Bridging the Divide: Pakistan and Taliban Need Dialogue, Not Confrontation

The relationship between Pakistan’s ruling regime and the Taliban stands at a delicate crossroads. Bound by geography, faith, and shared history, the two sides also carry layers of mistrust accumulated over decades of shifting alliances and conflicting expectations. In recent years, political statements, security operations, and media narratives have widened this gap further. Yet, beneath the surface lies an undeniable truth — their destinies remain intertwined. To stabilize the region, both must replace suspicion with structured dialogue, and confrontation with cooperation. Military responses may suppress symptoms, but only intellectual engagement can address the root causes of misunderstanding.

The first major misunderstanding arises from security concerns. Pakistan’s authorities often believe that the Taliban have not taken adequate measures against elements of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), who continue to operate from Afghan territory. On the other hand, the Taliban view Pakistan’s cross-border operations and frequent border closures as violations of Afghan sovereignty. Both sides see each other’s actions through a defensive lens. A structured security dialogue — focusing on intelligence coordination, cross-border communication, and non-interference — can help bridge these perceptions and restore mutual confidence.

The second area of friction involves economic and trade relations. The Taliban leadership frequently accuses Pakistan of using trade controls as leverage, while Pakistan expresses concern over smuggling, informal trade routes, and foreign currency outflows. These differences have converted economic engagement into a tool of pressure rather than cooperation. A transparent, rules-based mechanism for transit trade and financial transactions could turn the economic relationship into a stabilizing force. When trade and transport flow smoothly, political tensions tend to ease naturally.

The third and perhaps most sensitive dimension is ideological understanding. Many in Pakistan interpret the Taliban’s policies solely through a security framework, while the Taliban often perceive Pakistan’s government as too close to Western interests. These views overlook the nuanced realities on both sides. Constructive academic and religious exchanges, involving scholars and opinion leaders, could help generate trust and empathy. Mutual respect for each side’s national priorities is essential for regional harmony.

Peace cannot be dictated by military power or external persuasion; it must evolve from within the region itself. Pakistan and the Taliban must recognize that lasting stability demands open communication, patience, and political maturity. Excluding foreign influences and engaging in honest dialogue will help transform mutual suspicion into cooperation. The region has paid too high a price for conflict — it is time to invest in understanding. Dialogue, not deterrence, is the true foundation of peace between Pakistan and the Taliban.

 

US War on Drugs or Control of Trade?

The United States has long waged wars with shifting names — “War on Terror,” “War on Drugs,” “War for Freedom.” Yet, behind every noble slogan lies a trail of power politics. The latest episode — dispatching an aircraft carrier to intercept drug boats — sounds more like a geopolitical maneuver than a humanitarian mission.

The US has once again deployed an aircraft carrier — not to confront a rival navy, but to chase down drug smugglers. The declared mission is to curb narcotics trafficking, yet the use of such massive military hardware for a policing task invites skepticism. Why send a carrier strike group — costing billions — to do what coast guards and drug enforcement units are meant to handle?

When Washington turns a military operation into a “war on drugs,” it often signals a wider agenda. The US Navy’s global reach conveniently allows it to assert presence in any region — from the Caribbean to the Pacific — under the noble banner of counter-narcotics. What appears to be law enforcement frequently doubles as strategic positioning. In a world where power projection is wrapped in moral language, fighting drug traffickers becomes a useful excuse for extending surveillance and influence.

There’s also a darker interpretation that refuses to fade. Could these “anti-drug” operations actually be a cover for controlling the lucrative narcotics trade itself? History does not absolve Washington. The Iran-Contra affair and recurring allegations of CIA-linked drug networks in Central America showed how the lines between enforcement and exploitation can blur. When tons of seized drugs disappear from transparency and accountability, suspicion fills the vacuum.

The global drug economy, valued at over half a trillion dollars annually, offers enormous leverage to whoever controls its routes and flows. By interdicting shipments, deciding which networks survive, and which are dismantled, the US effectively regulates the trade — if not overtly, then subtly.

The aircraft carrier, in this context, is not just chasing smugglers — it is asserting dominance. Washington’s “war on drugs” has become a convenient façade for strategic reach. After all, in America’s global playbook, every mission — even one draped in moral intent — is ultimately about control. In this war, purity may just be another commodity.

 

PSX benchmark index declines amid volatility

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) witnessed volatility during the week, pressured by weaker than anticipated corporate earnings. The benchmark index declined by 502 points during the week, down 0.3%WoW, to close at 163,304 points.

Market participation also weakened by 17%WoW with average daily traded volume down to 1.8 billion shares as against 2.2 billion shares in the prior week.

On the macroeconomic front, current account for September 2025 reported a surplus of US$110 million. A point worth mentioning is, IT exports for September 2025 were reported at US$366 million, up 25%YoY, marking the highest ever monthly IT exports.

Power generation during September 2025 was reported at 12,592GWh, up 1%YoY, whereas cost of generation declined by 24%YoY.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) were reported at US$14.5 billion as of October 17, 2025.

According to AKD Securities, the momentum at PSX is expected to continue given successful staff-level agreement of the IMF’s second review, minimal flood impact and improved credit ratings by global agencies amid falling fixed income yields.

Investors’ sentiments are expected to further improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

This outlook is supported by the lack of alternative investment avenues and the attractive valuation of local equities, with the KSE-100 trading at a multiple of 7.4x while offering a dividend yield of 6.6%.

The top picks of the brokerage house include: MEBL, MCB, HBL, OGDC, PPL, PSO, FFC, ENGROH, LUCK, DGKC, FCCL, and INDU.

 

Trump’s Tariffs: Open Defiance of WTO Rules

“The WTO’s silence in the face of US defiance marks the slow death of multilateralism.”

When power tramples principle, the rulebook becomes meaningless. The United States, once the architect of global trade discipline, now stands as its most brazen violator. President Trump’s tariff crusade has reduced the WTO’s founding ideals to diplomatic theatre.

When the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created, it was supposed to end the era of arbitrary trade wars. Countries pledged to respect the Most-Favored-Nation principle — no discrimination, no selective punishment. Yet today, that rulebook lies in tatters, largely because the United States, the self-proclaimed guardian of free trade, has chosen to ignore it.

President Donald Trump’s latest wave of tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese imports is nothing short of a declaration of defiance. Cloaked in the language of “national security,” these measures are neither lawful nor justified under WTO norms. These are pure economic bullying — a tactic to reassert American dominance under the guise of protecting domestic jobs.

Let’s be clear, the WTO’s Article XXI, which allows exceptions for national security, was never meant to give license for economic intimidation. Trump’s use of it is a cynical distortion, designed not to protect US borders but to weaponize trade policy. It exposes the hypocrisy of Washington preaching free markets abroad while practicing protectionism at home.

WTO panels have already ruled against such tariffs, but the US has paralyzed the system by blocking the appointment of judges to the Appellate Body — effectively ensuring no verdict can ever be enforced. This deliberate sabotage turns the WTO into a toothless watchdog, helpless against the very member it was meant to discipline.

The tragedy is not merely in Washington’s defiance but in the world’s silence. Each unjustified tariff erodes another layer of global trust, while the WTO watches from the sidelines, stripped of authority. If the international community fails to challenge US economic unilateralism now, the collapse of the multilateral trading order will not be a distant fear — it will be a fait accompli.

 

Fixing Wheat Support Price: A Sovereign Right, Not A Privilege

When an external lender begins dictating what price Pakistan should pay its farmers, it crosses from advice into interference. Fixing the support price of wheat — the nation’s staple crop — is a sovereign right, not a privilege granted by the IMF. To read details click https://shkazmipk.com/achieving-food-security-6/

Fighting Without Fighting: Super Powers Wage War by Other Means

Wars are no longer fought only on battlefields. The twenty-first century has transformed the nature of conflict: the weapons are now economic sanctions, cyberattacks, and proxy alliances, while the targets are national economies and public perceptions. The art of modern warfare lies not in destroying armies but in destabilizing societies. This is the new face of power — fighting without fighting.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union perfected the strategy of indirect confrontation. They waged proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, where others fought on their behalf. That same philosophy now defines global politics once again. Today’s superpowers — primarily the United States, China, and Russia — prefer to engage through economic blockades, digital espionage, and information manipulation rather than direct military confrontation. The logic is simple, global integration makes total war too costly to win and too dangerous to survive.

Economic warfare has become the preferred tool. The United States uses financial sanctions and trade restrictions as strategic weapons. Russia, in turn, employs energy supplies as instruments of coercion. China manipulates market access and technology exports to shape global alignments. In this arena, a single executive order or export ban can inflict more damage than a missile strike. The global financial system has become a silent battlefield, where currencies, commodities, and credit replace tanks and artillery.

Cyber warfare adds another invisible dimension. State-backed hackers can paralyze banking systems, shut down power grids, or steal sensitive data — all without firing a shot.

The 2022–24 conflict in Ukraine, for instance, has shown how digital attacks and disinformation can amplify physical wars. The battlefield now includes social media platforms and data networks, where narratives are manufactured and public opinion is weaponized.

Meanwhile, proxy conflicts continue to shape regional politics — in the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe. These low-intensity wars allow great powers to test new technologies, weaken rivals, and expand influence without bearing the political cost of direct involvement. The blood is local, but the strategy is global.

The danger is that “war without war” is harder to detect and even harder to end. Economic sanctions, once imposed, linger for years; cyber weapons, once unleashed, spread uncontrollably. The absence of visible warfare creates a dangerous illusion of peace while societies quietly erode from within.

In this new world order, victory is no longer measured by territory captured but by systems disrupted, economies weakened, and narratives controlled. The future of conflict will not be marked by explosions but by silence — the silence of power grids failing, economies collapsing, and truths being rewritten.

The War That Will Never Be Fought — But Never End

The United States and the Soviet Union never fought a direct war, and their modern successors — Washington and Moscow — are unlikely ever to do so. Both possess nuclear arsenals capable of ending human civilization within hours, a reality that forces restraint even in the fiercest confrontations. Yet, the absence of direct warfare does not mean peace. From Korea to Ukraine, the two powers have fought shadow wars through proxies, sanctions, and propaganda — proving that while a nuclear world discourages combat, it encourages competition without limits.

The Cold War, which dominated the second half of the twentieth century, was essentially a struggle for global dominance without direct confrontation. The US and USSR armed their allies, financed revolutions, and competed for ideological influence from Asia to Latin America. Conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan became testing grounds for superpower ambitions. Each side bled indirectly, ensuring that nuclear deterrence remained intact while smaller nations paid the human cost.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many believed the Cold War had ended for good. But three decades later, the same strategic rivalry re-emerged — this time between the US and Russia. The Ukraine war has become the modern version of a Cold War battlefield. The US supplies advanced weapons, intelligence, and economic support to Kyiv, while Russia frames the conflict as a defensive war against NATO encirclement. Both powers fight fiercely, but indirectly, ensuring no direct clash between American and Russian troops.

The logic remains the same - nuclear deterrence equals survival. Direct war would mean destruction for both, leaving only proxy wars, cyber battles, and economic coercion as tools of power. Each side tests the other’s limits without crossing the line of mutual annihilation. The contest has moved from ideology to influence — from red flags and capitalism to control over energy routes, technology, and global alliances.

Even hawkish voices in Washington calling for tougher action against Moscow know the line that cannot be crossed. Sanctions may strangle economies; drones and missiles may change the battlefield; but a direct strike remains unthinkable. Moscow, too, understands this calculus. The nuclear shadow keeps both in check — unwilling to yield, yet unable to attack.

In truth, the Cold War never died; it simply evolved. The battlegrounds have changed, but the mindset remains: weaken the rival, avoid direct war, and dominate the narrative. Proxy adventurism — from Eastern Europe to cyberspace — will persist as the preferred weapon of choice. The world’s two great powers may never face each other openly, but their shadow duel ensures the war that will never be fought will also never end.