Two Wars One Outcome: Failure

At first glance, Israel’s war in Gaza and the US-Israel confrontation with Iran appear fundamentally different—one a confined urban battlefield, the other a vast geopolitical contest. Yet both reveal a shared strategic failure: the inability to convert overwhelming military superiority into decisive control.

In Gaza, Israel entered with clear advantages—proximity, intelligence dominance, and unmatched firepower. The expectation was swift dismantling of resistance and consolidation of control. Instead, the conflict has proven stubbornly complex. Urban warfare, asymmetric tactics, and deeply embedded resistance networks have turned territorial gains into a costly and reversible exercise. Control, despite boots on the ground, remains contested.

The Iran theatre presents an even sharper limitation. While the United States and Israel possess unquestioned military superiority, geography alone alters the equation. Iran’s size, terrain, and strategic depth make ground invasion prohibitively costly and politically untenable. Without physical occupation, the objective of “complete control” becomes inherently unrealistic. Airstrikes and missile campaigns may degrade capabilities, but they cannot impose authority.

This contrast exposes a deeper flaw in strategic thinking. If control cannot be secured in Gaza—despite proximity and ground operations—it is even less attainable in Iran, where occupation is off the table. Military power, in both cases, reveals its limits: it can destroy assets, but not command legitimacy.

Iran, however, adds another layer to this equation—endurance. Decades of sanctions have forced adaptation. Indigenous capabilities in missiles, drones, and air defense are products of necessity, not choice. More importantly, Iranian society has internalized resilience under pressure, blunting the impact of external coercion.

Equally telling is the political outcome. Attempts to incite internal dissent against Iran’s clerical leadership have largely failed. External pressure, rather than weakening the regime, appears to have reinforced it. History suggests this is no anomaly—external threats often consolidate internal cohesion.

The parallel, therefore, is not about identical conflicts but about identical miscalculations. In both Gaza and Iran, there is a persistent overestimation of what military force alone can achieve. Territory is not merely land—it is people, perception, and political acceptance. Without these, control remains an illusion.

Pakistan likely to face food shortage and spike in prices

In the aftermath of COVID-19 lockdowns, port congestions and supply chain disruptions food prices around the world are on the rise. Whatever is happening around the world is having trickle down effect on Pakistan. The situation is not different in three of its immediate neighboring countries, India, Afghanistan and Iran.

The biggest fear is that food products are being smuggled to these countries in large quantities and sooner than later Pakistan will also face acute shortage of these products. Therefore, it is necessary that the governments of these countries sit together to evolve a sustainable strategy to overcome the looming shortage of staple food items.

According to the available information three of Pakistan’s immediate neighbors suffer from acute problems, due to internal and external reasons. Let me begin with Afghanistan, the war torn country faces the worst problem, United Stated has frozen its foreign exchange reserve and the country is not able to import staple food items. It is feared that due to highly porous borders and use of Pakistani currency for the procurement of these items from Pakistan, Afghans has no option but to take these from products Pakistan to save people from starvation.

Iran also suffers due to ‘economic sanctions’. There are enormous opportunities for barter trade the goods are exchanging hands at borders. Since United States is not ready to lift these sanctions Iran is forced to buy food and other items from its immediate neighbors, be it Pakistan and Afghanistan or Central Asian countries.

India has ample food supplies, but bad governance, particularly ‘hording’ is pushing prices higher. Without going in too many details Indian are in a position to offer certain most sought after goods to Pakistan in exchange for food items. Since both the countries, due to the presence of ‘hawks’ don’t enjoy cordial diplomatic and economic relations the field is open for smugglers.

In the abnormal conditions people and countries have to make ‘exceptional’ decisions. Under the prevailing conditions the representatives of all the three countries must sit together to find sustainable solutions.

In case of Afghanistan trade must be allowed in Pak Rupee, export of wheat, edible oil and rice may be allowed in exchange for fruits and vegetables.

In case of Iran, ‘gas for food’ option should be exercised. At present prices of natural gas are hovering at record high level and Iran is in a position to supply gas to Pakistan at very attractive prices. Due to geographical proximity lower freight cost and shorter sailing time are the two biggest incentives.

Let me warn the policy makers that if they fail in coming up with conducive policy, it will only proliferate smuggling. On one hand the governments of respective countries will not be able to monitor the quantum of goods being smuggled and on the other hand floodgate will be opened for the influx of ‘highly undesirable products’ into Pakistan. Act now to avoid regret later.