Escalation hotspot
Listen to article
Kashmir is being ranked among the world's most critical escalation hotspots, as nuclear-armed India and Pakistan face "perilously high" tensions. The Global Peace Index, published by the highly-regarded Australian think tank Institute for Economics and Peace, noted how the four-day Indo-Pak conflict in May 2025 — the deadliest in years - exposed how quickly the Kashmir dispute could ignite a catastrophic war. The report also notes the fragility of the ceasefire - India won't even explicitly admit the circumstances around the agreement, including the role Washington played.
The May 2025 clashes saw BrahMos cruise missiles, Rafale jets, J-10Cs and hundreds of drones in the skies above the Indo-Pak border and the Line of Control. Pakistan's downing of advanced Indian aircraft, including French-built Rafales, also proved that even "limited" conflicts risk rapid escalation. The embarrassment of having to ground the pride of the Indian Air Force saw the conflict spread well beyond traditional skirmish zones in Kashmir, dragging the world toward crisis.
Meanwhile, the threat to cut off Pakistan's water — a war crime — shows that India's leaders are more than willing to act like a rogue state just to keep up their prime minister's strongman image and delusions of grandeur.
India's spokespersons can run themselves hoarse calling Kashmir a bilateral issue, but that doesn't make it so. Remember the day India asked the UN to intervene in the first conflict over the region. Modi and his regime are clearly not students of history — not even Indian history — so they are unlikely to be familiar with the events of 1914, when a regional conflict tainted by mistrust and disinformation exploded into what is now better known as the First World War. India's far-right government has been using conflict as a political tool for the past decade. Without domestic or foreign intervention soon, one day it will end up going too far.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Lessons from 12-day Israel-Iran war
CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE! It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!), for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered, ENDED! Officially, Iran will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 12th Hour, Israel will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 24th Hour, an Official END to THE 12 DAY WAR will be saluted by the World. During each CEASEFIRE, the other side will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL. On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end, what should be called, 'THE 12 DAY WAR.' This is a War that could have gone on for years, and destroyed the entire Middle East, but it didn't and never will! God bless Israel, God bless Iran, God bless the Middle East, God bless the United States of America, and GOD BLESS THE WORLD—Donald J. Trump, President of United States of America (USA) The world today stands at the precipice of a conflict that nearly unraveled the fragile fabric of international peace. The recent escalation between Israel and Iran has not only reignited age-old hostilities but also exposed the failure of global institutions to both prevent unlawful aggression and uphold tenets of international law. The Israel-Iran crisis has highlighted the dangers of unchecked militarism, the breakdown of diplomatic norms, and the selective application of international legal standards. The confrontation between these two countries, with theatrical and deadly military operations, civilian casualties, and global diplomatic ramifications, demands a comprehensive reckoning. The Israel-led airstrikes on Iranian territory, specifically targeting nuclear sites, represented a blatant violation of the sovereignty of a member state of the United Nations (UN). The Israeli government, long opposed to Iran's nuclear programme, acted unilaterally and outside the confines of international law, invoking the doctrine of preemptive self-defense without credible evidence of imminent threat. The Israeli wanton attacks breached Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. Targeting nuclear infrastructure, particularly without UN approval or oversight by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), constitutes a dangerous precedent in modern warfare. USA's involvement further escalated the situation. Coordinated attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, carried out with logistical and intelligence support from USA forces, have been widely criticized by international legal scholars and diplomats. The strikes bypassed the Security Council and sidestepped global norms governing peaceful use of nuclear technology. The attacks undermined the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Iran, unlike Israel, is a signatory to, and which guarantees the right to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes under strict safeguards. USA's role in supporting Israel's aggression raises serious concerns about the credibility of the so-called rules-based international order. The Iranian retaliation was both swift and symbolic. The barrage of missiles targeting USA's military bases in the Gulf sent shockwaves throughout international diplomatic channels. The attack was calculated to demonstrate Iran's military capability and its unwillingness to tolerate such violations in silence. Similarly, Iranian authorities claimed they had carefully selected non-civilian targets to avoid broader escalation, the attack nonetheless risked igniting a regional war that could have engulfed Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and beyond. This incident highlights the volatile nature of Middle Eastern geopolitics, where one miscalculation can lead to catastrophic consequences. The civilian toll of the conflict has been devastating. The Israeli military operations in Gaza, conducted parallel to the attacks on Iran, have once again resulted in the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, including women and children. Bombing of residential neighborhoods, hospitals, and refugee camps has been condemned by human rights organizations as potential war crimes. Relentless airstrikes in Syria and Lebanon have also exacerbated the already dire humanitarian conditions. The distinction principle under international humanitarian law, which requires combatants to differentiate between military targets and civilian objects, appears to have been grossly disregarded. The ceasefire brokered by President Donald Trump added a histrionic twist to the unfolding crisis. Acting through backchannel diplomacy, President Trump leveraged his personal ties with regional leaders to secure a temporary halt to hostilities. While the ceasefire was welcomed as a respite from violence, it also exposed the limitations of current institutional diplomacy. The fact that the President Trump, through unconventional channels, could achieve what the UN Security Council could not, raises profound questions about the efficacy and legitimacy of existing global governance structures. The United Nations, particularly the Security Council, failed to act decisively during the crisis. Despite multiple emergency sessions and calls for de-escalation, the Council remained paralyzed by geopolitical divisions and veto power politics. The inability to pass even a symbolic resolution condemning the attacks has revealed the urgent need for institutional reforms. UN must evolve to meet contemporary security challenges, including the establishment of a robust, rules-based dispute resolution mechanism that does not rely solely on the consensus of five permanent members. The demand for nuclear transparency has never been more pressing. Israel, long suspected of maintaining an undeclared nuclear arsenal, remains outside the framework of NPT and refuses IAEA inspections. This selective non-compliance undermines global non-proliferation efforts and sets dangerous double standards. The international community must insist that Israel sign NPT, open its facilities to IAEA oversight, and commit to the same rules that it expects others, particularly Iran, to follow. Failure to do so not only erodes legal norms but also fuels resentment and justifies nuclear ambitions among other regional states. The humanitarian crisis resulting from Israeli operations in Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon must be confronted with urgency. Deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, blockade of humanitarian aid, and the use of disproportionate force are violations of the Geneva Conventions. The world must move beyond statements of concern and take concrete action to protect civilian lives. Sanctions on arms transfers, investigations by international courts, and deployment of UN monitoring missions are all tools that can and should be used to hold violators accountable. Iran's role too warrants critical examination. Despite being a victim of aggression in this episode, Iran has long pursued a foreign policy that isolates it regionally. Sharing borders with eight countries, Iran has strained or hostile relations with nearly all of them. Its involvement in regional proxy conflicts, from Lebanon to Yemen, has blown up tensions and undermined trust. However, during this crisis, many neighboring countries, including those with traditionally cool relations, stood in solidarity with Iran and condemned Israeli actions. This presents a rare diplomatic opening. Pakistan's government took a principled stand in support of Iran, voicing the issue in international forums and calling for restraint and justice. Support from such countries signals to Iran that goodwill exists, and it must now reciprocate by revisiting its regional policies. Iran should pursue normalization with its neighbors, including Pakistan, and adopt a non-interventionist approach that prioritizes economic cooperation, energy interdependence, and people-to-people linkages. Time has come for Iran to re-engage with the international community. Lifting of economic sanctions, tied to verifiable commitments on nuclear transparency and non-proliferation, should be a central objective. The country must focus on domestic prosperity, scientific advancement, and regional connectivity. Engaging constructively with the USA, European Union, and international institutions can pave the way for Iran's full economic reintegration. The broader international community must seize this moment to reflect on the failures that led to this crisis. It must push for a world order that is fair, consistent, and grounded in international law. Unequal application of norms, where some states operate with impunity while others are punished for minor misdemeanor, has created a legitimacy crisis that can no longer be ignored. The way forward must be anchored in a shared commitment to peace, justice, and human dignity. United Nations should convene a global summit on conflict resolution, bringing together not only states but also civil society, academics, and technocrats to design a new framework for peace enforcement. Such a mechanism must include early-warning systems, neutral mediation platforms, and binding dispute resolution tools that apply equally to all member states. International focus must not remain confined to the Israel-Iran conflict. Ongoing wars in Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere continue to claim lives and destabilize regions. The world must adopt a holistic approach that prioritizes diplomacy over militarism, development over destruction, and cooperation over confrontation. Humanity's future hinges on our collective ability to learn from these crises and choose a different path. The tools for peace exist; what is required is the will to use them. Let this be a moment when the world awakens to the urgency of conflict resolution, universal legal accountability, and a renewed commitment to protecting all lives equally, regardless of geography, religion, or politics. (Huzaima Bukhari & Dr Ikramul Haq, lawyers and partners of Huzaima & Ikram, are Adjunct Faculty at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), members Advisory Board and Visiting Senior Fellows of Pakistan Institute of Development Economics (PIDE) and Abdul Rauf Shakoori is a corporate lawyer) Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Escalation hotspot
Listen to article Kashmir is being ranked among the world's most critical escalation hotspots, as nuclear-armed India and Pakistan face "perilously high" tensions. The Global Peace Index, published by the highly-regarded Australian think tank Institute for Economics and Peace, noted how the four-day Indo-Pak conflict in May 2025 — the deadliest in years - exposed how quickly the Kashmir dispute could ignite a catastrophic war. The report also notes the fragility of the ceasefire - India won't even explicitly admit the circumstances around the agreement, including the role Washington played. The May 2025 clashes saw BrahMos cruise missiles, Rafale jets, J-10Cs and hundreds of drones in the skies above the Indo-Pak border and the Line of Control. Pakistan's downing of advanced Indian aircraft, including French-built Rafales, also proved that even "limited" conflicts risk rapid escalation. The embarrassment of having to ground the pride of the Indian Air Force saw the conflict spread well beyond traditional skirmish zones in Kashmir, dragging the world toward crisis. Meanwhile, the threat to cut off Pakistan's water — a war crime — shows that India's leaders are more than willing to act like a rogue state just to keep up their prime minister's strongman image and delusions of grandeur. India's spokespersons can run themselves hoarse calling Kashmir a bilateral issue, but that doesn't make it so. Remember the day India asked the UN to intervene in the first conflict over the region. Modi and his regime are clearly not students of history — not even Indian history — so they are unlikely to be familiar with the events of 1914, when a regional conflict tainted by mistrust and disinformation exploded into what is now better known as the First World War. India's far-right government has been using conflict as a political tool for the past decade. Without domestic or foreign intervention soon, one day it will end up going too far.
Express Tribune
6 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The current situation in Afghanistan
The writer is an academic and researcher. He is also the author of Development, Poverty, and Power in Pakistan, available from Routledge Listen to article Although the international community is preoccupied with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, and the lingering crisis triggered by Israeli aggressions in the Middle East, the situation further afield in the South Asian region remains tenuous as well. Besides the potential risk of another Indo-Pak flare-up, Pakistan's relations with Afghanistan are tense. The possibility of cross-border proxies engaging in terrorist attacks within Pakistan is a major threat. In addition to trying to secure the long and porous Af-Pak border, around 800,000 Afghans seeking refuge in Pakistan have been expelled since 2023. The latest UN report on Afghanistan describes the troubled state of our northwesterly neighbour. It points out how the security situation in Afghanistan has not stabilised despite the end of major military conflict between the US-led NATO forces and the Taliban. The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant-Khorasan (ISIL-K) continues to defy the domination of the Taliban regime. Besides attacking 'soft targets' such as religious minorities, ISIL-K continues high-profile attacks, for example, at the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing earlier this year. Other opposition groups such as the National Resistance Front led by Ahmad Masood, and the Afghanistan Freedom Front, comprised of former government and military officials, are still operational. However, neither the ISIL-K nor these other opposition groups have the capability to threaten the Taliban's vice-like hold on the war-ravaged country. The above-mentioned UN assessment further notes how the new school year, which started in spring, has again barred girls and women from going to secondary schools or from pursuing higher education. Humanitarian needs in the country remain dire too. Yet, the UN's own humanitarian response plan for the current year, which aspired to support nearly 17 million Afghans barely managed to secure over 15 per cent of its proposed $2.42 billion budget. International funding, on which nearly half the Afghan population remains so dependent, has been shrinking, and it seems unlikely to rise again under present circumstances. Global US aid cuts have severely undermined UN affiliated efforts by the World Food Program, for instance, as well as the work of many major non-profits, such as the International Red Cross. Other rich western countries are not stepping up their commitments to compensate for the loss of American aid. Conversely, China's influence in Afghanistan has grown. China is currently trying to mediate the resumption of bilateral ties between Islamabad and Kabul, which had been suspended for nearly four years. Earlier this month, Pakistan announced that its charge d'affaires stationed in Kabul would be elevated to the rank of ambassador, and Kabul followed suit by announcing that its representative in Islamabad would also be upgraded to the same rank. Only a handful of countries — including China and Russia — have yet agreed to host Taliban-appointed ambassadors since their return to power in 2021. However, none of these countries, including Pakistan, has yet formally recognised the Taliban rulers. The Taliban have been in power for nearly four years now, so they have had ample time to make a transition from an insurgency movement to a more functional government. Their hardline and iron-fisted stance was initially explained as being motivated by their fear of losing the support of hardline elements who may have joined even more extreme outfits such as the ISIL-K. However, the Taliban regime now has no excuse. It must broaden its myopic approach, and make a genuine effort to deliver responsible governance, via incremental representation rather than continued repression. Otherwise, Afghanistan will remain a pariah state.
