https://ift.tt/YtXO5hW

• Pakistan-India ties still trapped by Delhi’s intransigence, US failure to create political process after ceasefire
• Islamabad’s institutional coherence shattered New Delhi’s illusions it was dealing with ‘weak neighbour’
• Water war takes centre stage as Indus treaty remains ‘unilaterally held in abeyance’

THE fighting lasted barely 90 hours, but the political consequences have proved far more durable.

While neither India nor Pakistan got what they expected from the flare-up of 2025, very few could have predicted that less than a year later, it would be Pakistan that emerged as the diplomatic lynchpin in the region, while India remained relegated to the side-lines.

Today, the relationship between the two neighbours remains frozen in an unusually rigid state; there is no war, but there is no diplomacy worth the name, either. The border is shut, trade is suspended and the Indus Waters Treaty remains unilaterally held in abeyance by New Delhi.

Military hotlines between the two countries are functioning, but they are emergency mechanisms rather than channels of engagement.

The resulting situation is not that of stability in the conventional sense, but a colder equilibrium sustained by deterrence, mistrust and the absence of political alternatives.

At the time the US facilitated ceasefire was announced, there was an understanding — at least according to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s announcement — that military de-escalation would be followed by talks at a neutral venue.

The US role for crisis management had been unusually visible and President Donald Trump publicly claimed credit for helping secure the ceasefire. So, there was a strong hope for a structured engagement between the two sides when the conflict ended.

But that process never materialised; India quickly rejected any suggestion of external mediation and insisted that the ceasefire understanding emerged through direct communication at the level of the two directors general of military operations.

It did so because New Delhi had long opposed internationalisation of the Kashmir dispute, and Trump’s public handling of the episode caused disquiet in Indian official circles.

Pakistan, meanwhile, believed that the conflict had restored a measure of strategic balance and that the post-war environment would generate a diplomatic momentum leading to improvement in the relationship and some semblance of normalisation.

But things did not turn out that way, mostly because Washington — after helping stop the fighting — had not invested sustained diplomatic capital in building a political framework around the ceasefire.

The impression left behind was that the US could help stop wars in South Asia, but may no longer possess either the leverage or the appetite to sustain a structured peace process afterwards.

India’s loss, Pakistan’s gain

Indian resistance to any formal mediatory role, meanwhile, further weakened the possibility of follow up diplomacy.

Besides Delhi’s refusal to accept any external mediation on the Kashmir dispute, Indian strategic thinking before May 2025 viewed Pakistan as a state weakened by internal instability, economic distress and persistent terrorist violence.

Therefore, the widening asymmetry in economic size, diplomatic influence and military modernisation encouraged a belief that India no longer needed engagement with Pakistan, and could manage the relationship through pressure, coercive signalling and diplomatic isolation instead.

The conflict, especially the way it ended, complicated that assumption.

Pakistan, to the surprise of many, demonstrated a great degree of institutional coherence during the crisis, absorbing military pressure, maintaining escalation control and mounting a coordinated response involving drones, missiles and air power. The conflict produced a narrative that Pakistan was strategically resilient, despite its internal difficulties.

Equally important, the crisis restored Pakistan’s geopolitical relevance. US engagement intensified during the conflict; China, Turkiye and Iran publicly backed Islamabad diplomatically and Gulf states quietly remained involved in de-escalation efforts.

Islamabad then went on to use the post-war period to improve its diplomatic visibility, particularly as regional tensions surrounding Iran later increased international interest in Islamabad’s intermediary role.

But none of this fundamentally altered the broader asymmetry between India and Pakistan. India still retains overwhelming long term advantages in economic weight and global positioning, but the conflict shattered the assumption, both in Delhi and around the world, that Pakistan had become “strategically irrelevant”.

An Indian military analyst, who has a good understanding of the Modi government’s thinking on foreign policy and security matters, told Dawn, “India is still operating on the assumption that that the asymmetry continues to favour it, though some important lessons were learnt from the conflict.”

Policymakers, he said, continue to believe that long-term geopolitical and economic trends remain firmly in India’s favour.

That explanation sums up the prevailing situation, where even after strategic recalibration, India has shown little interest in re-engagement with Pakistan.

Lack of engagement

Part of the reason for the India intransigence lies in its domestic politics, where engagement with Pakistan carries political costs.

In this situation, India prefers crisis management over structured dialogue.

Dr Moeed Yusuf, a former national security adviser, believes the present arrangement cannot hold indefinitely. “It is only sustainable till you don’t have the next crisis,” he said, arguing that the absence of political engagement leaves both sides vulnerable to another sudden confrontation.

He said India’s domestic political environment and years of anti-Pakistan narratives had narrowed the space for reconciliation, adding that while improving ties was essential for regional development, he was “not at all optimistic at this point”.

Moreover, the issue of unfounded terrorism allegations also remains central to that paralysis. India keeps the terrorism bogey alive and continues to maintain that meaningful improvement in relations is difficult without addressing its “concerns”.

Pakistan rightfully rejects those accusations, of which India has failed to provide any evidence, and argues that it has itself paid a heavy price over the past two decades in fighting militancy and terrorism.

Islamabad’s consistent position has been that sustained dialogue remains necessary precisely because of these disputes and risks. But the Indian hard line on the issue has narrowed the diplomatic space even further after the May 2025 conflict demonstrated how quickly such incidents can trigger wider military escalation.

In the absence of formal diplomacy, unofficial channels have continued to function quietly.

Over the past year, there have been periodic reports of Track 1.5 and Track 2 interactions involving retired officials, academics and policy interlocutors in places such as London, Muscat, Doha and Bangkok. These contacts have limited utility, but preserve communication during periods of estrangement and allow both sides to quietly test ideas and assess intentions.

After Kashmir, water becomes new front

Meanwhile, an important shift has quietly taken place in the substance of the bilateral dispute itself.

Kashmir remains unresolved and politically central, but has receded from active diplomacy after the conflict. In its place, water security has emerged as perhaps the most immediate and dangerous point of friction.

India’s decision to place the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance marked a significant departure from past practice, since the treaty had survived nearly all previous wars and crises. Pakistan viewed the move as the “weaponisation of water” and warned that interference with the Indus system threatens millions dependent on agriculture, irrigation and hydropower.

Climate pressures and long term water insecurity have made the issue even more sensitive.

Former Federal Flood Commission chairman Ahmed Kamal said Pakistan had recently raised concerns with India over reduced flows in the Chenab. “Future cooperation on water security issue rests with India and would be determined by how it responds to Pakistan’s concern,” he said recalling that Pakistan’s commissioner for Indus waters recently took up the matter with India.

Ironically, however, water may also become one of the few issues capable of forcing limited engagement in the future. Even governments unwilling to resume broader political dialogue may eventually find it difficult to indefinitely avoid technical coordination over river flows, treaty obligations and data-sharing mechanisms.

While the space for comprehensive dialogue currently appears unlikely, narrower and more technical contacts involving water management, ceasefire stabilisation, crisis communication, humanitarian issues and limited security understandings may still be possible.

Outside actors including the US, Gulf states or European governments could potentially facilitate such engagement quietly with-out formally mediating the broader dispute.

None of this would resolve the underlying political conflict, but may help reduce the risk of another uncontrolled crisis in a region where trust has sharply eroded.

Published in Dawn, May 10th, 2026

from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/lnMCQ7X

https://ift.tt/rKoQJDA

Minister for Finance and Revenue Senator Muhammad Aurangzeb on Saturday said Pakistan’s economy continued to show signs of recovery despite ongoing regional tensions, citing strong growth in large-scale manufacturing, exports, remittances and foreign investment inflows.

Addressing a news conference alongside Minister for Petroleum Ali Pervaiz Malik, the finance minister said the country’s large-scale manufacturing (LSM) sector recorded 11 per cent year-on-year growth in April, while cumulative growth during the first nine months of the current fiscal year stood at 6.5pc.

He said the government expected the GDP growth rate to remain close to 4pc during the current fiscal year, compared to 3.1pc last year.

Exports have grown by 9pc month-on-month and 14pc year-on-year, driven by value-added textiles, IT and other sectors, he said, adding that the export growth was broad-based.

Highlighting overseas inflows, Aurangzeb said remittances reached $3.5 billion in April after touching $3.8bn in March during Ramazan, describing the sustained inflows as a strong vote of confidence from overseas Pakistanis.

The finance czar added that inflows under the Roshan Digital Account (RDA) also rose sharply to $320 million in April, the highest monthly volume in the scheme’s history.

“This is an investment-led discussion. Overseas Pakistanis are investing in New Pakistan Certificates, real estate and the stock market,” he remarked.

The minister further said Pakistan had re-entered international capital markets after four years and recently raised $750 million through a Eurobond issuance despite the ongoing regional conflict.

He added that Pakistan was set to access Chinese capital markets for the first time through a Panda Bond next week. “Next week you will hear good news that, for the first time, we will be accessing Chinese capital markets through a Panda Bond,” he said.

The finance minister further said the country’s foreign exchange reserves were projected to reach a level equivalent to around three months of import cover by the end of June.

He also said macroeconomic stability was intended to ensure industrial continuity, facilitate the opening of letters of credit and the repatriation of profits and dividends, and generate employment opportunities.

Commending the Petroleum Ministry for maintaining uninterrupted fuel supplies over the past two months, the finance minister said no shortages or supply chain disruptions had occurred in the country despite challenges across the region.

“There have been shortages and long queues in different countries, but nothing of that sort happened in Pakistan,” he said, appreciating the efforts of the petroleum minister and his team.

Referring to recent fuel price adjustments, Aurangzeb said the government had continued targeted subsidies for vulnerable segments, including motorcyclists, public transport users and small farmers, in consultation with provincial governments.

He said the subsidies had now been extended into the third month at the direction of the prime minister and chief ministers to provide relief to weaker sections of society.

The finance minister, however, cautioned that Pakistan’s oil import bill had increased by over $1 billion between March and April, urging the public to exercise restraint in energy consumption to protect the external account position.

“Our external account is equally important. We all need to be careful in our consumption patterns,” he said.

Aurangzeb said Pakistan remained committed to fulfilling all international financial obligations with bilateral and multilateral partners as a responsible country.

He also expressed hope that the regional conflict would end soon, warning that damage to regional energy infrastructure could take months to recover even after hostilities ceased.

“We are monitoring the possible impact on inflation, GDP growth, remittances and exports because hope alone is not a strategy,” he remarked.

from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/vLjpc8K

https://ift.tt/W0LDKpb

WASHINGTON: Pakistan has significantly expanded its lobbying and strategic communications footprint in the United States, signing a new $1.2 million contract with a Washington-based advisory firm as it seeks deeper engagement on defence cooperation, critical minerals and broader economic diplomacy in an increasingly competitive policy environment.

According to filings submitted under the US Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), Ervin Graves Strategy Group LLC registered on May 1 as an official foreign agent of Pakistan’s embassy in Washington under a two-year contract valued at $1.2m, requiring payments of $50,000 per month for its services.

FARA requires the public listing of all lobbyists or lobbying firms working for a foreign entity, including governments and private corporations.

The agreement tasks the firm with a wide-ranging mandate that includes lobbying US policymakers, government-relations work, legislative monitoring, stakeholder engagement, media messaging, think tank outreach, and policy advisory support.

More notably, the contract explicitly extends into areas of strategic economic and security interest, including trade and investment promotion, critical minerals cooperation, and defence and security engagement — sectors that have gained renewed importance in US foreign policy thinking amid global supply-chain realignments and intensifying great-power competition.

The arrangement reflects Islamabad’s effort to reposition its Washington outreach beyond traditional diplomatic messaging, placing greater emphasis on sector-specific engagement and structured access to US policy networks.

In Washington, such contracts are increasingly viewed as part of a broader ecosystem of influence-building, where governments rely on specialised advisory firms, former officials and policy intermediaries to shape perceptions across Congress, the executive branch, think tanks and the media.

When asked why Pakistan needs to hire lobbyists in Washington despite having an embassy, a Pakistan Embassy official said: “Countries have been hiring lobbyists in Washington since 1938. This is how the American system works. They expect you to work with and within the system. Registering under FARA ensures transparency.”

Pakistan’s latest engagement comes as its lobbying strategy in the US capital has evolved into a more layered and diversified structure in recent years, combining embassy-driven diplomacy with external advisory networks.

Earlier FARA filings show that Islamabad and affiliated organisations have engaged multiple US-based firms to manage legislative outreach, public messaging and policy engagement efforts, particularly around bilateral relations and economic cooperation.

The latest contract also underscores a shift in emphasis toward economic security themes — particularly critical minerals — which have become central to US strategic policy as Washington seeks to diversify supply chains away from China and secure access to inputs essential for defence manufacturing, renewable energy technologies and semiconductor production.

Defence and security cooperation, another key component of the agreement, reflects Pakistan’s longstanding objective of maintaining institutional channels with US security and policy establishments, even during periods of political strain in bilateral relations.

Pakistan’s lobbying push is taking place in a broader and increasingly competitive foreign influence environment in Washington, where multiple countries have intensified their engagement strategies.

India, in particular, has maintained an active and highly structured lobbying presence in the US, often leveraging former political advisers and communications strategists to shape congressional and media narratives on South Asia and regional security.

Following the Pahalgam attack in India-occupied Kashmir in April 2025, both India and Pakistan further expanded their use of Washington-based consultants linked to the Trump administration’s political circles, underscoring the extent to which South Asian diplomacy in the US has become closely tied to political consulting networks.

In this evolving environment, Pakistan’s latest $1.2m engagement signals an effort to consolidate and professionalise its Washington strategy — moving toward a more targeted approach that integrates defence, economic diplomacy and policy messaging under a single advisory framework.

While FARA filings provide transparency into contractual relationships, they also reflect a deeper structural reality in Washington: that foreign policy influence is increasingly mediated through private consultancies, former officials and specialised lobbying networks, rather than traditional diplomatic channels alone.

For Pakistan, the challenge remains not only access to policymakers, but sustained narrative presence in a crowded and politically polarised Washington ecosystem where multiple regional conflicts and strategic priorities compete for attention.

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

https://ift.tt/N7yPsDW

Security forces killed five terrorists in two separate engagements in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Tank and Dera Ismail Khan districts, said the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) on Friday.

In Tank district, an intelligence-based operation was conducted on the reported presence of khwarij.

“During conduct of the operation, own troops effectively engaged khwarij location and after intense exchange of fire, four khwarij, belonging to Indian-sponsored Fitna-al-Khwarij were sent to hell,” said the military media wing.

Fitna al Khawarij is a term the state uses for terrorists belonging to the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan.

In another IBO conducted in DI Khan district, a terrorist was killed during a firefight with security forces.

The ISPR said the IBOs were conducted on May 7-8.

“Weapons and ammunition have also been recovered from killed Indian sponsored khwarij, who remained actively involved in numerous terrorist activities in the area.”

A sanitisation operation is being conducted to eliminate any other khawarij found in the area, the ISPR statement added.

The country’s “relentless” counter terrorism campaign under vision ‘Azm-i-Istekham’ “will continue at full pace to wipe out the menace of foreign-sponsored and supported terrorism from the country,” said the ISPR, adding that the sacrifice of innocent civilians further strengthened resolve.

There has been a resurgence in terrorism in Pakistan since the Afghan Taliban returned to power in Kabul in 2021.

Islamabad has repeatedly urged the Taliban administration to dismantle terrorist sanctuaries on Afghan soil, particularly those linked to the banned TTP. Officials say those appeals have gone unheeded.

from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/W3QkZOs

https://ift.tt/nuLjEkI

BANNU: A powerful explosion, following the reported crash of a quadcopter drone, injured eight people, including women, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s Bannu district on Friday night.

Security agencies immediately launched an investigation into the matter as panic spread in the area.

According to police, the drone flew into the area from an unknown location and exploded shortly after falling near a residential area, leaving several people injured.

Local residents rushed to the scene and shifted the injured to the District Headquarters Hospital Bannu after initially providing first aid.

The administration at the District Headquarters Hospital confirmed that all injured individuals are receiving medical treatment, while some are said to be in critical condition.

Meanwhile, security sources said the incident is being investigated from multiple angles to determine the nature of the explosion, the origin of the drone, and possible motives.

Local residents expressed deep concern over the incident and urged the government and relevant authorities to conduct an immediate inquiry, identify those responsible, and ensure the protection of civilians.

Last Friday, a suspected cross-border quadcopter strike from Afghanistan wounded two Pakistani personnel.

Officials said a quadcopter targeted a security post in Baizai tehsil, in KP’s Mohmand district.

Bannu district has been the scene of repeated security incidents in recent months, with both civilians and local security forces coming under attack amid a broader surge in militant violence.

Violence in Bannu has included attacks on police and jirga members, prompting targeted operations by police and security forces in various localities to disrupt militant networks.

from Dawn - Home https://ift.tt/jbum6yf

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