https://ift.tt/EqfUxgQ

• FO spokesperson expects agreement ‘sooner rather than later’, hopes for ‘sustainable solution’
• Officials say Tehran expected to share response today as optimism prevails
• Iranian FM speaks to Dar on ‘importance of continuing’ diplomacy; briefs him about China visit

ISLAMABAD: Pak­is­tan and Iran on Thursday agr­eed on continuing dialogue and diplomacy for ending the war in the Persian Gulf as Islamabad expressed growing optimism that the United States and Iran could soon move towards a peace agreement after weeks of conflict and fragile ceasefire.

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar spoke with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi amid indications that Washington and Tehran were edging closer to a preliminary understanding on ending hostilities.

According to the For­eign Office, the two foreign ministers “exchanged views on recent regional developments and ongoing diplomatic efforts aimed at promoting peace and stability.”

The Iranian side said the conversation focused on “the importance of continuing the path of dialogue and diplomacy” and expanding “constructive cooperation” among regi­onal states to preserve stability and prevent escalation.

Mr Araghchi also briefed FM Dar on his recent visit to China and consultations there on regional and international issues. Chinese FM Wang Yi, in his first meeting with Mr Araghchi since the start of the war, urged an immediate comprehensive ceasefire and continued diplomacy. The Iranian diplomat thanked Pakistan for facilitating the repatriation of Iranian nationals from the vessel seized by the US and appreciated Islamabad’s diplomatic support.

The latest diplomatic activity came as Iran reviewed a 14-point proposal from the US for formally ending hostilities and opening a 30-day negotiating window for detailed discussions on Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief and secure transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

Diplomatic sources said the proposal had been conveyed to Tehran through Pakistani mediators and Iranian officials were expected to formally communicate their response by May 8 (today), with Washington awaiting Tehran’s position on key points.

President Trump had announced the suspension of ‘Project Freedom’, the US naval plan to escort commercial ships through the Strait of Hormuz, citing progress in talks and requests from Pakistan and others, while maintaining the broader naval blockade.

At the weekly media briefing, FO spokesman Tahir Andrabi said Isla­mabad expected an agreement “soo­­ner rather than later”. “We remain optimistic. A simple answer would be that we expect an agreement sooner rather than later,” he said.

“We hope that the parties will come to a peaceful, sustainable solution and bring peace, not just to our region but internationally as well.”

Without discussing specifics of the negotiations, Mr Andrabi said Pakistan’s focus remained on securing a peaceful settlement rather than debating the causes of the conflict.

“In diplomacy, there is no standard metric system evolved which would say how close or how far we are from a settlement,” he remarked when asked how close the two sides were to reaching an agreement. “What I can tell you is that we remain positive.”

Officials familiar with the talks described the emerging framework as an attempt to convert the fragile ceasefire into a structured political process after nearly 10 weeks of confrontation that disrupted regional stability and global energy markets.

Pakistan has remained central to the diplomatic channel since hosting the first direct US-Iran engagement in Islamabad last month. Although that round ended without agreement, it established a continuing backchannel that Islamabad has since tried to preserve through sustained contacts with both sides and regional powers, including China, Saudi Arabia and Turkiye.

Diplomats said the current effort reflected a broader recognition am­­ong all parties that neither prolonged confrontation nor indefinite blockade conditions were sustainable, even though distrust between Washi­ngton and Tehran remained deep.

Published in Dawn, May 8th, 2026

from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/N2SsC53

https://ift.tt/RFeXO4o

WASHINGTON: After weeks of military escalation, economic pressure and threats of a wider regional conflict, the Trump administration now appears to be searching for a diplomatic exit from its confrontation with Iran, even as officials in Washington insist the United States still holds the upper hand.

President Donald Trump’s decision this week to pause a planned naval operation aimed at escorting commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz has triggered debate over whether Washington is moving toward a negotiated settlement or simply recalibrating pressure before renewed escalation.

The debate has been further intensified by Trump’s assertion that a peace deal with Iran is now likely — a claim that contrasts with the uncertainty still surrounding core disputes over nuclear capability, sanctions and maritime security.

Analysts say the latest shift reflects a familiar pattern in US-Iran relations: escalation followed by partial de-escalation, without a clear end state.

One of the most prominent voices analysing this moment is Vali Nasr, an Iranian-American scholar and professor at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. A former senior adviser to the US State Department, he has been commenting on the crisis in interviews, including to CNN, and in public commentary.

Nasr argues that Washington may now be trying to wind down the confrontation without fully achieving its stated objectives.

“Once the war ends, it will not start again. Likely the administration is claiming these maximal gains as political cover to end the war without achieving any of the objectives that it was after when the war started.”

He adds that the crisis has created new strategic problems rather than resolving old ones: “Now its goal is to end the war and solve a problem that did not exist before the war: the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.”

Nasr also stresses that diplomacy between the two sides has repeatedly followed a cycle of apparent breakthroughs that fail to materialise.

“We have been here before. He [Trump] claimed we are very close to a deal. He put his wish list on the table, and ended it when the Iranians did not respond as he expected.”

That’s why, he said, he [Trump] was also taking the latest claims of a possible deal “with a grain of salt.”

On the likely sequencing of negotiations, he suggests Iran will not make irreversible nuclear commitments first: “The Iranians are going to give the same response they gave before, which is we can end the war now. You lift your blockade. We open the Strait of Hormuz. We will see if this works for a month. During that time, we can start talking about everything else.”

He adds that Tehran is likely to test whether Washington can sustain de-escalation before engaging on the nuclear issue. “They are not going to make any commitments on the nuclear issue before they see that the president can deliver on the first step, which is lifting the blockade.”

A more structural interpretation is offered by Richard Haass, an American diplomat and former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a leading US foreign policy think tank.

Haass argues that both sides have an immediate shared interest in preventing disruption of maritime trade.

“We should take Iran up on its proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz,” he said.

He warns that linking maritime access to broader nuclear negotiations could have global consequences.

“To link opening it to resolving the complex, contentious nuclear issue risks plunging the world economy into depression.”

Haass also argues that “Iran has proven to be far more resourceful and resilient than Trump bargained for,” and cautions that continued escalation is unlikely to achieve broader US strategic goals.

“Continued war or escalation would not bring the United States closer to accomplishing these goals“ of regime change or a nuclear deal.

Instead, he advocates a phased approach focused on maritime stability. “A ‘Strait First’ approach makes the most sense given the economic urgency of reopening the waterway.”

He suggests a framework treating the Strait as an international waterway with shared oversight and mechanisms to prevent incidents.

From within Washington’s political system, Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has raised concerns about coherence in US policy.

In remarks in congressional and media interviews in Washington, Reed has criticised shifting operational decisions during the crisis.

“One day, we suspend Operation Epic Fury. The next day we impose Operation Freedom… and the next day we annul Operation Freedom, or at least temporarily suspend it.”

He argues that the policy direction lacks clarity.

“It’s completely incoherent.” Reed has also raised concerns about transparency with Congress.

“This is one of those situations where the Department of Defence is not providing any information to Congress, and not just to Democrats but Republicans too.”

Taken together, the three perspectives highlight both the possibility and the fragility of the current diplomatic opening.

Nasr sees a managed exit rather than a decisive settlement. Haass sees a narrow but realistic pathway through maritime stabilisation. Reed sees strategic inconsistency and unclear objectives in Washington’s approach.

from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/DKLyqn8

https://ift.tt/T1bN8oZ

The week of May 6 - May 10 marks the first anniversary of the brief military conflict between Pakistan and India.

The conflict was sparked by the April 22 Pahalgam attack on tourists in India-occupied Kashmir, which New Delhi, without evidence, linked to Pakistan.

In a dangerous escalation, New Delhi launched deadly air strikes in Punjab and Azad Kashmir on May 7. Pakistan retaliated by downing five Indian planes in air-to-air combat, later raising the tally to seven.

Following tit-for-tat strikes on each other’s airbases, and the launch of Pakistan Army’s Operation Bunyanum Marsoos, both sides agreed to a ceasefire on May 10 after American intervention.

The Pakistan Army named the period of conflict from April 22-May 10 “Marka-i-Haq”.

Throughout the week, Dawn will be sharing daily headlines from the brief conflict when tensions between both countries reached a boiling point.

Here’s a look at Dawn’s front page published on May 8, 2025.

from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/akRzEQn

https://ift.tt/LD3RAFp

ISLAMABAD: PTI Secretary General Salman Akram Raja on Wednesday maintained that the formation of the Punjab Coordination and Monitoring Committee would not be discussed, as the party leadership planned to raise the issue in the upcoming party meeting.

The composition of the aforementioned committee has been a subject of internal rift within the party, with leaders opposing the nomination of Amjad Khan Niazi as the convenor of the body, as he had parted ways with the party in the wake of May 9, 2023, protests.

A senior PTI leader, on condition of anonymity, told Dawn that a number of party leaders believe that the newly formed body was nothing but an attempt to “occupy” the party in Punjab.

His claim referred to the committee’s terms of reference, which include the task of coordinating organisational matters between Punjab’s four regions through engagement with their presidents and general secretaries. PTI’s Punjab chapter comprises four regions — Central, West, North and South — each led by its respective president and secretary.

“However, it has been decided that the matter will be discussed in PTI’s upcoming political committee meeting. Participants will express their views on whether the committee should be abolished,” he added.

Meanwhile, talking to Dawn, Raja said the matter was going nowhere and would not be discussed in the political committee meeting.

Earlier this week, Raja constituted a five-member body under the convenership of Niazi to “coordinate organisational matters between the four regions of Punjab through engagement with the presidents and general secretaries of those regions”.

PTI leaders Naeem Haider Panjotha, Shaukat Mahmood Basra, Ali Ijaz Buttar and Mehr Abdul Sattar were also named as members.

Raja had also affirmed that his decision regarding the composition of the committee, saying that no existing member would be excluded and no new name would be added to the body.

from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/nMQW20L

https://ift.tt/ymOALvE

Ted Turner, the flamboyant US entrepreneur who transformed television news with the creation of CNN in 1980, died at the age of 87, the network said on Wednesday.

The moustached southerner, yachting enthusiast and philanthropist, whose empire also included sports clubs, had been suffering from the degenerative disease Lewy Body Dementia.

Cable News Network upended established broadcasting with its dedication to around-the-clock breaking news and shot to global recognition with its coverage of the Gulf War in 1990-91.

The 24-hour network was the first in the United States to run non-stop news and quickly built a worldwide footprint.

Correspondents brought live coverage from major events ranging from the collapse of the Soviet Union to the Chinese crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protests.

CNN’s decision to keep reporters in Baghdad amid US bombing on the Iraqi capital cemented the network’s reputation as an indispensable source of breaking news.

“Ted is the giant on whose shoulders we stand, and we will all take a moment today to recognise him and his impact on our lives and the world,” Mark Thompson, chairman and CEO of CNN Worldwide, said in a statement.

“He was and always will be the presiding spirit of CNN.”

Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, in November 1938, Robert Edward “Ted” Turner III went to a military boarding school in Tennessee and then attended Brown University but was expelled before graduating.

Turner took over a faltering family advertising business after his father, despondent over financial problems, died by suicide.

After buying several radio stations, Turner’s purchase of a struggling Atlanta station in 1970 was his first move into television.

Ten years later, that became the flagship of his nationwide Turner Broadcasting System, the profits from which he parlayed into the launch of CNN.

CNN’s success inspired the creation of other 24-hour news channels, including Fox News by longtime Turner rival Rupert Murdoch, MSNBC and countless networks worldwide.

Turner’s television empire expanded beyond CNN and included TBS and TNT channels for sports and entertainment, Turner Classic Movies and Cartoon Network, among others.

from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/Z5sGXdQ

A YEAR since India launched unprovoked attacks against Pakistan using the Pahalgam tragedy as an excuse, and this country defended itself with full vigour, the stalemate in South Asia continues.

The principal reason for this remains India’s obduracy and its unwillingness for a peaceful settlement with Pakistan. As conflict engulfs the rest of the region, New Delhi should be thinking of ways to bring down the temperature bilaterally. But unfortunately, the Indian leadership remains wedded to bellicosity, with senior figures in the BJP-led government continuing to threaten Pakistan.

Last May’s brief Pakistan-India war brought several truths to the fore, and offered lessons for those willing to learn. For one, Pakistan retained the moral high ground by only hitting military targets in India. New Delhi’s forces, on the other hand, had no compunctions about hitting mosques, madressahs and civilian water projects in Pakistan.

Moreover, Pakistan’s armed forces, particularly the PAF, replied to the call of duty ably, repelling the aggression with skill. In fact, the PAF’s combat performance was lauded by military experts globally. The Pakistan military used technology adeptly, and capabilities in the cyber realm were deployed with precision. Political differences were largely put aside when it came to the country’s defence, while the people showed exemplary solidarity.

And though war is a serious business, there were indeed ‘light’ moments, as large sections of the Indian media outdid themselves in ‘breaking’ the most preposterous fake news stories. These ludicrous ‘scoops’ included the startling ‘news’ that India had ‘destroyed’ Karachi port, and that Lahore had ‘fallen’ to enemy troops. The tragicomic antics of a number of news outlets in India have provided meme material for generations to come.

While Pakistan has proved itself on the battlefield, a situation of constant tension in South Asia suits no one. Yet sadly, the war hawks in India are unwilling to turn the page and make peace. Pakistan still faces considerable challenges to its legitimate water rights with India’s unilateral ‘suspension’ of the Indus Waters Treaty, while continuous threats from New Delhi create a toxic atmosphere in the region.

It should be remembered that India’s narrative of alleged cross-border militancy originating from Pakistan has not found many takers in the international community. Even some of India’s close foreign allies, while expressing sympathy for the lives lost in Pahalgam, refused to blame Pakistan for the atrocity, without any solid proof. Rationality demands that both states come to the table and discuss their grievances, and their solutions in a mature manner.

But when Indian politicians and generals say that the so-called Operation Sindoor has only been ‘paused’, the chances of peace seem remote. It is hoped that saner minds in New Delhi reconsider these pugnacious stances, and take up Pakistan’s offer of dialogue.

Published in Dawn, May 6th, 2026

from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/PerFKpA

https://ift.tt/pUsjXSF

Players would ​boycott the French Open if their prize money at the claycourt Grand Slam is not increased, women’s world number ‌one Aryna Sabalenka said on Tuesday, with Coco Gauff also voicing support for the drastic step.

The threat deepens a dispute between players and Roland Garros organisers over prize money distribution, even though this year’s tournament offers a 9.5 per cent increase to 61.7 million euros ($72.19 million).

Several top players released a statement on Monday saying they were set to receive prize money ​that would likely still be less than 15pc of tournament revenue, well short of the 22pc they demanded to match the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) ​and Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) combined 1000 events.

When asked how far players might push their demands, Sabalenka told reporters at the ⁠Italian Open: “I think at some point we will boycott it (the tournament), yeah. I feel like that’s going to be the only way to ​fight for our rights.

“Let’s see how far we can get, if it’s going to take players for boycott… Some of the things, I feel ​like it’s really unfair to the players. I think at some point it’s going to get to this.”

However, the world number one struck a hopeful note about ongoing negotiations.

“I just really hope that all of the negotiation that we are having, we at some point are going to get to the right decision, to the ​conclusion that everyone will be happy with,” she added.

Reuters has contacted the French Tennis Federation for comment.

The prize money boost of 5.4 million euros ​compared to 2025 still leaves Roland Garros trailing its Grand Slam rivals.

The US Open offered $90 million last year, while Wimbledon paid out 53.5 million pounds ($72.51 million) ‌and the ⁠Australian Open a record Australian $111.5 million ($80.06 million) this year.

Gauff says players must form union

World number four Gauff said she could “100pc see” players boycotting a Grand Slam if they took the decision together as one.

“It’s not about me. It’s about the future of our sport and also the current players who aren’t getting as much benefits, maybe, as even some of the top players are getting when it comes to sponsorship and things ​like that,” Gauff said.

“We’re making money ​off court. When you look at ⁠the (players ranked) 50 to 100, 50 to 200, how much money each Slam makes, it’s kind of unfortunate where the 200 best tennis players are living paycheck to paycheck.”

Gauff also suggested the players must form a ​union, highlighting how the Women’s National Basketball Association (WNBA) basketball players’ union reached a tentative agreement on a collective bargaining deal earlier ​this year after ⁠nearly 17 months of negotiations.

“Just taking what the WNBA accomplished. They also have a union, so I think that helps,” she added.

“From the things I’ve seen with other sports, usually to make massive progress and things like this, it takes a union.”

Sabalenka said the players deserved more prize money.

“When you see ⁠the number ​and you see the amount the players are receiving… I feel like the show ​is on us. I feel like without us there wouldn’t be a tournament and there wouldn’t be that entertainment,” Sabalenka added.

“I feel like definitely we deserve to be paid more ​percentage. What can I say?”

($1 = 0.8547 euros)($1 = 1.3928 Australian dollars)($1 = 0.7378 pounds)

from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/urLXlsa