred per cent perfect and a limited number of Iranian air strikes have found their targets. These successful strikes, however, from a strategic perspective, have had limited effect, although they have caused destruction and casualties within Israel,” said Powell.

On the other hand, Israel’s military leadership and opposition figures have warned that Israel’s military is nearing collapse under the strain of a multi-front war, citing critical troop shortages and a lack of clear strategy.

Concerns are also growing about the sustainability of Israel’s defenses.

Israel’s most critical defensive systems appear to be under the greatest strain, with its Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 missile defense interceptors projected to be depleted by March 27, said the RUSI commentary.

On the offensive side, Israel’s Blue Sparrow air-launched ballistic missiles are expected to last until April 5, while its David’s Sling Stunner interceptors, used for medium-range threats, are projected to be depleted by April 6.

Israel’s Rampage supersonic missiles are estimated to last till April 9.

Data from the first 16 days of the war shows a rapid depletion of key munitions stockpiles among the US, Israel and allied forces.

Israel’s Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 interceptors saw the sharpest decline, with 122 used out of 150, meaning more than 81% are depleted. Allied THAAD systems also dropped significantly, with 60% of stocks used, while Israel’s David’s Sling interceptors were reduced 54%.

On the offensive side, Israel used 56% of its Blue Sparrow missiles and nearly 49% of its Rampage missiles.

“Israeli stockpiles of Arrow interceptor missiles, which are used to defend against incoming ballistic missiles, are precariously low. The Royal United Services Institute estimates that Israel may run out these vital weapons as early as the end of May,” said Powell.

US stockpile stretched

During the first 16 days, the US carried out extensive long-range strike operations, launching around 535 BGM-109 Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles, along with 912 AGM-158 JASSM and JASSM-ER stealth cruise missiles.

To support broader airstrike campaigns, US aircraft dropped 1,080 GBU-31, GBU-32 and GBU-38 JDAM guided bombs, according to an analysis on the RUSI website.

The US and its allies, meanwhile, are facing mounting pressure on their arsenals, according to the analysis.

Among allied systems, partner-operated THAAD is estimated to have 10 days of supply remaining, with projected depletion by April 3.

“Estimates from the RUSI suggests that the US have already fired over five hundred Tomahawk missiles in the four weeks of the war and that it would take five years at current production levels for these missiles to be replaced. They also suggest that the US is around a month away from running out of ATACMS ground attack missiles and THAAD interceptors,” said Powell.

Ryan Bohl, a senior Middle East and North Africa analyst at the RANE Network, said that American air defenses and munitions are strained and are being rationed.

“We also know that the Iranians have battered a lot of America’s bases throughout the region. Many of them have been mostly or partially evacuated, and people are now working in dispersed areas across these cities. The radar systems have also been battered,” he said.

Bohl noted, however, that there has been no damage to American warships besides the USS Gerald R. Ford that had a fire internally, noting that the American naval presence is unharmed and still capable of conducting launches.

Read: Iran at War: Ancient Roots, Modern Conflicts

______________

Courtesy: Anadolu Agency (Posted on 28.03.2026)

The post ME War: Assessing Military Strength first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Tom Arms | London 

America’s NATO allies are—according to Donald Trump—”cowards” for failing to join his war in Iran. He later added that the US would “never forget” the position of the Europeans at this “critical juncture” in world history.

Trump’s anti- NATO rants reveal an astonishing ignorance of the legal and political obstacles facing other world leaders who want to wage an ill- conceived and poorly executed war which threatens to escalate and plunge the world into economic depression.

It is not entirely clear how, but Trump alone the world’s democracies appears to ride roughshod over international and domestic laws to wage a dangerous war.

America’s Founding Fathers foresaw the possibility that a dangerously hubristic individual might one day occupy the White House. That is why Article One of the US constitution gives Congress– not the president—the power to declare war.

There are, however, get-outs for a belligerent president to respond quickly to sudden attacks. For a start the Founding Fathers changed the wording of Article One from “make war” to “declare war.” The change was meant to allow the president to respond to a sudden attack—but not to initiate.

In the wake of the Vietnam War, the president’s war powers were restricted further with the 1973 War Powers Act. This legislation instructs the president to inform Congress within 48 hours of the start of military action. If Congress fails to approve the action then troops have to be withdrawn 60 days. There is room for a further 30-day extension if required—but that’s it.

Congress also has the power of the purse which means that it can simply refuse funds to finance the fighting. The Iran War is costing $1 billion a day which is coming out of the existing defense budget. Trump, however, is said to be planning to ask Congress for an additional $200 billion.

If domestic guardrails against an offensive war are not enough, there are international laws which Trump is supposed to contend with. The main such law is the UN Charter. This prohibits offensive war except in self-defense or under the umbrella of a Security Council resolution. Trump’s attack on Iran is one of many illustrations of Trump’s contempt for the UN and international law.

The democratic middle powers—many of whom are in NATO—do have to contend with both international and internal laws when it comes to war. Failure to do so can have severe and immediate consequences for America’s allies.

Britain and PM Keir Starme is any easy attack for Trump’s anti-NATO rants. The UK is meant to have a “Special Relationship” with the US. That relationship led to British involvement in the Korean War, the Iraq wars of both Bushes, the attack on Libya and, of course, Afghanistan. Commonsense, however, kept the UK out of Vietnam. And American opposition to the Suez War led to its rapid and ignoble end

Having said that, Britain’s unwritten constitution and parliamentary democracy has meant that it was easier for the prime minister to launch a war than most democratic leaders. That is until 2011 when a parliamentary convention took effect. The convention which grew out of opposition to the 2003 Iraq War limits the PM’s power to wage war.

Under the 2011 War Powers Convention MPs agreed to debate and vote on any military action before it happens—except when under attack.

A parliamentary convention is not a law. It is a bit like Britain’s unwritten constitution in that it is designed to provide room for manoeuvre. But at the same time, a British prime minister ignores a convention at their peril. The 2011 convention led to Britain refusing President Obama’s request to join in the bombing of Syria. But then in 2014 parliament voted in favour of war against ISIS.

Across the Channel, the French president is seen by many as having Europe’s strongest executive powers. This is true in almost every political category except defense. President Emmanuel Macron is commander-in-chief of the armed forces which means he has broad operational freedom, especially for rapid deployment. But the French National Assembly must approve any long-term military adventures.

Under Article 35 of the constitution, the president, through their prime minister– must inform parliament within three days of any military intervention. Parliament must approve it if it last more than four months. And if the president fails to secure parliamentary approval than French troop must be withdrawn—immediately.

Restrictions on the German Chancellor to wage war have grown out of the fear of Prussian militarism following two world wars in the 20th century. German’s postwar constitution (the Basic Law or Grundgesetz) is clear: “Acts tending to and undertaking intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for a war, shall be unconstitutional.”

In 1994 this constitutional brake was strengthened by a federal court ruling that any decision to deploy German troops must have the approval of the Bundestag before any deployment. The only exceptions are a national emergency such as flooding or if Germany is attacked.

Germany’s Axis ally—Italy—has similar restrictions. Article Eleven of Italy’s post war constitution renounces war as “an instrument of aggression”. The constitution prohibits using military force for anything other than self-defense, peacekeeping, natural disasters, and fulfilling international obligations. And—as in Germany– parliament must approval the use of the military before deployment.

Postwar restrictions on the Japanese military were the most onerous of the lot. Under the constitution imposed by the Allies, Japan gave up the right to wage war and the right to use force to settle international disputes. Over the years, successive government have “re-interpreted” the constitution to enable Japan to enjoy the world’s tenth largest military establishment. But the “Self-Defense” forces are heavily constrained.

The Japanese government can use the military only for “collective self-defense;” to provide logistical support to allies and to participate UN peacekeeping operations. After 81 years of being Asia’s good boy, the Japanese feel it is time to loosen the military reins. In 2023 the Japanese National Security Strategy struck a slightly more militaristic tone when it declared that Taiwan’s stability is “indispensable to Japanese security.” Since 2024, the Japanese defense budget has risen 21 percent,

Democratic Japan’s main potential enemy is China. Xi Jinping has no restrictions, guardrails, restrains or checks on his control of the military. The Chinese constitution gives the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Central Military Commission (CMC) total control of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) which reports to the party, not the government. Xi is General Secretary of the communist party, chairman of the CMC and, just for good measure, president of the People’s Republic of China.

Russia—Europe’s main enemy—is similarly unconstrained. President Vladimir Putin has total control of the military—as long as he does not use the word “War.” Letting slip the three-letters would trigger a completely different legal regime inside Russia. Martial law would be declared. A general mobilization would be introduced along with mandatory economic measures. But worst of all, the Russian parliament (the Duma) would assume oversight of any military operations.

Trump has taken a leaf from Vladimir’s playbook and is also shunning the word “War.” In his lexicon, the war with Iran is “major combat operations.” Trump would not encounter legal problems if he used the nasty three-letter word. But his staff reckon he would suffer a political backlash from a base whom he promised: “No more wars.”

Of course, most of Trump’s MAGA base realizes that Trump’s actions in Iran are much more than “major combat operations.” Opinion polls indicate that they also know it is a mistake. Which brings this article to the final constraint that democracies—including the United States—have on their ability to launch wars whenever and wherever they want—public opinion.

Read: Observations of an Expat: Iran

____________________

Tom Arms is foreign editor of Liberal Democrat Voice. He also contributes to “The New World”, lectures on world affairs and is the author of “The Falklands Crisis,” two editions of “Encyclopedia of the Cold War” and “America Made in Britain.”

The post Observations of an Expat: War Powers first appeared on Sindh Courier.