Latest news with #IPRI
Express Tribune
24-05-2025
- Business
- Express Tribune
What an incentivised or a punished Iran means for ME
The writer is a non-resident research fellow in the research and analysis department of IPRI and an Assistant Professor at DHA Suffa University Karachi Listen to article The international system was always anarchic, but the current shift in the balance of global influence is making it more turbulent and uncertain. For good or for bad, the global geopolitical landscape is experiencing a shift, and the great responsibility of all stakeholders, including the state practitioners and policymakers, is to correctly read these changes and make sure that the choices they make enable the countries that they lead to stand on the right side of history. Uncertainty of the international system is aptly described in how Iran, despite engaging in the fifth round of nuclear talks with the US, is not buoyed by the idea of reconciliation but is more concerned and threatened by the growing possibility of an Israeli air strike on its nuclear facilities. No central authority, not even the US, can probably guarantee that no such military action will take place, thus making the international system so anarchic. China and Russia lead the change the world is witnessing in the global balance of influence. That change is well demonstrated in the way both these great powers view the uncertain times that Iran is experiencing. The geopolitical positioning of Russia and China on Iran matters, and both the US and Israel would do well to correctly read their position before the game-changing decision about Iran is finally taken — integrating Iran in the global economy or taking a military action against it. Russia is fighting a war in Ukraine, and ideally, it should be happy to see its main adversary preoccupied in the Middle East. This diversion of American attention suits Russia, and it is not merely the diversion of attention but also the diversion of American capabilities, as was evident in the aftermath of the October 7 attack by Hamas when the Biden administration provided additional batteries of Patriot Missiles to Israel, which Kyiv desperately needed. Any war in the Middle East will drive up the prices of oil; and under Western sanctions, increased oil prices mean the generation of more revenue by the war-hit Russian economy. Russia's position on Syria is sensitive. During his visit to Saudi Arabia, President Trump announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria — a long-time Russian satellite state. It has been acting as the Russian platform for projecting Russian power in the Eastern Mediterranean through the Russian air and naval bases there. The Syrian president has also stated that, given the right conditions, Syria may one day consider joining the Abraham Accords. So one can easily say that the balance of influence in this strategically important country in the Middle East is shifting from the Russian to the American side. This diminishing Russian influence in Syria also means bad news for Russia in other strategically important places. Russia's ability to export military influence and control to Libya and the Sahel, where it has an expanding presence, will also be affected. If a war erupts in the Middle East following an Israeli air strike on Iran, then geopolitically, Russia may find opportunities and the US and its allies, including Israel and the Arab states in the Persian Gulf, may only be exposed to increased risks and threats. A war in the Middle East would be bad news for the Chinese economy. It is the economy that led China to broker the historic diplomatic normalisation between Iran and Saudi Arabia. China transports $280 billion worth of goods annually through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea, which constitutes 20% of China's overall maritime trade. The American myth that China is interested in fomenting global chaos to create American preoccupation in the troubled spots to undermine the American-led international order is based on a wrong assumption. The Chinese economy cannot afford global chaos, or more specifically, a war erupting in the Middle East. Strategically, CPEC and BRI are Chinese projects designed to avert such risks by building more diverse supply chains. Iran is China's strategic partner, and without China's help, it would be difficult for Iran, under sanctions, to sustain its economy. China would neither want any external power to exercise dominance and control in the Indian Ocean region. More a commercial than a war-fighting water body, China will do everything in its power to not allow the Indian Ocean to lose its globally accepted standing and status of being only a commercial water body. Saudi Arabia, under MBS, also follows a consistent policy that states that the future of the Middle East should not be shaped by force. He is all set to safeguard his Vision 2030. MBS visions not ballistic missiles but tourists flying to and from countries in the Middle East. The initiation of change in Saudi Arabia has its roots in how MBS took a huge political risk in sidelining his religious police and confronting the conservative backlash. He masterminded the change in the balance of influence in Saudi society by unshackling it from the age-long chains of religiosity. There were political risks, but he took them. Today, Neom City, with over 50 luxury hotels being built along the Red Sea and the world's tallest building being built in Riyadh, is all a testimony to MBS's resolve to make Saudi Arabia part of the modern world. If a nuclear deal between the US and Iran materialises, then after a gap of 45 years, it will open up the possibility of the restoration of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Such a scenario in itself is likely to bring huge geopolitical changes in the Middle East. Iranian proxies may no longer pursue goals that represented a defiant Iran. Incentivised Iran will find it reasonable to withdraw support to all its proxies. Imagine the hope this gives to the innocent people residing in the Middle Eastern conflict zones. Like the 25 million people living in Yemen, a country so poor that it imports 90% of its food. President Trump led a $1 billion bombing campaign against this country because the Houthis were executing drone attacks and firing missiles at ships, thus violating the freedom of navigation of ships in international waters. This is considered justified under international law, but criticised by those who read and understand international law, but cannot understand why the same is allowed to be violated in Gaza. If Iran and the US strike a deal and base their future relationship on reconciliation, then the resumption of harmonious relations between the two will not be possible unless Israel fits into the equation. If peace is to be given a chance in the Middle East, then the US will have to reconsider its policy towards Israel. Surely, a US-Iran deal will only materialise after Iran can extract such a guarantee from the US.
Express Tribune
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Public diplomacy and Indian war of reputation
The writer is a non-resident research fellow in the research and analysis department of IPRI and an Assistant Professor at DHA Suffa University Karachi Listen to article India sought glory, and when the achievement of glory became the war-fighting aim, the only way you ended up fighting was a war of reputation. Ideally, a war of reputation is fought to influence perception and control of a given narrative. In a war of reputation, an actor would use all measures short of war to harm the reputation of an adversary. India was doing so over a long period, spreading misinformation, manipulating public opinion of the audience at home and abroad, and engaging in negative publicity against Pakistan. It should have understood the limits of the reputational war it was fighting and should have desisted from undertaking a military adventure against Pakistan and making it part of this reputational war. Two great differences were highlighted during this period of short Indian aggression: the difference in technology and the nature of the two adversaries. India lost the battle of supremacy of the technology, and while undermining our national resilience, it ignored, with disastrous results, the extent of our national enthusiasm and spirit. Post-Pahalgam India is a different India. Its political and military reputation is dented. It has lost one of the most essential components of power politics that makes any power great — military credibility. Post-Pahalgam, at the apex of the Indian pyramid of political and military mediocrity stands PM Modi, an impulsive leader who's violent and aggressive ambitions now threaten peace and security of the entire region and need to be controlled and held back. His external affairs minister, S Jaishankar, made a laughing stock of himself by claiming that Pakistan was informed about the Indian plan of attacking the alleged terrorist camps in Pakistan, and that the Pakistan military should not have interfered and should have stepped aside. This sounded quite similar to the language that the Israeli ministers spoke when they proceeded to execute the genocide of Muslims in Gaza and Lebanon. The incoherent and incomprehensible manner in which the Indians are trying to defend their mistake is even forcing people in India to doubt the false reality being fed to them by the Indian government, and people in India are raising their voices against their country's political and military incompetence. Information is the building block on which a true reality is built. Pakistan did a good job in communicating the true picture of Indian aggression, not only through the official government channels but also through the public sphere by its mass media. Given our success in the information warfare during the Indian aggression, the government should take the lead and should consider modifying the implementation of our foreign policy and adopt an approach that gives centrality to the establishment of public diplomacy. The digital warriors, the common patriotic Pakistanis should be allowed full access to the internet and all digital platforms to push back the Indian and promote our narrative. The core purpose of public diplomacy is to influence the external policy environment, and Pakistan must continue to encourage the public in the development of a credible anti-Indian narrative that must highlight India as the perpetrator of terrorism and a country that threatens peace and security in the region. Outwardly, the public must be allowed to participate in the narrative building and share the same with the outside world. The Indian domestic audience needs to be bombarded with the truth and actual reality of the misadventure by their political and military elite. We must do that with greater visibility and strong voices on all platforms of social media to influence the Indian preference, which was built on choosing the worst course of action that de-glorified India. This will only encourage the outside world to understand more and share more about the incompetence and failure of the Indian political and military elite. Harvard professor Joseph Nye leads the soft power discourse in the world and has authored many books on the subject. He terms soft power as the ability of the state to set an agenda. The Indian aggression, I am sure, has multiplied many times our will to now set a reformed agenda against the state of India which should move beyond the rooted-in-the-past and traditional two-nation theory and bring the discourse to what constitutes terrorism and how India has a state policy of exporting terrorism not only in the region but around the globe. The public must be encouraged to relentlessly build this narrative for the outside world through all platforms of social media. Official channel diplomacy and public diplomacy must work hand in hand to make this practice successful. The war clouds are still hovering, and as long as PM Modi is in power, Pakistan can expect the worst from the Indian government. Despite this assumption, I do think that our great success in information warfare opens up the debate for the role of public diplomacy in our foreign policy. While we may never lower our guard and our defence forces will remain prepared to counter any future Indian aggression, we must also not give up on the use of skillful statecraft and the new role that public diplomacy can play. In this context, Joseph Nye identifies three dimensions of public diplomacy practice. First is daily communication, which he recommends should be built around mass public participation and should be relentless. The government digital outlook teams may work to control the misinformation, but daily communication may continue from all public platforms to ensure the promotion of the national narrative, with the objective that it should be favourably received and accepted by the outside world. Second is dimension of public diplomacy that Nye identifies as strategic communication. This, he recommends, should rest on broader foreign policy aspirations than the specific objectives, like building a national narrative. The strategic communication seeks leader-to-leader engagement, including the possibility of meetings or a summit, social and cultural interactions, like sporting events organised to facilitate strategic communication. Third is public diplomacy dimension in building lasting relationships. It is built around the spirit that all differences are solvable and is the culminating point of the success of the first two public diplomacy dimensions. Lastly, as per Winston Churchill's goodwill dictum, it is goodwill that one should pursue during peace. We showed our resolution in war, and we must now switch on to raise the standard of our official and public diplomacy and stop celebrating victory, and demonstrate what Churchill termed as magnanimity in victory.
Business Recorder
07-05-2025
- Business
- Business Recorder
Chairman OGDCL Zafar Masud's book ‘Seat 1C' launched
ISLAMABAD: Chairman of Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) Zafar Masud's book titled 'Seat 1C: A Survivor's Tale of Hope, Resilience, and Renewal' was launched on Tuesday at a well-attended ceremony hosted by the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI). The event was inaugurated by President IPRI, Lt-Gen Majid Ehsan (retd). The book, which chronicles Masud's miraculous survival in a plane crash five years ago, offers a deeply personal reflection on life, trauma, and recovery. Speaking at the event, Zafar Masud said, 'I wrote this book primarily for myself, but it contains life lessons that can be beneficial for everyone.' He noted that Seat 1C explores not just his experience of survival, but also broader themes such as mental health, tradition, courage, arrogance, and survivor's guilt. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
06-03-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
Nasim Ashraf's autobiography unveiled
Nasim Ashraf, a distinguished Pakistani-American physician and former Pakistan Cricket Board chairman's autobiography titled "Ring Side" was recently unveiled at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI). The book provides a first-hand account of a pivotal era in Pakistan's history, detailing Ashraf's close involvement in state affairs during President Pervez Musharraf's tenure. Offering unique insights into governance and Pakistan-U.S. relations, Ring Side captures the author's experiences at the heart of power and diplomacy. Covering a vast span of events from Pakistan's role as America's indispensable partner in the War on Terror to the grassroots of human development in Pakistan, the author presents a primary source account of the country's external and internal policies. He remains more concerned about human development and takes no qualms in saying that Pakistan has not done enough in this realm. The book also entails an evocative and fascinating account of military coups, intrigues and vested interests that have accented Pakistan's history. Amidst all those obstacles, the book pins that the author was able to implement a basic health and literacy scheme at the grassroots. The book nail-bitingly accounts for the events that unfolded in diplomacy after the September 11, 2001, attacks, and the outcome it had on the diplomatic mosaic with Pakistan. Ashraf made it a point to say that having worked closely with American authorities, he learnt the reality that citizens' rights are placed well above even those of the president of the United States. This is where we have to learn as we go on to buoy human confidence in the state, he observed. In a one-liner on US-Pakistan ties, he said it has been infected with a "trust deficit", and there is a need to overcome this dilemma.
