By Tom Arms | London

It is time for another round of musical chairs—Middle Eastern style. The region’s countries are notorious for changing their friends and allies as often as their socks and the Mecca Agreement announced this week complicates the issue by throwing up a sandstorm of unresolved questions.

But start with history. The region’s first postwar security alliance was the British-inspired Baghdad Pact. Formed in 1955, it included the UK, Iraq, Iran,, Pakistan and Turkey. After the Iraqi revolution in1959, Iraq pulled out. At that time the Americans—who had been active non-members of the pact—became even more active non-members. Thus the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) was formed. It lasted until 1979 and the Iranian revolution.

But how did the Mecca Agreement come about. Well, according to Turkish foreign minister Hakan Fidan, the pact has been three years in the making. The two chief architects appear to be Fidan and Pakistani Defence chief Field Marshal Asim Munir. They kept their talks fairly quiet until this week’s announcement.

Fidan has been heavily involved in Turkey’s foreign policy for decades. He was head of the country’s intelligence services and President Erdogan’s national security adviser before his appointment as foreign minister. For Turkey, the Mecca Agreement is the culmination of Erdogan’s long-standing policy of shifting Turkey away from Europe and towards the Middle East and Islamic world.

Ankara brings a significant contribution to the alliance: a large NATO-trained military and an established and sophisticated defence industry.

Saudi Arabia lacks military muscle but it makes up for that with hard cash. The alliance’s secretariat will be based in Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan’s biggest contribution could be its nuclear arsenal of about 170 weapons. The most interesting thing about the Mecca Agreement is its NATO-style three musketeer clause that commits all the member states to come to the defence of any member state that is attacked. The agreement is ambiguous about the role of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal and leaves open the question of whether Saudi Arabia now shelters under the Pakistani nuclear umbrella. The Saudis have for years spoken of acquiring a nuclear capability as a deterrent against attack by a possibly nuclear-armed Iran. Now it may have it.

The two countries have strong defence links going back to the 1980s when Pakistan started sending its troops to the desert kingdom. There are now 8,000 Pakistani soldiers in Pakistan. In September 2025 the two countries signed a Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement” which included an Article 5-type clause. The Mecca Agreement effectively extends that agreement to include Turkey.

Egypt was supposed to be the fourth founding member but has held back, probably because it is concerned that the Article 5 clause could drag into a war with India or against the Houthis or Iran. Egypt, however, has been deeply involved in the negotiations leading up to the signing of the agreement and Turkey’s Fidan said, however, that he expects Egypt to join. He also said that other countries are expected to join the alliance, which begs the question: Why were Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, the UAE and Qatar absent from the first tranche of members?

Also, what will be the attitude of India and Israel towards the alliance? Will it push those two countries closer? How concerned is India about Pakistani’s newly acquired military muscle? Relations between Turkey and Israel have been poor for years. How concerned are the Israelis about a Turkish-Saudi link-up? What impact will this have on the Abraham Accords and the hope for Saudi diplomatic recognition?

Finally, there is America. Washington has been unusually silent about the Mecca Agreement, but we can make some inferences. There will be people who are delighted that the burden of defending the region is shifting from American shoulders. There are others who are worried that the US is being edged out of a vitally strategic region. They are also concerned that the treaty undermines the long-standing policy of nuclear non-proliferation by possibly placing Saudi Arabia under Pakistan’s nuclear umbrella.

Washington should also be worried about the impact the agreement will have on relations with India. Over the past 10 years the US has been working hard to establish a solid defence relationship with India as a counterweight to China. Support for Pakistan from Saudi Arabia and Turkey skews the balance of power in South Asia.

But perhaps worst of all is that the US has been an active participant in the region’s defence affairs since 1955. It was an active non-member of the Baghdad Pact and CENTO. When that collapsed in 1979 it formed a series of bilateral relationships centered on Saudi Arabia. Since 1979 it has fought a series of wars in the Gulf region. The latest one is still being waged. It has been an abject failure and exposed the limitations of the American giant. The Mecca Agreement is evidence that America’s allies in the Middle East no longer trust America alone to protect them.

Read: Observations of an Expat: Gaza Sceptic

___________________

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

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

• Recent US strikes on several Iranian fishing ports have halted unofficial fish trade between Pakistan and Iran

Aamir Latif

KARACHI, Sindh

Pakistan’s ship building industry has not received any new order over past 5 months

Fishermen pin hopes on latest diplomatic efforts to end Strait of Hormuz standoff, US-Iran war

In Iranian waters, a strange trade is taking place — Pakistani fishermen exchange subsidized Iranian fuel for high-value tuna, a barter system now under threat from escalating US-Iran tensions.

Shah Zamin Khan is among thousands of Pakistani tuna traders whose lucrative business has been at a near standstill since February, when the war between the US, Israel and Iran began.

The recent targeting of Iranian seaports by Washington has made matters worse.

Iran’s southern ports of Konarak, Pasabandar and Beris, which border Pakistan’s southwestern Balochistan province and serve as key fish trade hubs, are among the sites targeted by US airstrikes in recent weeks.

“Our businesses were already affected by the war but the recent targeting of Iranian seaports have turned the region into a no-go area for us over the past one month,” Khan told Anadolu.

Boat owners, according to Khan, have completely stopped sending their vessels to the Iranian ports for fear of US strikes.

In July, three fishermen were killed and 15 others injured in a US strike on a commercial fishing pier in the coastal city of Sirik in Iran’s southern Hormozgan province.

Earlier in March, a 17-year-old Pakistani fisherman was killed after debris from an intercepted projectile struck his vessel in the Arabian Sea.

Tuna is a staple in Iranian kitchens, but it has little demand in Pakistan, leaving fishermen with few options for selling their catch.

“There is not even a single company in Pakistan to buy our tuna. Iran is the only option for us,” said Hussain Baloch, another fisherman involved in tuna trade.

Speaking to Anadolu, he said that tuna fetches prices six to seven times higher in the Iranian market than in Pakistan.

Without access to the Iranian market, he went on to say, the entire tuna fishery would collapse, threatening both income and employment for thousands of fishermen.

Boat building industry also takes a toll

Since the start of the war, Pakistan has shut its border with Iran, disrupting both the inflow of fuel and the export of fish.

This double blow has added to the woes of fishing communities already suffering from the impacts of climate change and overfishing.

The escalating fuel prices have also brought Pakistan’s boatbuilding industry to a standstill, with new orders declining by up to 90%.

The Karachi Fish Harbor – Pakistan’s primary seafood hub – and other coastal areas are known for building a wide range of fishing vessels, not only for local fishermen but for neighboring Iran as well.

“We normally build 25 to 30 big cargo vessels for our Iranian clients, in addition to over 100 small and big boats for local fishermen annually. But over the last five months, we have not received any new order (from Iran),” said Haji Mohammad Wada, chairman of the Pakistan Boat Building Association.

“Currently, we are just finishing a few previously placed orders from Iranian clients,” he said, while speaking to Anadolu.

The impact of the Middle East tensions has not been limited to foreign contracts, but has also taken a toll on local orders.

“There is a huge decline in local orders as well during the past few months because of rising fuel costs and a halt in fish trade with Iran,” Wada said.

Mohammad Moazzam Khan, the technical advisor to WWF-Pakistan, said Pakistan’s tuna trade and boatbuilding industry heavily depend on orders from Iran, and if the Mideast conflict continues, it will permanently strip tens of thousands of Pakistanis of their livelihoods.

Speaking to Anadolu, he said Pakistan’s boatbuilding industry produces fishing vessels, particularly large-sized gillnet boats for Iran, which operate in the high seas, including the Strait of Hormuz.

​​​​Fishermen pin hopes on ceasefire efforts

Fishermen, including Khan and Baloch, however, pin hopes on the ongoing diplomatic efforts aimed at bringing an end to hostilities and reaching a permanent ceasefire between the US and Iran.

Mediators from Pakistan and Qatar hope the two warring sides are close to reaching an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and subsequently hold talks to end the months-long conflict.

Hundreds of Pakistani fishing boats and trawlers have left the ports of Karachi, Jiwani and Gwadar over the past few days on a 40-day catch-and-sell journey, putting their faith in Allah.

“Insha’Allah (God willing), there will be good news by the time we end catching and proceed to the Iranian ports to sell that,” said Khan, who is leaving in a few days to catch fish.​​​​​​​

Read: Trout under pressure from man and nature

______________________

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

Courtesy: Anadolu Agency

The post US pressure strangles Pakistan’s tuna trade first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Tom Arms | London 

For those who looked carefully, there were two contrasting visions of America at its 250th birthday. Each was presented by a prominent American and could not have been more different.

The first Is Donald Trump’s America First vision. This is an America where immigrants are not only refused entry but are rounded up by armed agents; sent to overcrowded detention camps and deported. It is vision which is viewed through the narrow lens of American nationalism.

The second was rooted in the idea that America has a responsibility beyond its borders—a universal vision which is closely linked to immigration, human dignity and the belief that America’s ideals belong to everyone, not just Americans.

The Universalist vision was expounded by another prominent American, Pope Leo XIV. The pope was invited to Washington for the 4th of July celebrations. He declined the invitation. The Vatican has never explained why the pope declined, but some papal observers have speculated that Leo was concerned that his visit would be used for political purposes supporting Donald Trump.

Pope Leo did, however, visit via video link the day before the big day. On July 3rd, he was presented via Zoom link with the Liberty Medal at the National Constitution Centre in Philadelphia. The medal is presented annually to the individual whose “courage and conviction” has done the most to advance the cause of liberty around the world. The center is strictly non-partisan, and former recipients have included Volodymyr Zelensky and the Dalai Lama

In his acceptance speech, Pope Leo was careful to echo the Centre’s non-partisan tradition. He did not criticize the administration. He did not mention Trump’s name. He did not call for open borders. Bevere did express the hope that America would remain “ever true to the dream that has earned it the title of land of the free and home of the brave.”

He also praised the Declaration of Independence whose ideals he hoped would remain “a guiding light for the present moment and for the years to come.” Finally, the pope said that America had become a “byword for freedom” because of the way the country had welcomed successive generations. And he urged Americans to remain faithful to that tradition.”

The following day, Pope Leo XIV was flown to Lampedusa by the Italian Air Force. Lampedusa is a tiny limestone island only seven miles long and two miles across. Home to barely 6,500 people, it lies just 70 miles from Tunisia but 127 miles from Sicily. Politically it is Italian. Geographically it sits on the edge of the African continental shelf. It has become Europe’s symbolic frontier, where desperate migrants from Africa first set foot on European soil. So far this year about 7,000 migrants have landed in Lampedusa. Thousands more have died in their attempt to cross the Mediterranean.

While Donald Trump was making a long, rambling political speech before a dwindling crowd and breaking the world record for the longest-ever fireworks display, the pope was saying mass in a migrant’s cemetery and praying for the souls of those who died crossing the sea.

Before the pope left for Lampedusa, the Vatican press office released a letter to the American people in which he praised the United States as a nation built by migrants. “Immigrants,” said the pope, “have formed a part of the history of this country (America) from its very beginning.” He goes on to argue that defending human life includes “welcoming and assisting immigrants.”

Once again, the Pope did not criticize Donald Trump or his administration. He was also careful to focus on the country’s basic ideals. However, the context of his actions, spoke louder than any of his words: The acceptance of the Liberty Medal, his letter to the American people and finally—on the 4th of July itself—a visit to Lampedusa to pray for the migrants who drowned crossing from Africa to Europe.

But Pope Leo did remember his American roots. His journey to Lampedusa was only a day trip. That night he returned to the Vatican where he attended the 4th of July party given by the US ambassador to the Holy See, Brian Burch. Presumably, the pope enjoyed a hot dog and a beer.

Read: Observations of an Expat: Gaza

________________________

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

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

By Noor Muhammad Marri, Advocate | Islamabad

Modern America is not only a state; it is a global idea, and today that idea is going through a deep and silent transformation. Politics is no longer limited to governments, courts, or parliaments. It now lives inside society itself—inside migration patterns, demographic shifts, media narratives, and cultural debates. What was once called “high politics” and “low politics” has now merged into one continuous struggle over identity, power, and the future direction of the state.

In earlier times, high politics meant war, diplomacy, and national security, while low politics meant culture, economy, and social life. Today this separation no longer exists. Migration affects elections, demographics influence foreign policy, and cultural debates shape national security itself. In this way, societies are no longer changed only by wars or revolutions, but by slow and continuous internal transformation.

I observe this shift as a legal professional and mediator. In modern systems, change rarely comes through visible force. It comes through institutions, policies, incentives, and population movement. A state may appear stable on the surface, but underneath, its social composition and political direction may be changing step by step. This is why many people now feel uncertainty, even in strong democracies like America.

Supporters of open systems argue that migration and globalization are natural and necessary. According to them, no modern economy can survive without movement of people, ideas, and skills. They believe diversity strengthens societies and creates innovation. In their view, identity is flexible and constantly evolving, and the strength of America lies in its openness.

However, another large section of society sees this differently. They feel that uncontrolled migration and rapid demographic change can weaken national cohesion. For them, a nation is not only an economic system; it is also a shared culture, memory, language, and sense of belonging. When this balance is disturbed, they fear that the state may lose its inner unity even if its institutions remain intact.

This is where the real debate begins in America today—not only about immigration policy, but about the future definition of the nation itself.

In strategic discussions, three historical examples are often discussed to explain how migration can become politically sensitive.

The first example is Cuba during the Mariel Boatlift. During that period, large numbers of people were sent from Cuba to the United States. Some analysts later argued that among ordinary migrants there were also individuals with criminal backgrounds and possible intelligence links. Whether fully accurate or not, this event created a lasting belief in some circles that migration flows can sometimes be used not only for humanitarian purposes, but also as a tool of political pressure. It showed that population movement can create social and security challenges inside another state without any military conflict.

The second example is Mexico and migration into the United States. Over decades, large-scale movement from Mexico into American territory has reshaped many regions in the southwest. Some political groups interpret this as a natural continuation of historical ties and economic necessity. Others argue that it has also changed the cultural and electoral balance of those regions. There are even symbolic narratives suggesting that borders do not only divide land, but also divide identities—and when people move, identities move with them. This debate is not only political; it is deeply emotional and cultural.

The third example is China, particularly related to birth tourism and long-term global strategies of its diaspora. Some Chinese families travel abroad so their children can obtain foreign citizenship at birth, especially in countries like the United States. In some cases, these children later return to China and grow up within Chinese cultural and ideological environments while still holding foreign citizenship rights. From one perspective, this is a normal global practice in an interconnected world. From another perspective, it raises questions about dual identity, long-term influence, and the meaning of citizenship itself. It reflects how modern power is no longer only territorial, but also demographic and institutional.

These examples show a common pattern: in the modern world, influence does not always come through armies or direct control. It can come through people, movement, legal systems, education, and long-term demographic change.

This is why American society today is deeply divided on questions of identity. What defines America? Is it land? Is it constitution? Is it shared values? Or is it something deeper like language, culture, and historical memory? These questions are not theoretical anymore—they are political realities shaping elections, policies, and public debates.

Similar discussions are also visible in Europe and other parts of the world. Globalization promised unity, economic growth, and cultural exchange. But at the same time, it also created anxiety about identity, sovereignty, and social cohesion. Many societies now feel caught between openness and protection, between diversity and unity.

As a mediator, I see this as a balance problem rather than a pure political conflict. Every society must manage two needs at the same time: openness to survive economically, and cohesion to survive socially. If openness becomes absolute, identity weakens. If closure becomes absolute, growth and innovation suffer. The challenge is to maintain equilibrium.

Another important factor in today’s world is technology. Social media and digital platforms have made it possible for ideas, emotions, and political narratives to spread instantly across borders. This has turned information into a form of power. Public opinion can shift rapidly, and societies can become polarized within days. In such an environment, perception often becomes more powerful than reality.

Because of this, modern politics is no longer only about policies; it is about narratives. Whoever controls the narrative often influences the direction of society more than traditional institutions.

Citizenship has also changed in meaning. Earlier, it was a stable identity tied to one nation. Today, many individuals live with multiple affiliations—economic, digital, cultural, and national. This creates opportunities, but also confusion about loyalty and belonging. The question is no longer only “Where do you belong?” but also “To what extent do you belong?”

At the heart of all these debates lies a deeper issue: the changing nature of power. Power is no longer always visible. It does not always come through force or law. It now operates through systems, institutions, population flows, education, and long-term social change. This makes it difficult for ordinary citizens to fully understand how societies are being shaped.

This is why many people feel that change is happening faster than their ability to understand or control it. It creates fear in some and hope in others.

In my view, the real challenge for America—and for all modern societies—is not to reject change, but to understand it. No society can remain static. But every society must decide how to manage change without losing its core identity.

The future will not be decided only by borders or armies. It will be decided by how societies balance identity with openness, and stability with transformation.

The central question remains simple, but very powerful:

Can a society remain united while constantly changing itself?

This is the real political and philosophical challenge of our time.

Read: State Formation and the Military Power

____________________

Noor Muhammad Marri Advocate & Mediator is based in Islamabad

The post America: The Age of Invisible Transformation first appeared on Sindh Courier.

The region will remain in the waiting room, watching the smoke without ever seeing the great fire, because the fire would mean everyone burns. The question remains: How long will the world remain a hostage to this waiting?

By Abdel Latif Moubarak | Egypt  

For over four decades, the world has stood on its tiptoes, holding its breath with every warship moving through the Gulf and every fiery statement issued from the White House or “Nahjistan.” The title is not merely a literary metaphor; it is a diagnosis of a chronic geopolitical condition. Everyone awaits the “Big Bang” or the “Historic Peace,” but the truth is that we are living in a liminal space between them. We are waiting for what never comes because the rules of the game between the two parties were not designed for a decisive conclusion, but for mutual attrition and brinkmanship.

Tehran adopts the philosophy of the “Persian Carpet”—meticulous, slow, and long-term weaving. In contrast, American policy suffers from “attention deficit” with every election cycle.

Iran: Does not seek a direct confrontation that would destroy its gains; it prefers “proxy wars.”

America: Realizes that the cost of invading Iran would make the Iraq War look like a “picnic,” and thus settles for the stranglehold of sanctions.

The deadlock of this “war” cannot be understood without looking at the map. Iran is not just a state; it is a natural fortress surrounded by mountains.

1. The Strait of Hormuz: The dagger that Tehran holds to the throat of the global economy.
2. Regional Influence: From Baghdad to Beirut, and Damascus to Sana’a—these are leverage cards ensuring that any attack on the Iranian interior means the entire region goes up in flames.

While politics speaks of principles, reality speaks of oil and gas. American sanctions have transformed the Iranian economy into a “resistance economy,” but they have simultaneously created smuggling networks and parallel trade. This has rendered economic pressure an indecisive tool, and even a catalyst for military circumvention and innovation.

Does Iran want the bomb, or does it want the “nuclear threshold”?

Waiting is the master of the situation here. Obtaining the weapon means inviting an international strike, while not obtaining it means remaining at the mercy of threats. Therefore, the nuclear file remains an eternal bargaining chip—a tool for political blackmail rather than an imminent military goal.

Both parties have developed a secret “code” for engagement:

“Strike my ‘tools’ (proxies) and I will strike your ‘allies’.”

“Do not target my senior leaders (except in exceptional cases like Qasem Soleimani) so that I am not forced to respond directly.”

These rules are what prevent “what never comes” from arriving, maintaining the balance of terror.

America is no longer the unified “world policeman.” There is an “isolationist” current that rejects eternal wars and a “hawkish” current that views Iran as an evil that must be eradicated. This fluctuation has allowed Tehran to play on Washington’s internal contradictions, waiting for one administration to depart and another to arrive.

Betting on the collapse of the regime from within due to external pressure is also a wager on “waiting for what never comes.” The Iranian regime has proven a superior ability to contain internal crises by exporting them abroad, using the “American enemy” as a peg to legitimize domestic repression.

The confrontation is no longer bilateral. China and Russia have found in Iran an ally to “spite” the West.

China: Provides an economic lifeline by purchasing oil.

Russia: Provides political cover and military-technical support.

This triangle has made isolating Iran nearly impossible in the new world order.

In the end, it seems that a comprehensive war between America and Iran is the “Godot” of the modern era; everyone talks about it, everyone prepares for it, but it never arrives. Both parties realize that the price of war is the end of the current status quo —a status quo which, despite its bitterness, provides both with a reason for existence and continuity.

The region will remain in the waiting room, watching the smoke without ever seeing the great fire, because the fire would mean everyone burns. The question remains: How long will the world remain a hostage to this waiting?

Read: The Little Mirror of Secrets

____________________

The author was born in Suez and writes poetry using classical Arabic and Egyptian vernacular. He received a Bachelor of Law from Ain Shams University. He was one of the most important poets of the 1980s and his poems were published in several literary magazines in Egypt and the Arab world, including the Arab magazine, Kuwait magazine, News Literature, Republic newspaper, Al-Ahram, the new publishing culture (magazine).[1] Received the Excellence and Creativity Shield from the Arab Media Union in 2014 and Won the shield of excellence and creativity from the East Academy 2021.He won the Sergio Camellini International Award in Italy in 2025. He won first place in the “Divinamente Donna” competition in Italy 2026.

The post Waiting for What Never Comes first appeared on Sindh Courier.

• Sustained ceasefire prerequisite, but things ‘have not yet reached stage’ for peace talks to begin, experts tell Anadolu

Anadolu staff

ISTANBUL

Iran wants the US and Israeli forces to “immediately halt their hostilities, particularly targeting top Iranian leadership, in addition to the “unconditional” withdrawal of US President Donald Trump’s “deadline” on the Strait of Hormuz, Pakistani official sources told Anadolu on Monday, confirming a ceasefire proposal was shared with Tehran.

“Iran has conveyed to Islamabad that it will only consider the proposal if the US and Israel immediately halt all kinds of hostilities against Iran, including targeting its senior military and civilian leaders,” said the sources privy to developments, stressing not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

The statement came as Tehran on Monday confirmed the killing of Majid Khadmi, intelligence chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, while reports had suggested that a 45-day ceasefire proposal had been made.

Tehran said it cannot be forced to enter into any dialogue through “deadline threat,” according to the Pakistani sources.

Pakistan’s army chief Gen. Asim Munir and the country’s top diplomat Ishaq Dar are in “constant” contact with US Vice President JD Vance and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, respectively, in an attempt to persuade the two sides to come to the negotiation table, the sources added.

The ceasefire proposal, the sources said, includes an immediate ceasefire, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, within two to three weeks to finalize a broader settlement, and subsequent in-person talks in Islamabad.

Trump said on Sunday there was a strong chance of reaching an agreement with Iran as soon as Monday, while also threatening to escalate attacks dramatically if Tehran fails to deliver quickly.

Notably, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei told a news briefing in Tehran on Monday that it communicated its demands to the US side through third parties.

“We have formulated our own set of demands based on our interests and considerations. We are not ashamed to voice our legitimate and logical demands,” Baqaei said when asked if there is any new plan for ending the war between Iran and the US.

Baqaei also rejected the idea of a ceasefire with the US, saying any pause in fighting could allow its adversaries to regroup and resume attacks.

Pakistan has positioned itself to mediate between the US and Iran, leveraging its good relations with Washington and Tehran, and strategic and defense partnerships with China and Saudi Arabia.

‘Sustained ceasefire prerequisite for direct peace talks’

Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokesman Tahir Andrabi declined to confirm or deny reports that Islamabad had proposed a framework to end the US-Israeli war on Iran.

But Andrabi said the “peace process is ongoing.”

Amid the ongoing claims and counterclaims, Pakistani journalist and analyst Iftikhar Firdous said officials from Pakistan and Iran “have already held a physical meeting.”

“The meeting lasted for a few hours in Pakistani territory a few days ago,” Firdous said on US social media company X.

Neither Islamabad nor Tehran has confirmed nor denied the claims by Firdous, who leads the Khorasan Diary outlet.

“One of the main demands that has emerged from the Iranian side is a sustained ceasefire as a prerequisite for direct peace talks to begin,” Firdous told Anadolu in a text message.

However, he cautioned: “The process of how the negotiations are taking place has been kept extremely confidential because of the high stakes involved in an extreme security environment.”

‘Difficult to predict any final outcome at this stage’

Mansoor Ahmad Khan, a Pakistani diplomat who served as Islamabad’s top diplomat in neighboring Afghanistan during the Afghan Taliban’s return to power in 2021, told Anadolu it was “difficult to predict any final outcome on peace at this stage.”

For the “realization” of a ceasefire and negotiating a comprehensive peace agreement, Iranian and US officials “will be required to sit together and negotiate with each other,” Khan said in a phone interview.

“It appears that the things have not yet reached that stage,” he added.

Khan said: “The major difference between the two sides in reaching an understanding remains on future guarantees on not attacking Iran again and the unconditional opening of the Strait of Hormuz in the absence of such assurances.”

“Therefore, due to complexities surrounding this war, it is difficult to predict any final outcome on peace at this stage,” he added.

Calling Pakistani Field Marshall Asim Munir “a trusted arbiter between the United States and Iran,” Firdous said Pakistan has positioned itself as a “trusted intermediary” between two hostile powers like Iran and the United States.”

“The real issue,” he stressed, is “Tehran’s strategic calculus… based on the history of negotiations,” he said, referring to past US-Iran talks.

While Pakistan shares “strong ties” with Iran based on geography, security cooperation, and shared interests, Firdous said Pakistan has a “working relationship with the US…strategic relations with China, Gulf states, as well as Türkiye.”

“This multi-vector diplomacy is exactly why Pakistan is not a liability, but a rare advantage,” he emphasized.

Read: Iran at War: Ancient Roots, Modern Conflicts

____________________

Courtesy: Anadolu Agency

The post Iran Seeks End to Leadership Targeting first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Momina Khan  

One of Richard Paul Evan’s iconic line, where he states, “Any time you put all your eggs in one basket, you’re just one stumble away from catastrophe” is not only relatable with regards to the Middle East’s long term dependence on the United States as their chief security provider but at the same time also serves a clear warning against excessive reliance on a single source. Gulf States deep dependence on America has been significantly shaken while experiencing the heaviest consequences of the current US Iran war. The unsettling images of missile and drone attacks across the region is a somber documentation of the conflict’s impact and this destruction of critical infrastructure, including army bases, energy power plants and civilian amenities coupled with the unfathomable loss of life has deeply scarred the Middle East.

Although the Gulf States have been successfully averting these missile attacks by using the highly effective American air defense system, yet ironically these retaliatory attacks by the Iranian regime are a result of a war, which was triggered by the US itself. Oddly enough, Arab world ‘s primary security provider tends to be responsible for dragging the entire region into an unnecessary conflict, as the current President of Germany Frank-Walter Steinmeier has rightly put it by stating that, “This war is a violation of international law- there is little doubt about that. It is also a politically fatal error, and what I find most frustrating is that it is an avoidable and unnecessary war if its goal really was to stop Iran on its path towards a nuclear bomb.”

These unpredictable times marked by geopolitical uncertainty across the region require a shift from the previous strategy of over dependence on the United States to embracing regionally oriented security setups. For this purpose, an effective security framework with regional states which tends to not only address potential threats but also offers a comprehensive and balanced defense partnership is highly desirable. Meanwhile security agreements and defense modernization deals with global defense partners both for defensive and offensive operations can ensure long term safety from existential threats.

Recently Ukraine’s President has signed air defense deals with UAE, Qatar and Saudi Arabia which mainly addresses the threat of incoming missiles and drones from Iranian side. Iran’s latest strategic approach of launching wave upon wave of missiles has the capability to overwhelm even high cost American air defense system. Amidst this critical scenario, the Ukrainian interceptor drones tend to be relatively cost effective alongside having a history of downing Iranian -Russian drones, thus allowing Ukraine to leverage its anti-drone expertise in order to help the Gulf Arab states.

Meanwhile a mutual defense agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan which was signed in Riyadh in September 2025 aims at strengthening joint deterrence, thereby reflecting a thriving multipolar strategic environment.

The latest meeting between Qatar’s Emir and the British defense secretary on the 30th of March 2026is a continuation of a pact which was formalized in October 2025.

Growing alarm and frustration over America’s security guarantees has forced the Arab allies to reconsider their complete reliance on the United States and contemplating the option of diverse strategic partnerships.

Since the beginning of the war, the Islamic Republic has launched approximately 4,000 drones and missiles at the neighboring Gulf States, as a strategy of damage intended to put pressure on all GCC states coupled with a widespread impact on global economies. These relentless attacks on the energy infrastructure have not only exposed the limits of US defense guarantees in the Gulf but have also sent shock waves across global energy markets. American military presence across the gulf has made the region a prime target of Iranian aggression, yet has failed to protect their territories.

Amidst growing frustration with America over the Iran war, some GCC officials have also suspected that the US prioritized Israel’s security over the Gulf States. Former Saudi intelligence Chief Prince Turki Al Faisal has been a vocal critic of America’s bias towards the Israeli state. He argued that the Israeli Prime Minister ‘somehow convinced’ the President Trump to wage war against Iran.

In Islam, Muslims are encouraged to adopt diverse ethical strategies to achieve success accompanied by complete trust in Allah and while facing obstacles a believer should be flexible, hence embracing necessary revision and modification. During the battle of Trench which took place in 627 CE, Muslims adopted various strategies of psychological warfare, diplomacy, resilience, innovation and active defense along with solely relying on almighty Allah. Middle East’s deep reliance on the United States for defense has been exposed during the current US-Iran war, triggering concerns across the region. The way forward would encompass a rather diversified approach in defense against complex security threats.

“In the current era of modern hybrid warfare, forging multilateral defense alliances would not only help to counter the ever evolving threats but would also offer tailored and targeted support.”

Read: Concept of Mercy in International Relations

__________________

The writer is a freelance journalist focusing on politics, international relations and tourism.

The post Not all eggs in one basket first appeared on Sindh Courier.

Ambassador M. Alam Brohi

The evil coalition’s war against Iran has entered its fourth week. The epic fury has been demonstrated by the combined military firepower of the Israel Defence Forces and the USA’s air and naval might, targeting every strategically important place, person, and any moving object. The air war against Iran has far surpassed the bombardment by the USA and its allies on North Korea in extent, intensity, ferocity, and devastation. No province, city, or town in Iran has escaped their reckless and barbarous air campaign.

The senior political and military hierarchy—both central and provincial—arms and ammunition stores, suspected defence industrial units, and uranium enrichment locations have been targeted. The decapitation of the civil and military leadership, along with extensive devastation and displacement, has apparently failed to lower the morale of the people of Iran or weaken the resolve of their new civil and military leadership to accept any degrading ceasefire.

The collective funeral of Ali Hashim Larijani and the sailors attracted tens of thousands of mourners under the shadow of the air war. The Kurds and the Baloch, who have historically sought self-autonomy, have refused to rebel against the besieged clerical regime at the behest of the evil coalition.

The country remains territorially intact. Its governing and defence systems, though severely battered, are far from collapse. It has so far retained control of the strategic Strait of Hormuz, effectively strangling the global economy, and is negotiating with individual countries for the safe passage of their cargo.

As a pragmatic balancing act, President Masoud Pezeshkian has once again assured the neighboring Gulf States that there will be no further attacks on them. This was prompted by the rapidly evolving situation following the recent conference of the Foreign Ministers of Arab and Muslim countries in Riyadh, and President Donald Trump’s intervention with Israel to abstain from attacking Iran’s oil and gas fields.

However, the moot of Foreign Ministers, with a strong delegation from Pakistan present, witnessed a stormy reaction from Gulf State delegations against Iran’s missile and drone attacks on their countries after Israel targeted the Pars Gas Field.

Only time will tell whether this was a tactical move to defuse Arab anger or a pragmatic decision by the Iranian leadership. Nevertheless, the direction of the war cannot be gauged with precision. It is difficult to say whether the Iranians will adhere to their assurances to the neighboring Gulf States.

The Arab states may align themselves with a new security framework overseen by Israel, which could closely monitor their political, economic, and strategic policies

The war has widened the gulf between the Trump administration and its Western allies. Given Donald Trump’s anger, NATO may face one of the hardest tests of its existence. The wealthy Gulf States did not have a pleasant experience during this war, exposing the USA’s apparent prioritization of Israel’s security at the expense of their own. Though the sense of American desertion is palpable, the Gulf States have limited options to reassess their existing security arrangements.

The war is already having grave consequences, shaping both regional and global orders. The North Korean leadership has been anxiously waiting for the USA to show signs of war fatigue, internal political turmoil, or the political collapse of President Donald Trump, while weighing its options regarding the southern part of the Korean Peninsula. The Chinese leadership, though exercising restraint, remains alert to the evolving course of the war, particularly regarding Taiwan.

An important question that agitates observers of global power politics is whether China and Russia would allow the USA to emerge victorious from this war, witnessing the collapse and disintegration of Iran without intervention. Many believe these two powers are too cautious to take overt sides.

However, they may have covert plans to assist Iran militarily to survive the onslaught, while allowing the USA to become bogged down—expending its resources and weakening in the process—thereby creating an opportunity to reshape the international order based on respect for the UN Charter, international law, and conventions.

The potential collapse of Iran would render the USA the undisputed dominant power in the region, if not the world, leaving China and Russia at the periphery of global power politics, dependent on American goodwill for their global trade, particularly in oil, gas exports, and energy imports.

Israel, as the USA’s satrap, would act as a rogue overlord in the region, posing an existential threat to major Muslim countries such as Turkey and Pakistan. The latter, being a nuclear state and a bulwark against the ‘Akhund Bharat’ of India, would find itself in the eye of the storm—sandwiched between its archrival India, a newly empowered Israel, and the Afghan Taliban to the north-west. This would be a nightmarish scenario.

The Arab states may align themselves with a new security framework overseen by Israel, which could closely monitor their political, economic, and strategic policies. With potentially curtailed sovereignty and reduced economic autonomy, the flow of Arab financial assistance to Pakistan may slow and eventually cease. Pakistan is already viewed as a security concern by Israel and the USA, as indicated by testimonies from officials of several national institutions before the Senate Committee.

Recent developments suggest that Pakistan, in consonance with its defence pact with Saudi Arabia, may side with the Kingdom in a potential conflict with Iran. This speculation has been reinforced by the presence of Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister at the recent Riyadh conference, and the Chief of Defence Staff’s advisory to the Shia ulema to avoid straining the state’s patience.

There are, however, indications that Pakistan would not participate in any offensive operations against Iranian territory. Its role would likely remain defensive—protecting Saudi territory, strategic and economic installations, and the holy sites from hostile incursions.

Whether this constitutes the correct interpretation of the security pact with Saudi Arabia in the context of broader regional tensions remains an important question. Such a stance would mark a departure from Pakistan’s longstanding policy of neutrality in intra-Arab and intra-Muslim conflicts.

Pakistan remained neutral during the Iran–Iraq War, which lasted over eight years. Many scholars believe that conflict was imposed on Iran to undermine its revolution. Despite his ideological leanings, General Zia-ul-Haq maintained a careful balance, preserving Pakistan’s neutrality throughout the war.

Today, Pakistan’s chronic economic dependence on international financial institutions and wealthy Arab states is increasingly constraining its sovereign autonomy in making independent policy decisions.

Read: Karachi: Federalization Is No Solution

_______________________

Based in Karachi, the author is a former member of the Foreign Service of Pakistan and has served as Ambassador for seven years.

First published in The Friday Times, Lahore

The post The Consequences of Iran’s Collapse first appeared on Sindh Courier.

• Migrant workers, who make up nearly half the Gulf’s workforce, are facing heightened risks as the conflict escalates
• ‘He kept asking me about Eid preparations, particularly about clothes and shoes for his daughters and son … I don’t know what Eid would be without him,’ says father of Pakistani man killed in Dubai

Aamir Latif and Sidrah Roghay

KARACHI, Pakistan

On what should be a time of celebration, families across Pakistan will instead be marking Eid in mourning, after their loved ones working in the Gulf were killed in the Iran conflict.

At least 23 workers from countries including Pakistan, India and Bangladesh have been killed or are reported missing since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran, according to an Anadolu tally.

Muzaffar Ali, a 28-year-old from Pakistan’s Sindh province, was among those killed when shrapnel from a missile struck his car in Dubai. He left behind three young children, the eldest just 7 years old.

“He went to Dubai four years ago in search of a better life,” his uncle Abdul Hakim told Anadolu by phone. “He was paying off the loans he had taken from relatives for the move. The last time we spoke, he told me he had nearly paid off everything he owed. Now he could finally settle down.”

Ali was among three Pakistanis confirmed dead in the Middle East conflict. A fourth Pakistani fisherman was killed in Iranian waters after being struck by debris from an intercepted Israeli missile.

“Shrapnel wounded his face. He died at the hospital,” Hakim said. “I don’t know who will feed his family. He was the breadwinner.”

The nearly two dozen people from Asian nations killed or missing since the conflict began include six from India, four from Bangladesh, and one person each from China, Nepal and the Philippines. Three Indonesians and three Thais remain missing in waters off Oman and in the Strait of Hormuz.

Migrant workers on the front lines

Migrant workers account for nearly half the workforce in Gulf Cooperation Council countries – Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE – and make up the majority of the population in several of them. They are also present in large numbers in Jordan, Lebanon, Iran and Israel, according to the Coalition on Labor Justice for Migrants in the Gulf.

Many work under the restrictive kafala, or sponsorship, system, which ties them to employers and often limits their ability to leave or even hold their own passports. While Saudi Arabia has introduced reforms under its Vision 2030 program, similar systems remain in place elsewhere.

“This systemic lack of mobility further traps migrant workers in conflict zones, limiting their movement,” the migrant workers’ coalition says, warning that employers may withhold wages, deny leave or dismiss workers without compensation during the crisis, cutting off vital remittances to families across Asia and Africa.

Since the war began, several Gulf countries have introduced remote work and school closures as they contend with Iranian retaliatory strikes. Migrant workers, however, are far more likely to remain exposed, continuing jobs that require physical presence.

The Coalition on Labor Justice for Migrants in the Gulf also says that migrant workers are often excluded from emergency evacuation plans and denied access to shelters.

Eid without celebration

In Ganz, a small coastal village in Pakistan’s southwestern Gwadar region, the atmosphere is subdued as the family of 17-year-old Mohammad Tayyab struggles to process his death.

Tayyab, the youngest of four brothers, had left school after his father’s death to help support the family by smuggling cheaper Iranian petrol into Pakistan.

On March 7, as he returned home by boat with a helper, debris from an intercepted projectile struck their vessel in the Arabian Sea.

“I was about to break the fast when I received news that Tayyab’s boat was hit. The news fell like a bombshell,” his maternal uncle Asghar Hussain told Anadolu.

Since the start of the war, Pakistan has shut its border with Iran, cutting off livelihoods for thousands of fishermen and informal traders along Balochistan’s coast.

“We, especially Tayyab’s mother, are still struggling to overcome this shock. There will be no celebrations this Eid, just mourning,” Hussain said.

Miles away, in Pakistan’s northwestern Bannu district, 70-year-old Nadir Ali is mourning his son, Murib Zaman, who died when debris from an intercepted missile hit the building where he lived in Abu Dhabi.

Zaman, 48, had worked as a driver in the UAE for nearly eight years. A father of five, he had recently been discussing Eid preparations with his family.

“He kept asking me about Eid preparations, particularly about clothes and shoes for his daughters and son,” Nadir Ali said. “Don’t worry about the money,” he recalled his son telling him.

“The kids were his life. Every time he called, he first asked about their health, education and well-being,” he said, fighting back tears.

“I don’t know what Eid would be without him.”

Mehran Rashid, Zaman’s would-be son-in-law, said he had spoken to him just days before his death.

“He reminded me to take the kids shopping before Eid and to the park on Eid day,” Rashid said.

Now, he added, the children refuse to celebrate.

“They don’t want any new clothes or anything. They just look at pictures of their father several times a day.”

Read: Iran at War: Ancient Roots, Modern Conflicts

_______________

Courtesy: Anadolu Agency (Posted on 19.03.2026)

The post 23 Migrant Workers Killed in War first appeared on Sindh Courier.

By Nazarul Islam | USA

People born six decades ago, have seen this iconic picture. An American helicopter perches atop a building as would-be evacuees clamber up a ladder to the roof. They’re desperate to flee Saigon, capital of a doomed South Vietnam, before it falls to the communist troops advancing somewhere out of shot below.

A Dutch news agency photographer, Hugh van Es, snapped that picture from his office balcony, on 29 April 1975. The roof belonged to a nearby apartment building where senior CIA staffers were based. It was not the US Embassy, though that’s how it’s been misremembered ever since. Exactly half a century later, van Es’ shot remains engraved in memory as the defining image of how America made its exit.

It also points to something more. In the decades after 1945, the helicopter became the embodiment of the United States’ nimble superpower modernity, descending from on high to bring salvation, or vengeance.

Presidents had ducked under the rotating blades to be buzzed from the White House lawn to Camp David, to decide the fate of nations.

Aerospace corporations kept thousands at work in places such as Fort Worth, Texas, the home of Bell Helicopter, which made the UH-1 Iroquois, nicknamed the ‘Huey’. It was one of those Hueys up on that the Saigon roof – at one point, Bell was making 150 every week.

Imagine a movie where war came to America itself? And, imagine a scenario where the Soviets nuke the largest cities, amidst chaos business leaders are busy planning to pile into choppers and flee to the luxury bunkers awaiting them beneath a popular location in the countryside.

When young protesters rebelled against what they saw as their authoritarian, militaristic elders, those same authorities retaliated by sending in the choppers. In August 1968, the Democratic National Convention in Chicago became a fortress. Outside, furious, thwarted left-wing activists demanded a say in the selection of the party’s candidate for president.

Mayor Richard Daley sent in baton-wielding cops – and ’copters. In No One Was Killed, his book-length report on the mayhem that followed, the journalist-novelist John Schultz detected the shadow of the hated war in Asia looming over the protesters below:

Overhead, a helicopter hummed up and down the length of Michigan Avenue from the Hilton to 18th Street, playing its searchlight on the crowd rushing north and on the alleys. Perhaps the helicopter was radioing information to the [National] Guard and the cops, but mainly it was there to frighten, to intimidate. Everyone in the crowd knew that in Vietnam a machine gun could be working away behind the searchlight.

America’s film director George Shultz, is angrily shaking his fist at the cop behind the bulb, imagining him ‘curling his lip at my affront, fingering a trigger and saying, “Oh, what I could do, buddy boy, oh, yes, what I could do”’.

Likewise, nine months later, to disperse huge campus protests at Berkeley, Governor Ronald Reagan dispatched the National Guard. They surrounded the students, while a helicopter swooped in past the university bell tower, pumping out tear gas.

No wonder that, by 1970, such images had come to symbolize implacable, centralized force. In EL Doctorow’s novel The Book of Daniel, the military-industrial complex is described as ‘highly visible’. On a dystopic Californian plain, the protagonist watches a mysterious dark green helicopter track back and forth across the sky all day, ‘its compressions beating the white air till it’s thick’.

Around this time, the US military formalized its long-standing practice of naming its helicopters after Native American tribes (Iroquois, Apache, Chinook) and leaders (Black Hawk). This was reportedly meant to invoke American history while evoking the aircrafts’ stealth and speed. It also underlines the power of the state that was commissioning them. It’s not hard to imagine what the 19th-century federal government would have done with Apache helicopters to actual Apaches.

All the same, these images are more ambiguous than they seem. Helicopters may have left John Schultz feeling powerless as he stared up from the ground, but finally it’s just another person up there, trying to control a tiny, vulnerable vehicle. The helicopter is irreducibly hubristic. It is this that makes it such a potent symbol of the image America presents to itself, and to the rest of us. It hovers, all-powerful, over everything, but sometimes seems a shot away from calamity.

The historian Christian Appy has pointed out that it was helicopters, rather than the far more destructive B-52 bombers, that came to symbolize America’s war in Vietnam. But this is not just because they were incessantly visible over Vietnam itself, and on television: it’s because they embody both sides of the US intervention – omnipotent, and impotent. In Chickenhawk, his bestselling memoir of his year spent flying Hueys early in the war, Robert Mason recalls watching a Viet Cong soldier with a rifle hopelessly trying ‘to take on our entire air-assault battalion, machine guns blazing’.

He also describes the intense fear induced by flying low, his ‘chickenshit’ commander hunched low in the seat beside him, and how other Viet Cong fighters took out US pilots – such as Mason’s successor – by shooting vertically through the cockpit from the ground.

This duality was captured in Francis Ford Coppola’s 1979 movie Apocalypse Now, in another spin on these images that are seared into the collective memory. The ascending Wagnerian strings of ‘The Ride of the Valkyries’ are blasted from a helicopter convoy as it swoops in across the sea, effortlessly wiping out scurrying Vietnamese peasants. Yet as soon as one of the choppers lands, a Vietnamese woman runs up and throws in a grenade. And of course that photo from the Saigon roof was only partly an image of American power. It also signified defeat.

More dispiriting images followed. In 1980, with Apocalypse Now still in cinemas, President Carter sent commandos from the Delta Force special missions unit to carry out ‘Operation Eagle Claw’. This was a bid to rescue American diplomats being held hostage in Iran. Three of the eight helicopters malfunctioned. The mission was aborted, in the course of which another crashed into a cargo aircraft, killing eight servicemen.

Three years later, under Ronald Reagan, Delta Force landed in another debacle. ‘Operation Urgent Fury’ was a plan to invade Grenada on the dubious premise that this small Caribbean island, a member of the British Commonwealth, had become a ‘Soviet-Cuban colony’, and a Launchpad for terrorism. At one point, Delta Force descended in daylight in Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks, struggling through anti-aircraft fire at point-blank range on a mission to liberate political prisoners – only to find the prison empty.

Overall, the invasion amounted to something of a political triumph, but, as Reagan’s biographer Max Boot writes, it ‘suffered from many of the same dysfunctions as Operation Eagle Claw’. As if to rub the point in, Robert Mason’s groundbreaking account of the Viet Cong shooting US pilots had touched down in bookstores just weeks before.

By far the most devastating such incident arrived under President Clinton, in October 1993. US forces operating with the United Nations in the war-torn Somalia capital Mogadishu attempted to capture an insurgent leader who had ordered the ambush of a peacekeeping convoy. Once again, Delta Force led the operation in Black Hawks – which had become a focus of Somalis’ anger towards the UN forces. According to the New York Times, even when they weren’t visiting deadly force from the air, their rotors ‘whipped the roofs of whole neighborhoods’.

The operation, ‘Gothic Serpent’, was a disaster. A soldier fell to the ground from 70 feet up. One Black Hawk crashed; another was shot down. Two Delta Force snipers, deployed by helicopter to secure one of the crash sites, were among the 18 Americans killed. The mutilated body of a US soldier was dragged through the city streets. A helicopter pilot was captured. Images of both men horrified Americans back home: it felt like Vietnam all over again.

After Saigon fell, the philosopher Hannah Arendt wrote that America’s ill-fated intervention ‘was exclusively guided by the needs of a superpower to create for itself an image which would convince the world that it was indeed “the mightiest power on earth”’. Yet that was not shattered by what happened in Iran, Grenada and Somalia. Instead, the image of American power that had once spooked many on the 1960s left began to spook many more in the 1990s, this time on the political right.

When America won the Cold War, it lost its unifying enemy. The ‘New World Order’ that emerged instead felt to some Americans less like victory than defeat, shaped as it was by globalization, disappearing jobs, the closure of defense manufacturing plants, and then the ascent of Bill Clinton to the presidency: a man they cast as a Vietnam draft-dodger, hell-bent on confiscating patriots’ guns. In reaction against all this, and the violent resolution of sieges at Waco and elsewhere, a large-scale militia movement emerged, some of whose leaders had served in Vietnam.

The beliefs that shaped the movement varied from the extreme right to a much more general discontent, but some of those involved harbored a remarkably detailed vision of imminent tyranny, in which a treacherous federal government, in cahoots with the United Nations, would carve up the republic.

This was an early sign of the worldview that has now come to dominate US politics, with its fears of a phantom ‘deep state’, rooted in unease about the federal government’s power. In the 1990s, the image that crystallized this fear was a sinister apparition on the skyline: the unmarked black helicopter.

Read: Reviving Islamic Discourse and Rationalism

____________________

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 Images tell the real story first appeared on Sindh Courier.