Sikh delegation meets Hafiz Naeem

LAHORE: Chief of Jamaat-e-Islami Hafiz Naeem ur Rehman has warned that if India does not refrain from aggressive actions, Pakistan will not be able to provide any guarantees of peace.
Speaking during a meeting with a Sikh delegation on Monday, he said that the Pakistani nation will not accept any compromise on the Kashmir issue and stressed that the dispute should be resolved in accordance with United Nations resolutions.
He emphasized the importance of fully implementing the Indus Waters Treaty, stating that India's water aggression must be dealt with decisively and permanently.
The Sikh delegation expressed happiness over Pakistan's recent strategic success and appreciated Jamaat-e-Islami's firm stance.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Express Tribune

4 hours ago

• Express Tribune

Global reaction to US attack on Iran's nuclear sites

US forces attacked three Iranian nuclear sites, prompting a wide range of international reactions — from Israel praising President Donald Trump's decision, to the United Nations urging de-escalation, while Iran and several other nations strongly condemned the strikes. Pakistan condemns US strikes on Iran Pakistan condemned the United States for launching strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, calling the move a violation of international law and warning it could further destabilise the region. 🔊PR No.1️⃣8️⃣2️⃣/2️⃣0️⃣2️⃣5️⃣ Pakistan Condemns the US Attacks on the Nuclear Facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. 🔗⬇️ — Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Pakistan (@ForeignOfficePk) June 22, 2025 The US attacks come on the 10th day of the Israel-Iran war, sparked by Israel's wave of strikes in Iran on June 13th, escalating fears of broader regional escalation. Islamabad expressed grave concern over the rising tensions and urged all parties to refrain from further aggression. Read: Netanyahu seeks support for Iran strikes as Trump mulls US attack 'within two weeks' 'These attacks violate all norms of international law. Iran has the legitimate right to defend itself under the UN Charter,' Pakistan's Foreign Office said in a statement. Terming the situation 'deeply disturbing,' the statement warned that the 'unprecedented escalation of violence' could have far-reaching implications beyond the Middle East. Iranian FM Abbas Araqchi: "The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the (nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) by attacking Iran's peaceful nuclear installations. The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Every member of the UN must be alarmed by this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behaviour. Following the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defence, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interests, and people." Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu: "Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history... History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime the world's most dangerous weapons." Maryam Rajavi, head of the National Council of Resistance of Iran in Paris: "Now [Iranian Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei must go. The Iranian people welcome the end of the war and are calling for peace and freedom." "Khamenei is responsible for an unpatriotic project that, beyond the loss of countless lives, has cost the Iranian people at least $2 trillion — and now, it has all gone up in smoke." European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: "Iran must never acquire the bomb." "With tensions in the Middle East reaching a new peak, stability must be the priority. Respect for international law is essential." "This is the time for Iran to commit to a credible diplomatic path. The negotiating table is the only route to resolve this crisis." Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair of Russia's Security Council: "Trump, who entered office branding himself a peacemaker, has now launched a new war for the United States." "With this kind of outcome, Trump will not be winning the Nobel Peace Prize." French FM Jean-Noël Barrot, on X: "France remains convinced that a lasting resolution to this issue requires a negotiated settlement within the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty." British PM Keir Starmer: "Iran's nuclear programme poses a serious threat to international security. Iran must never be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon, and the United States has taken action to address that threat. The situation in the Middle East remains highly volatile, and regional stability is of utmost importance. We urge Iran to return to the negotiating table and pursue a diplomatic solution to end this crisis." UN Secretary-General António Guterres: "This marks a dangerous escalation in a region already on the brink—and represents a direct threat to international peace and security. The risk that this conflict could spiral out of control is growing, with potentially catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world. I urge Member States to de-escalate and uphold their obligations under the UN Charter and international law." United Arab Emirates FM, via state news agency: The United Arab Emirates expressed deep concern over the ongoing regional tensions and the targeting of Iranian nuclear facilities. It called for an immediate halt to the escalation to prevent dangerous repercussions and a descent into further instability. The Ministry urged the United Nations and the Security Council to take responsibility by working actively to resolve longstanding regional issues, which it said now pose an increasing threat to both regional and global security and stability. Qatari FM, on X: The State of Qatar expressed regret over the worsening situation following the bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities and said it is closely monitoring developments with deep concern. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned that the current levels of tension in the region could lead to catastrophic consequences at both the regional and international levels. Japanese PM Shigeru Ishiba, to reporters: "It is vital that there is a swift de-escalation of the conflict. We are monitoring the situation closely and with serious concern." Italian FM Antonia Tajani, on state broadcaster Rai: "We now hope that, following this attack—which caused substantial damage to nuclear weapons production and posed a threat to the entire region—de-escalation can begin, and Iran can return to the negotiating table." New Zealand FM Winston Peters: "We acknowledge the developments over the past 24 hours, including President Trump's announcement of US strikes on nuclear facilities in Iran. The continuation of military action in the Middle East is deeply troubling. It is essential to avoid further escalation. New Zealand strongly supports diplomatic efforts and urges all parties to return to the negotiating table. Diplomacy offers a more lasting solution than continued military engagement." Australian Government Spokesperson, in a statement: "We have consistently stated that Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programmes pose a threat to international peace and security. We note the US President's statement that now is the time for peace. The security situation in the region remains highly volatile. We continue to call for de-escalation, dialogue, and diplomacy." Mexican FM, on X: The Ministry urgently called for diplomatic dialogue to promote peace between the parties involved in the Middle East conflict. In line with Mexico's constitutional principles of foreign policy and its long-standing pacifist stance, it reiterated its appeal for a de-escalation of tensions in the region. Venezuelan FM Yvan Gil, on Telegram: "Venezuela condemns the US military aggression against Iran and demands the immediate cessation of hostilities. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela strongly and unequivocally condemns the airstrikes carried out by US forces on nuclear facilities in Iran." Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel: "We strongly condemn the US bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities, which represents a dangerous escalation of the conflict in the Middle East. This act of aggression seriously violates the UN Charter and international law, and thrusts humanity into a crisis with potentially irreversible consequences."

Express Tribune

8 hours ago

• Express Tribune

Nuclear cynicism in the age of impunity

Once again, the world is watching a conflict unfold beneath the shadow of an eerily familiar warning. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq on the unproven claim that Saddam Hussein possessed a stockpile of weapons — including some allegedly capable of mass destruction. The inspection process was cut short. Intelligence — later debunked — was presented to mislead the United Nations. What followed was a war that shattered Iraq, leaving its cities gutted and its people abandoned in the wreckage of a conflict built on deception. Two decades later, the script feels hauntingly familiar. The stage, this time, is Iran. With Gaza reduced to rubble and more than 55,000 Palestinians killed by Israeli bombardment, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has seized the moment to pursue a long-standing ambition — open confrontation with Iran, Israel's regional and ideological nemesis. The justification — once again — is framed as preemption — an effort, he claims, to dismantle Tehran's nuclear ambitions before they can materialise. But if history is repeating itself, it is doing so with chilling acceleration — bypassing debate, diplomacy, and even the veneer of deliberation. Just the strike. This was no impulsive act born of ideology alone. Israel's attack on Iran was calculated — timed to shift the narrative just as international outrage over its Gaza campaign reached fever pitch. Tehran, meanwhile, still clung to the illusion that diplomacy might yet succeed, despite the nuclear deal's collapse following Donald Trump's unilateral withdrawal from the Obama-brokered accord. Netanyahu's action has effectively brought the region to the edge of a broader war, and its reverberations could echo for years. The strike undermines the foundations of the international rules-based order, eroding what little faith remains in the global norms designed to check unilateral aggression. Once again, international law appears to flex around Israel — carving out a dangerous exception. Experts warn that the implications of Israel's attack could echo far beyond the Middle East. If allowed to stand, the strike risks encouraging other states to abandon diplomacy, forsake negotiation, and adopt a similar playbook — one that recasts preemptive assault as legitimate security policy. The outcome, some argue, could make the vision of nuclear non-proliferation a fantasy in an increasingly polarised world. 'Israel's attack on Iran is unprovoked and a violation of the prohibition on the use of force under the UN Charter and customary international law,' said Dr Ben Saul, Challis Professor of International Law at the University of Sydney. Dr Ashok Swain, professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University in Sweden, shared that concern. The strike, he said, came despite assessments from global intelligence agencies and the UN indicating no imminent nuclear threat — an act that not only invalidates the strike's rationale but weakens the credibility of diplomacy itself. 'For states that might have otherwise trusted negotiation frameworks,' Swain said, 'this sends a clear message: that even compliance and transparency may not shield them from military action by powerful states or their allies.' On the other hand, the risk, he warned, is that such actions could incentivise covert nuclear development, as states conclude that an actual deterrent may provide greater protection than international assurances ever could. The strike, then, chips away at an already fragile global non-proliferation regime and could inflame arms races in unstable regions. Erosion of international law A week ago, the Middle East became more volatile, and the world woke up to it in absolute shock. Israel had launched strikes on what it claimed were Iranian nuclear facilities, citing self-defence. Diplomatic statements poured out from Western capitals — some cautiously worded, others subtly endorsing the act. Yet for legal scholars like Dr Saul from the University of Sydney — this was not just another turn in a turbulent regional rivalry. It was a rupture in the international legal order. While Israel has not disclosed operational details, satellite imagery indicates a strike on Iranian infrastructure possibly linked to its nuclear programme. Tel Aviv framed the attack as a preemptive necessity. Some Western leaders even called it 'legitimate' self-defence. But Saul is unequivocal — international law does not permit such reasoning. 'You can only use force in self-defence if an armed attack is already happening or imminent,' he explained. 'Preventive or anticipatory self-defence — against a speculative future threat — has been rejected for decades.' The principle was tested in 2003, when the US invaded Iraq citing Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD arsenal. Then, as now, much of the international community dismissed the legal basis. The difference today, Saul argues, is that erosion of the legal norm now feels more permanent. What's deeply troubling, he said, is the way Western democracies are beginning to entertain these justifications. Germany, France, Australia, the US — some of these nations are now quietly legitimising a legal stance they'd never accept from adversaries. From the bombing of Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981 to Syria in 2007, Israel's preemptive attacks have long been a feature of its security doctrine. But the stakes are now far higher — not just because Iran is the target, but because the assault comes amid broader regional instability — a ferocious war in Gaza, surging settler violence in the West Bank, and an increasingly extremist Israeli government. 'Israel is behaving as if it's above the law,' Saul said. 'Public opinion has also moved. There's growing support inside Israel for more aggressive actions. And without meaningful accountability from the West, there's no restraint.' In this vacuum, Israel has expanded settlements, strangled Gaza, and carried out repeated strikes in Syria, Lebanon — and now Iran. US pressure, once the only serious check on Israeli escalation, has faded into symbolic measures: a delayed arms shipment here, a token sanction there. 'We didn't see this permissiveness when Russia invaded Ukraine,' Saul said. 'Or during apartheid South Africa. The West's leniency with Israel is extraordinary. It's about geopolitical interests, not principle.' These legal precedents are not academic footnotes — they are the scaffolding of a global order painstakingly assembled after the horrors of fascism and empire. If the foundational idea — that might does not make right — crumbles, so too do the protections smaller nations rely on. 'Before 1945, the world was ruled by conquest and colonisation,' Saul warned. 'Without legal limits, powerful states will act with impunity. That leads to conflict, instability, and weapons proliferation.' Israel's own undeclared nuclear arsenal — estimated at around 90 warheads —only amplifies the danger. Saul notes that this secret, open to all, has long nudged states like Iran toward seeking their own deterrent. Paradoxically, Israel's overwhelming advantage makes the notion of an Iranian first strike implausible. 'Iran's leadership isn't suicidal,' he said. 'If they ever acquire a weapon — and that's still hypothetical — they know it would trigger annihilation. Between Israel's nuclear stockpile and America's backing, it's absurd to think Tehran would launch an attack.' Even Western intelligence doesn't support Israel's alarmism. US assessments have repeatedly found that Iran has not made the political decision to build a bomb. Israeli claims say otherwise. But the legal bar for anticipatory self-defence is far higher than mere suspicion — it requires proof of imminent danger. 'Israel's claim doesn't meet that threshold,' Saul said. 'There's no active attack. No imminent threat. No intention to deploy a weapon. This isn't self-defence. It's aggression.' Observers see strategic timing in the strike. With Netanyahu's popularity nosediving over Gaza and Trump's potential return boosting the Israeli far right, the Iran assault could serve domestic and regional aims alike. Saul recognised the pattern. 'Israel seized the moment,' he said. 'Iran is weakened — by sanctions, unrest, and proxy setbacks.' 'This is bigger than Israel and Iran,' Saul warned. 'If bombing based on speculation is legitimised, the global legal order is already fracturing.' View from Israel As Israeli jets roared across Iranian skies, Dr Ori Goldberg cautioned that the operation was less about deterrence than impunity. 'Israel doesn't want regional war,' he said. 'It wants impunity.' A scholar of Middle Eastern studies with a focus on Iran, Goldberg is no distant observer. He is Israeli, Jewish, and deeply rooted in the state whose actions he now critiques. His words cut through diplomatic hedging with sharp precision. What Israel wants, Goldberg said, is full discretion to strike wherever, whenever, and whomever it chooses — and to pay no price. The official rationale for the strike — an alleged acceleration in Iran's nuclear programme — doesn't convince Goldberg. 'Even the IAEA didn't suggest anything urgent,' he said. 'Netanyahu himself said this was about intentions, not capabilities.' He sees the strike as a political deflection — away from Gaza, where Netanyahu's strategy has stalled. 'This wasn't about Iran. It was about Gaza,' Goldberg said. 'Israel had no more cards to play in Gaza — only more blood. It needed to shift the world's gaze.' This, he believes, is Netanyahu's calculation: to recast Israel, mired in a catastrophic campaign, as a global sentinel against Iranian menace. 'Forget the bodies in Gaza, the message says. Now we're fighting the righteous fight. Back us — or back the mullahs.' The pattern What the world witnessed, according to Swain of Uppsala University, follows a time-worn script. 'Netanyahu's doctrine of preemptive strikes — widely echoed in the West as self-defence — has long been about political opportunism,' Swain said. 'For over thirty years, he's warned that Iran is on the verge of building a bomb. Yet Israeli and international intelligence have consistently contradicted that.' This narrative, Swain argues, is instrumentalised — to consolidate power, attract global backing, and deflect attention from occupation and domestic upheaval. 'By striking Iran now, in the absence of any nuclear threat Netanyahu silences critics, taps into Western anxieties, and frames aggression as defence.' Goldberg finds the legal defence of "preventive self-defence" especially pernicious. 'There's no 'they-deserved-it' clause in international law,' he said. 'This isn't defence. It's a doctrine of moral supremacy.' He described the Israeli worldview as underpinned by a simple binary: 'We are good, Iran is bad — because we are good and Iran is bad.' Such logic, he said, strips away nuance and sanctifies unilateral violence. Goldberg is particularly scathing of Netanyahu's reliance on religious metaphors. 'Holocaust imagery. Moses. Divine destiny. It's grotesque,' he said. 'As a Jew, I'm ashamed.' The nuclear issue, he insists, is a smokescreen. 'This isn't about centrifuges,' he said. 'It's about proving Israel can act with impunity.' A nuclear Iran According to Goldberg — and backed by recent US assessments, despite Trump's denials — Iran is far from building a bomb. Iran's compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal was repeatedly verified until the US abandoned it. 'Iran kept its word,' Goldberg noted. 'Trump broke the deal. Now Israel pretends Iran is the destabiliser?' Without exonerating Tehran, he said: 'If Iran chooses to go nuclear, it'll be a political decision — and a dangerous one. But it's a response to sanctions, assassinations, sabotage — not a spontaneous escalation.' Adding to Goldberg's assessment, Swain said: 'The strike sends a chilling message — compliance offers no safety. That may lead to covert proliferation.' Goldberg believes Israel's strategy misjudges Iran's domestic dynamics. 'Iranians who once opposed the hardliners now rally behind them,' he said. 'Even those critical of the regime are patriotic. Under attack, they unite.' The Israeli support system Despite assumptions of enduring alliances, Goldberg sees Israel increasingly isolated. 'It stands more alone today than at any point in recent memory,' he said. 'Even Saudi Arabia and the UAE condemned the strike.' He takes those condemnations seriously. 'They're not posturing. They're afraid. Israel has shown it can strike without warning — even at its partners. That terrifies them.' Taking aim at the West's enabling role, Swain remarked: 'They've provided military aid, diplomatic cover, arms transfers, and rhetorical support. This isn't mere complicity — it's active facilitation.' Referring to German leader Friedrich Merz's claim that Israel is doing the West's dirty work, he added: 'That's a tacit admission of outsourced coercion. It entrenches cycles of violence, erodes Western credibility, and deepens resentment across the Global South.' The Trump variable Goldberg is under no illusions about Washington's centrality. The US is both a supplier and potential restraint. As for Trump, Goldberg is sceptical: 'He's no peacemaker. He's chaotic, narcissistic. But he hasn't jumped in yet. That's deliberate.' The US president, according to Goldberg, is calculating. 'If escalation benefits him, he'll escalate. If not, he'll stay silent.' But time, Goldberg said, isn't on Netanyahu's side. 'The longer the US keeps out, the harder it'll be to draw it in.'

Express Tribune

12 hours ago

• Express Tribune

FO assails Amit Shah for 'weaponising water'

Listen to article Pakistan on Saturday slammed India's Home Minister Amit Shah's "brazen disregard" for international agreements after the latter said New Delhi would never restore the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Islamabad. "We will take water that was flowing to Pakistan to Rajasthan by constructing a canal. Pakistan will be starved of water that it has been getting unjustifiably," Shah said in an interview with Times of India on Saturday. Responding to Shah's comments, Foreign Office spokesperson Shafqat Ali Khan said they reflected "a brazen disregard for the sanctity of international agreements" and noted that the IWT is an apolitical agreement without provisions for unilateral action. India put into "abeyance" its participation in the 1960 treaty, which governs the usage of the Indus river system, after 26 civilians in IIOJK were killed. "India's illegal announcement to hold the treaty in abeyance constitutes a clear violation of international law, the provisions of the treaty itself, and the fundamental principles governing inter-state relations," the Foreign Office stated. "Such conduct sets a reckless and dangerous precedent — one that undermines the credibility of international agreements and raises serious questions about the reliability and trustworthiness of a state that openly refuses to fulfil its legal obligations." The statement added that "weaponising water for political ends" is irresponsible and contrary to the behaviour of a responsible state. It demanded that India immediately restore the full implementation of the IWT. "For its part, Pakistan remains firmly committed to the treaty and will take all necessary measures to protect its legitimate rights and entitlements under it," the statement concluded. The latest comments from Shah, the most powerful cabinet minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi's cabinet, have dimmed Islamabad's hopes for negotiations on the treaty in the near term. Last month, Reuters reported that India plans to dramatically increase the water it draws from a major river that feeds Pakistani farms downstream, as part of retaliatory action. "No, it will never be restored," Shah told The Times of India earlier today. "We will take water that was flowing to Pakistan to Rajasthan by constructing a canal. Pakistan will be starved of water that it has been getting unjustifiably." The latest comments from Shah, the most powerful cabinet minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi's cabinet, reveal Delhi's intentions as Islamabad hopes for negotiations on the treaty in the near term.