Trump fell for Pakistan's oil hoax, Baloch leader warns of strategic consequences and terror financing
In a letter addressed to Trump and shared via X (formerly Twitter), Mir Yar Baloch declared that Pakistan is making false claims to access the region's mineral wealth for financial gain. He emphasised that the resources, including rare earth elements, copper, lithium, uranium, and oil, belong exclusively to the Baloch people and cannot be bartered or sold by the Pakiststate.
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Please select course:
Select a Course Category
Degree
Data Analytics
Public Policy
Design Thinking
Technology
Management
Others
healthcare
MCA
others
Finance
Cybersecurity
Healthcare
MBA
Digital Marketing
Leadership
Product Management
PGDM
Artificial Intelligence
Data Science
Operations Management
Project Management
CXO
Data Science
Skills you'll gain:
Data-Driven Decision-Making
Strategic Leadership and Transformation
Global Business Acumen
Comprehensive Business Expertise
Duration:
2 Years
University of Western Australia
UWA Global MBA
Starts on
Jun 28, 2024
Get Details
https://x.com/miryar_baloch/status/1950668390022177052
"#BalochistanIsNotPakistan," Mir Yar Baloch posted, warning that the Pakistani military had gravely misled US and UN officials, particularly Army Chief General Asim Munir, who reportedly discussed the
Balochistan mineral reserves
with Trump during a June meeting at the White House.
According to The CSR Journal, the Baloch leader called the deal a "strategic mistake," asserting that any partnership with Pakistan over Balochistan's resources would empower the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which he described as a rogue agency with a long record of sponsoring terrorism.
Live Events
"Allowing Pakistan's radicalised military and ISI, known for supporting Al-Qaeda and proxy jihadist groups, to exploit Balochistan's trillion-dollar reserves would directly finance global terror," the letter read. "It would endanger regional stability and could contribute to attacks reminiscent of 9/11."
Mir Yar Baloch warned that profits generated through such deals would not reach the Baloch people but would instead fund anti-India and anti-Israel militant operations. He also reiterated that Balochistan declared itself an independent republic in May 2025 and urged the global community to recognise its sovereignty.
"These reserves are not in Punjab, which is the actual Pakistan," he said. "They belong to the Republic of Balochistan, currently under illegal occupation."
He concluded with a stark message: "Balochistan is not for sale. We will not permit Pakistan, China, or any foreign power to exploit our land or its resources without the explicit consent of the Baloch people. Our sovereignty is non-negotiable."
The post has triggered renewed debate over resource ownership, foreign involvement, and Pakistan's decades-long occupation of Balochistan. Whether the international community heeds this warning remains to be seen.
Trump had recently posted on his Truth Social platform, "We have just concluded a deal with the country of Pakistan, whereby Pakistan and the
United States
will work together on developing their massive oil reserves."
"We are in the process of choosing the oil company that will lead this partnership," Trump added. "Who knows, maybe they'll be selling oil to India someday!"
Economic Times WhatsApp channel
)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
6 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Army says no ceasefire violation along LoC
The Army on Tuesday (August 5, 2025) said there has been no ceasefire violation along the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir. 'There have been some media and social media reports regarding ceasefire violation in Poonch region. It is clarified that there has been no ceasefire violation along the LoC. Please avoid spreading unverified information,' the Army said in a statement in New Delhi. Earlier, official sources in Jammu said the Pakistan Army had on Tuesday evening (August 5, 2025) indulged in 'unprovoked' firing on forward Indian posts along the LoC, prompting strong retaliation by the Indian Army. The exchange of small arms firing between the two sides continued for nearly 15 minutes in the Mankote sector but there was no immediate report of any casualties, the sources had said, adding it was the first instance of ceasefire violation since Operation Sindoor. Indian and Pakistani militaries engaged in intense clashes between May 7 and 10 after India launched missile strikes targeting terror infrastructure across the border under Operation Sindoor to avenge the Pahalgam terror attack.
Indian Express
6 minutes ago
- Indian Express
US to initially impose ‘small tariff' on pharma imports, Trump says
President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that the United States would initially place a 'small tariff' on pharmaceutical imports before hiking it to 150% within 18 months and eventually to 250% in an effort to boost domestic production. 'In one year, one and a half years maximum, it's going to go to 150% and then it's going to go to 250% because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country,' Trump told CNBC in an interview. He did not specify the initial tariff rate on pharmaceuticals. Trump said last month that pharmaceutical tariffs could reach as high as 200%. He said in February that sectoral tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductor chips would start at '25% or higher,' rising substantially over the course of a year. Trump said on Tuesday that he plans to announce tariffs on semiconductors and chips in the 'next week or so,' but gave no further details. The United States has been conducting a national security review of the pharmaceutical sector, and the industry has been preparing for possible sector-specific tariffs. The administration has not announced when the results of that probe will be released. Several drugmakers have pledged multibillion-dollar investments in U.S. manufacturing as Trump threatens import tariffs, with AstraZeneca recently committing $50 billion to expand its American operations. PhRMA, the main lobbying group for the industry, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A framework agreement between the United States and the EU sets out that tariffs on pharmaceuticals and semiconductors are currently zero, but if the United States raises tariffs following its import investigation, they will be capped at 15%.
Indian Express
6 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump says banks discriminate against his supporters while White House prepares order
US President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he believes that banks discriminate against him and his supporters, adding that Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase had previously refused to accept his deposits. 'They totally discriminate against, I think, me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives,' he told CNBC in an interview. 'I think the word might be Trump supporters more than conservatives.' Trump made the comments when asked about a report by the Wall Street Journal that said he planned to punish banks that discriminated against conservatives, but did not address the order specifically. The order instructs regulators to review banks for 'politicized or unlawful debanking' practices, according to a draft reviewed by Reuters. 'Well, they did discriminate,' Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan Chase after his first term in office. 'I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash … and they told me, 'I'm sorry sir, we can't have you. You have 20 days to get out.'' Trump said, without providing evidence, that he believed that the banks' refusal to take his deposits indicated that the administration of former President Joe Biden had encouraged banking regulators to 'destroy Trump.' Trump said he subsequently tried to deposit funds with Bank of America and was also refused, and eventually split the cash among a number of smaller banks. 'The banks discriminated against me very badly,' he said. In a statement, JPMorgan did not address the president's specific claim that it had discriminated against him. 'We don't close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,' JPMorgan said. 'We commend the White House for addressing this issue and look forward to working with them to get this right.' Bank of America also did not address Trump's specific claims in the CNBC interview. 'REPUTATIONAL RISK' ISSUE During President Joe Biden's administration, regulators could have asked the banks why they were providing banking services to Trump because of the 'reputational risk' issue, a source familiar with the matter said. Another source said that banks were under intense scrutiny and pressure with regards to what qualified as a reputational risk for banks and they needed to be careful due to Trump's legal entanglements. The source also added that at present JPMorgan continues to have a banking relationship with members of the Trump family that dates back to years ago and that they also bank a number of campaign accounts related to Trump. After President Trump took power, the Federal Reserve announced in June it was directing its supervisors to no longer consider 'reputational risk' when examining banks, scrapping a metric that had been a focus of industry complaints. The Wall Street Journal reported late Monday that the expected executive order would instruct regulators to investigate whether any financial institutions breach the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, antitrust laws or consumer financial protection laws by dropping customers for political reasons. It said the order could be signed as early as this week, authorizing monetary penalties, consent decrees or other disciplinary measures against violators. The White House had no immediate comment on the reported order. 'What the White House is doing is telling the banks not to hide behind regulations to deny loans or banking relationships,' said Wells Fargo bank analyst Mike Mayo. 'The banks can use their normal underwriting standards and deny services, but not blame regulators or use reputational risk as a justification.' Bank of America said it welcomed the Trump administration's efforts to provide regulatory clarity to banks. 'We've provided detailed proposals and will continue to work with the administration and Congress to improve the regulatory framework,' the bank said. Trump in January said the CEOs of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America denied services to conservatives. At the time, the two banks denied making banking decisions based on politics. 'This seems to be rhetoric that will likely be forgotten by lunchtime,' said David Wagner, head of equities at Aptus Capital Advisors. 'I don't see any material impact on banks, as there are many other drivers that will ultimately presage performance for banks, such as deregulation.' JPMorgan and Bank of America shares both fell over 1%, in line with a decline for the broader S&P Bank index. Banks have consistently argued that any complaints about 'debanking' should be aimed at regulators, as they argue onerous rules and bank supervisors policing firms can discourage them from engaging in certain activities. 'The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion,' the Bank Policy Institute, an industry group, said in a statement. 'The banking agencies have already taken steps to address issues like reputational risk, and we're hopeful that any forthcoming executive order will reinforce this progress by directing regulators to confront the flawed regulatory framework that gave rise to these concerns in the first place.'
