DawnMedia is organising the second edition of The Breathe Pakistan International Climate Change Conference in Islamabad today.

Despite contributing minimally to global emissions, Pakistan remains among the most climate-vulnerable nations, underscoring the critical need for coordinated, locally grounded, and globally informed responses.

The two-day conference brings together policymakers, experts, and stakeholders from across sectors to examine intersecting challenges and chart a path forward.

The first edition of Breathe Pakistan sparked national dialogue and global collaboration around vital climate challenges — from climate justice and finance to renewable energy transitions, disaster risk reduction, and inclusive public-private partnerships.

View the full agenda here.

10:25am: Musadik Malik highlights impact of global emissions

Speaking on the impact of air pollution on life expectancy, Climate Change Minister Musadik Malik highlighted that Pakistan did not even contribute 1pc to global carbon dioxide emissions.

He further pointed out that 10 countries produced about 78pc of the global emissions, quipping that those facing the impact of climate change in Gilgit-Baltistan were not the ones responsible for it.

“Is this about rights or justice or political will, and even our political will, not just international?” he wondered.

10:17am - UN official says cost to build resilience is growing

Mohamed Yahya, the UN resident and humanitarian coordinator in Pakistan, has said that the cost to build resilience is growing and financing is “nowhere to be seen”.

He said that in the global debate, there was a tendency to frame countries like Pakistan as “victims of climate change”. He said that while it was true, Pakistan was also a “test case for solutions”.

“If progress is to be accelerated, especially in a country like Pakistan, it will send a powerful signal to the world,” he said.

10:14am - UN official says execution is major challenge to tackling climate challenge

Mohamed Yahya, the UN resident and humanitarian coordinator in Pakistan, in his keynote address, said that Pakistan has witnessed constant floods that cost billions of dollars. He said that the losses every year were probably equal to the IMF programme. He also pointed to the high temperature in Karachi on Monday.

“The constraints and the challenges overall is one of execution … we are seeing very little implementation,” he said.

10:05am - World Bank official recognises Pakistan’s efforts to tackle climate change

S. Adeel Abbas, the regional climate lead at the World Bank Group, has acknowledged the government’s commitment and policy toward tackling climate change.

“I work on 24 countries in the region on climate change. I think Pakistan is among one of those countries that have set the agenda right,” he said, calling for moving toward action.

He said that the World Bank was supporting various climate projects in Pakistan.

9:56am - Sherry Rehman asks why the cost of conflict is not being counted

“Why is the cost of conflict not being counted? That carbon footprint is missing,” PPP Senator Sherry Rehman said. She said that geopolitics was “devouring the future”.

9:53am - PPP Senator Sherry Rehman says conflicts are costing the environment

PPP Senator Sherry Rehman said that “conflicts are costing the environment much more than we know, compute or understand”. She said that there were more than 60 active conflicts in the world.

She also said that data on this was missing. She also said that there was very little discussion on the impact of these wars on the environment.

9:50am - PPP Senator Sherry Rehman highlights gap between action and ambition

PPP Senator Sherry Rehman, in her keynote address, said, “All state climate action … there is a splintered, fragmented movement”.

“While the global crisis is staggering, what is equally devastating is the state of the global movement itself. It is defunded and derided,” she said.

9:47am - Dawn CEO calls for shift in priorities at home

Dawn CEO Nazafreen Saigol Lakhani has called for shifting priorities at home.

“Pakistan must place far greater emphasis on adaptation,” she said, adding that this was not enough.

“At the global level, climate finance must be rebalanced to reflect the reality on the ground, not just global ambition. Adaptation needs to sit alongside mitigation, not behind it,” she said.

“At the same time, we must be disciplined in how we manage the energy transition. We need to scale renewables without constraining growth, invest in modernising our grid, and ensure that transition financing supports development rather than creating unsustainable debt burdens,” she said.

9:44am - Dawn CEO says urgency for Pakistan is immediate

Dawn CEO Nazafreen Saigol Lakhani has said that no single actor can address the challenge of climate change alone.

“Governments provide policy direction and frameworks. The private sector drives investment, innovation, and execution. Communities bring lived experience and accountability. Media plays a critical role in informing the public, shaping discourse, and holding all stakeholders accountable. Real progress depends on aligning these roles into a coherent whole,” she said.

“For Pakistan, this urgency is immediate, and it sits alongside deep economic and development pressures that are already shaping national priorities. Decisions made today on energy, infrastructure, agriculture, and urbanisation will define not just our climate resilience, but the direction of our economic future,” she said.

9:42am - Dawn CEO says climate change threat to Pakistan’s economic stability

“Pakistan is among the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world, facing increasingly severe floods, heatwaves, water stress, and dangerously poor air quality. These are no longer abstract risks or rare phenomena; they are recurring shocks,” Dawn CEO Nazafreen Saigol Lakhani said.

“Behind every statistic showing up on our screens are real lives. Farmers are losing entire harvests, families are forced to leave their homes, children are growing up in hazardous air, and communities are rebuilding after each disaster only to face the next one,” she said.

She said that climate change was not just an environmental crisis.

“It is a threat to Pakistan’s economic stability, public health, and the country’s development trajectory. And the burden is not shared equally,” she said.

9:40am - Dawn CEO delivers opening remarks

Dawn CEO Nazafreen Saigol Lakhani addressed the second edition of the Breathe Pakistan International Climate Change Conference. In her remarks, she said that the platform had grown into “an important space for dialogue, collaboration and action on one of the defining challenges of our time”.

“When we first convened this platform in 2025, we did so with a clear belief that climate change is no longer a distant threat. It is not a conversation for tomorrow. It is a lived reality for Pakistan, for South Asia, and for millions across the globe. Today, as we gather again, that reality has only intensified,” she said.

9:34am - 2-day conference begins

The two-day conference has officially begun. It is being held at the Sheesh Mahal Hall of Serena Hotel, Islamabad. The conference began with the national anthem and the recitation of the Holy Quran.

A man accused of murdering 15 people in an anti-Semitic mass shooting at Australia’s Bondi Beach is facing a raft of fresh charges, court records released on Wednesday showed.

Naveed Akram is accused of opening fire as families thronged Bondi Beach for a Hanukkah celebration in December.

The 24-year-old has already been charged with dozens of serious crimes, including 15 murders and committing an act of terrorism.

Court records showed he is now facing 19 additional charges, including multiple counts of shooting with intent to murder, wounding with intent to murder, and discharging a firearm with intent to resist arrest.

Akram, who is being held in a high-security prison, is yet to indicate how he will plead.

His father and alleged co-conspirator Sajid, 50, was shot and killed by police during the assault.

The charges were released after a sweeping inquiry opened public hearings into Australia’s deadliest mass shooting for 30 years.

“The sharp spike of anti-Semitism that we have witnessed in Australia has been mirrored in other Western countries and seems clearly linked to events in the Middle East,” inquiry chief Virginia Bell said in opening remarks earlier this week.

“It’s important that people understand how quickly those events can prompt ugly displays of hostility towards Jewish Australians simply because they are Jews.”

The mass shooting has sparked national soul-searching about anti-Semitism and widespread anger over the failure to shield Jewish Australians from harm.

Australia announced a suite of gun law reforms following the shootings, including a nationwide gun buyback scheme.

‘Meticulously planned’

The buyback scheme has since stalled as the federal government struggles to convince Australia’s states and territories to sign on.

Naveed Akram was flagged by Australia’s intelligence agency in 2019, but he slipped off the radar after it decided that he posed no imminent threat.

Police documents released following the attack said he and his father had carried out “firearms training” in what was believed to be the New South Wales countryside prior to the shooting.

They said the suspects “meticulously planned” the attack for months, releasing pictures showing them firing shotguns and moving in what they described as a “tactical manner”.

The pair also recorded a video in October railing against “Zionists” while sitting in front of a flag of the Islamic State and detailing their motivations for the attack, police said.

A year ago, Pakistan was engaged in a military conflict with India, dealing the boastful neighbour an internationally recognised “clear setback”.

The conflict with India, starting from the April 22 Pahalgam attack to the end of Operation Bunyanum Marsoos, with a ceasefire ending a military escalation between the two countries on May 10, has been called “Marka-i-Haq” (Battle of Truth) by the state.

But from the night of May 6 to May 10, the drums of war were echoing loudly across South Asia as the nuclear-armed arch-rivals exchanged missiles, raising global alarm over the risk of unpredictable escalation.

Dawn retraces the period of military hostilities, recounting not just the decisive moments etched in history, but the less-noticed developments that shaped the news cycle at the time.

May 6

With exchange of fire on the Line of Control (LoC) beginning on April 26 — bringing tensions between India and Pakistan to an alarming level — the armed forces were prepared with their full might for what was to come.

This was reflected in Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s visit to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) headquarters on May 6.

“We are ready for them everywhere at all times,” said Defence Minister Khawaja Asif hours later, cautioning that a clash with India “can happen anytime”.

May 7

Shortly after midnight, the military’s spokesman, Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR) Director General Lt Gen Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, confirmed that India carried out missile strikes at Bahawalpur, Muridke, Narowal and Sialkot in Punjab, and Muzaffarabad and Kotli in AJK.

Those attacks, which killed at least 31 Pakistani civilians and left many others injured, did not go unanswered.

What unfolded next did not merely showcase the Pakistan Air Force’s (PAF) battle capabilities but also became a potential case study for militaries worldwide.

By dawn, Pakistan had shot down at least five Indian jets — a figure later raised to seven. These included at least three Rafale fighter jets — the pride of the Indian Air Force (IAF).

The US, which ended up brokering peace between the nuclear-armed neighbours, immediately activated its diplomatic channels. President Donald Trump hoped the fighting would end “very quickly”.

Then came a press briefing by the DG ISPR, detailing the extent of the Indian strikes’ damage and Pakistan’s response in self-defence to the “uncalled-for aggression”.

Top-level huddles were underway in Islamabad, where the prime minister, the three services chiefs and the newly appointed national security adviser (NSA) were attending a meeting of the National Security Committee (NSC).

The NSC authorised the military to “undertake corresponding actions”.

Across the border, the New Delhi was busy broadcasting its narrative, with its military officials briefing the media on the strikes carried out as part of “Operation Sindoor”.

In China, defence-manufacturing companies enjoyed rallying stocks amid widely believed reports — later confirmed — that the PAF shot down India’s Rafales using Chinese J-10C jets.

In the skies, pilots had to divert their planes onto alternative routes as airlines scrambled to avoid flying over the conflict zone.

This was also the day when perhaps X no longer posed enough of a threat to national security, as the ban imposed on it since Feb 17, 2024, was finally lifted.

Pakistan and India also engaged in cyber warfare. Besides foiling cyber attacks, Islamabad responded to New Delhi’s social media blockade by restricting access to Indian videos and websites.

Rare political unity was seen in Sindh as workers from various political parties took part in a solidarity rally organised by the PPP.

In the evening, PM Shehbaz and Deputy PM Ishaq Dar delivered firm speeches before the National Assembly (NA), with the prime minister also appearing on television later that night to address the nation.

Punjab invoked ‘War Book’ protocols for maximum preparedness and took measures to ensure public safety.

By then, New Delhi had started its preparations for Pakistan’s expected retaliation. The Indian capital went dark when power was cut off for an emergency drill.

At 10pm, about 12 hours after his earlier press briefing, the DG ISPR provided an updated toll of casualties from the Indian strikes. Meanwhile, Trump offered his help in calming down tensions.

May 8

The second day of the conflict, in the words of the DG ISPR, marked a “serious provocation” as India sent 25 Israeli-made Harop drones into Pakistan — all of which the military said it intercepted.

While Dar said at this point that the Pakistani and Indian NSAs had spoken to each other, a day later the DG ISPR said no direct communication had taken place. Regardless, firing across the LoC had continued overnight, while Indian cities witnessed blackouts as part of a nationwide civil defence drill.

The conflict’s impact extended to the country’s south, with an Indian drone falling on the outskirts of Karachi and in villages in Sindh near the border. One drone crashed near the Rawalpindi Cricket Stadium, the venue of the then-underway Pakistan Super League’s tenth edition, resulting in the death of a vendor.

An Indian drone “managed to engage in a military target near Lahore”, injuring four army personnel, DG ISPR Chaudhry said.

With drones hovering in the skies, flights from major airports largely remained suspended. In India, around 27 airports were closed, with the Delhi airport alone seeing as many as 90 flight cancellations.

After India’s strikes the previous day and a barrage of drones, Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar insisted it was not their “intention to escalate the situation”, and warned Pakistan against retaliating. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh expressed New Delhi’s willingness for dialogue.

In Islamabad, PM Shehbaz endorsed the NSC’s decisions made a day earlier.

Meanwhile, the NA witnessed a rare moment of the treasury and opposition benches being on the same page, as the PTI expressed its clear support for the armed forces.

Speaking on the NA floor, Information Minister Attaullah Tarar said Pakistani forces killed “40 to 50 Indian soldiers” across the LoC.

At this point, the US’s mediation efforts were publicly acknowledged by the defence minister, who said Washington was leading efforts to reduce tensions between Pakistan and India.

This was followed by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s separate phone calls to PM Shehbaz and Jaishankar, wherein he urged both sides to de-escalate. This was reiterated by the US State Department hours later, which said the US was “engaged with both governments at multiple levels”.

Interestingly, US Vice President JD Vance called for “de-escalation” but also said that the conflict between neighbours was “fundamentally none of our business”.

After a long day, Dar and DG ISPR held a joint press conference, with the former accusing India of “deliberate” attacks in its Punjab province to “falsely implicate Pakistan”. The number of drones neutralised by Pakistan was now 29.

Sate media said the armed forces also dealt heavy damage to an Indian battalion headquarters in occupied Kashmir.

Alongside the on-ground skirmishes, the misinformation and disinformation warfare was already underway. The information minister promptly refuted “fake and concocted stories” about India downing PAF F-16 and JF-17 jets, as well as claims of a Pakistani pilot being in their custody.

“Get out of [your] B-tier Bollywood mindset,” he quipped.

May 9

The drone incursions continued on Friday. By 1pm, Pakistan’s defence systems had shot down another 49 drones sent by its eastern neighbour, taking the total tally to 77.

The LoC remained very active, with Indian shelling killing at least five civilians and Pakistan destroying three Indian posts in response. Amid a war-like situation, civil defence drills were conducted in Punjab.

In the afternoon, leaders across the political spectrum slammed India’s actions as they spoke on the NA floor. The defence minister contended that New Delhi planned to detect the locations of sensitive sites inside Pakistan through its drone flights.

The ongoing drone attacks prompted the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) to postpone the remaining eight PSL matches. New Delhi also suspended the Indian Premier League (IPL) for one week.

Meanwhile, DPM Dar was busy conveying Pakistan’s stance as he spoke on the phone with various counterparts, including the United Kingdom’s foreign secretary.

The Foreign Office, in its weekly press briefing, called out India’s “irresponsible, unlawful and belligerent conduct” that “brought the two nuclear-armed states closer to a major conflict”.

In the evening, the now-familiar trio of DG ISPR, Air Vice Marshal Aurangzeb Ahmed and Vice Admiral Raja Rab Nawaz held a joint press briefing. The number of civilian casualties from Indian attacks had now risen to 33, with 76 injured.

Lt Gen Chaudhry highlighted that India had still not given any evidence regarding its allegations against Pakistan on the Pahalgam attack, while AVM Aurangzeb provided a reconstruction of how the PAF shot down Indian jets on May 7.

Despite the ongoing escalation, backchannel diplomacy continued. Later that night, the White House confirmed that Rubio was in constant contact with leaders in Islamabad and New Delhi.

May 10

Saturday was busy for everyone — from the personnel on the defence frontlines to journalists sifting through the barrage of reports, and from top global leaders to those involved in relaying diplomatic messages.

Things escalated pretty early on. Shortly after 3am, the DG ISPR confirmed that India targeted three PAF bases, located in Rawalpindi, Chakwal and Shorkot.

The majority of the missiles were intercepted and all PAF assets remained safe. But this did not mean that India’s “madness”, as per the military spokesperson, would go unanswered.

What followed was a thundering response from Pakistan, dubbed Operation Bunyanum Marsoos (concrete structure).

Over a span of about 12 hours, the armed forces targeted multiple strategic and military sites in India and occupied Kashmir, destroying the S-400 missile system in Adampur and a storage site of the Brahmos missiles in Beas, among other targets.

The retaliatory attacks targeted at least 26 locations, India acknowledged, adding that at least five airbases suffered damage to “equipment and personnel”.

In the morning, state media reported that PM Shehbaz had called a meeting of the National Command Authority (NCA), which is responsible for making operational decisions on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. However, hours later, the defence minister said the nuclear option was “not on the cards” at the moment.

In between these developments, Rubio spoke separately with Chief of the Army Staff Gen Asim Munir and Dar, offering US assistance in talks for de-escalation.

Rubio also spoke with Jaishankar, emphasising the need to identify methods to de-escalate.

Pakistan’s airspace remained off-limits for all types of flights. There were also reports of cyber attacks continuing, with Indian websites being hacked.

Following active US diplomatic efforts, at around 5pm, Trump announced that both India and Pakistan had agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire.

The cessation of hostilities, effective 4:30pm PKT, was confirmed by both countries. Subsequently, air traffic across Pakistan resumed later that night.

A day of intense military activity finished off with statements from across the globe hailing peace as the brief conflict finally came to an end.

Header image: Illustration made on Canva using file photos of Rafale and J-10C fighter jets sourced via Reuters.

• Bench acquits four appellants from terrorism charge; commutes life term awarded in 2024 into time served
• Court asks IGP to find out what ‘compelled police to conduct a weak investigation in this very high-profile case’

KARACHI: While commuting the life term of four appellants into the period they have already undergone in jail, the Sindh High Court on Tuesday ruled that the targeted killing of former Muttahida Qaumi Movement-Pakistan (MQM-P) MNA Ali Raza Abidi did not fall within the definition of terrorism.

A two-judge bench headed by Justice Omar Sial passed this order while hearing appeals of convicts Muhammad Farooq, Muhammad Ghazali, Abu Bakar and Abdul Haseeb against their life term by an anti-terrorism court (ATC).

In April 2024, the ATC had sentenced them to life in prison for facilitating absconding accused in the killing of the MQM-P leader in December 2018 outside his Defence Housing Authority home.

The bench acquitted the appellants from the charge of terrorism and the life term awarded under the Pakistan Penal Code by the ATC was commuted to the period they have already served.

In its verdict, the bench stated that the appellants were convicted for the offence of terrorism, but no cogent evidence was produced at the trial court to show that there was an intent or design to coerce and intimidate public or create a sense of fear or insecurity in society.

It said that this was a case of targeted killing, but the motive for which was never discovered by the investigators.

It said only evidence against the appellants was their “extrajudicial confessions” recorded by police in the presence of the complainant and call date record (CDR).

It noted that alleged confessions were inadmissible in evidence as admittedly, none of the confessions was made before a judicial magistrate while there were indications of “unlawful force” having been used in their arrests and subsequent detention.

“An extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and it must be corroborated and supported before it can form a part of admissible evidence,” the bench remarked.

Regarding CDR, the bench noted that it was admissible as electronic evidence, but generally treated as circumstantial evidence rather than conclusive proof especially without accompanying call transcript or voice recordings.

The verdict said that the CDR in question was obtained through the technical branch of the Counter-Terrorism Department (CTD) and produced in the trial court on plain sheets.

“After having commented on the specifics of the case from a legal perspective and giving our observations on the evidence relied upon for the conviction, we would like to record that the Sindh Police failed completely in solving and proving this case,” it added. “The alleged actual shooters i.e. Bilal and Hasnain disappeared into thin air, and the police had nothing to say about them. No effort was made to get the shooters. Important leads like the bullet match with a pistol in an earlier case were ignored,” it added.

The bench further noted that no effort was made to record the confessions before a magistrate and a deliberate attempt appeared to have been made to avoid producing the CDR in a professional, complete and legal manner.

“The police have some brilliant and brave investigator Hasnain disappeared into thin air, and the police had nothing to say about them. No effort was made to get the shooters. Important leads like the bullet match with a pistol in an earlier case were ignored,” it said and added no effort was made to record the confessions before a magistrate and a deliberate attempt appeared to have been made to avoid producing the CDR in a professional, complete and legal manner.

“The police have some brilliant and brave investigators. What compelled the police to conduct a weak investigation in this very high-profile case must necessarily be looked into by the inspector general. People’s faith in the police must not be tarnished,” it added.

Published in Dawn, May 6th, 2026

RAMALLAH: The millionaire businessman son of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to run for a steering role in his 90-year-old father’s political party, sources say, as a succession fight looms for control of the embattled Palestinian Authority (PA).

Yasser Abbas runs tobacco and contracting firms in the parts of the Israeli-occupied West Bank where the PA exercises limited self rule. His critics have long accused him and his brother Tarek, also a businessman, of using public funds to fuel their businesses, allegations both men reject.

His foray into politics has fuelled widespread speculation within the Palestinian Territories that Mahmoud Abbas may be seeking to position Yasser, 64, to succeed him as head of his powerful Fatah party that controls the PA.

That has drawn criticism from some Fatah officials, who say that Yasser Abbas would be unable to unify Palestinians or help them chart a new political future after years without any national elections or tangible steps toward statehood.

Seat on Fatah committee

Yasser Abbas is expected to seek one of 18 seats on Fatah’s Central Committee that are being contested during a party conference in the West Bank city of Ramallah from May 14-16, its first such gathering in almost 10 years, sources familiar with his plans said.

In recent weeks, Yasser Abbas has held meetings with party factions representing the PA’s security establishment as well as groups representing prisoners held by Israel, an influential constituency whose support could bolster him when Fatah’s estimated 2,500 voting members cast ballots for the committee.

He has long joined his father in political meetings, including on a visit to Moscow last year when they met President Vladimir Putin and Egypt’s Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. Last year, his father asked him to lead Lebanon affairs for the Palestine Liberation Organisation, overseeing weapons handovers by Palestinians to the Lebanese army.

Sabri Saidam, who was elected to the Central Committee during the last Fatah conference in 2016, said the party had democratic bylaws that allow any member meeting requirements to run for the body.

“I hope to see a renewal in leadership and a renewal in the movement’s capabilities, safeguarding for a future stage that is clearly more complex and difficult,” Saidam said.

Succession fight

The PA was set up as an interim administration under the 1990s Oslo accords between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, an umbrella group still internationally recognised as the representative of the Palestinian people.

In the more than two decades since Mahmoud Abbas was elected as the successor to the charismatic Fatah founder Yasser Arafat, the PA’s public standing has sunk among Palestinians, who have grown to view it as ineffective and corrupt.

In 2007, the PA was driven out of the Gaza Strip by Hamas, who had won an election there on an anti-corruption platform. No Palestinian leadership elections have been held since, and Abbas has ruled by decree since his mandate expired in 2009.

A peace process meant to lead to the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem collapsed in 2014, and expanding Israeli settlements have since carved up areas once slated for eventual Palestinian control.

The PA has also been battered by a severe financial crisis, intensified by sharp cuts in US and Gulf donor aid and a refusal by Israel to release Palestinian tax money in a dispute over payments the PA makes to prisoners jailed by Israel for deadly attacks.

The entry into politics of Yasser Abbas further expands a succession fight for control of both the PA and the PLO.

Those viewed as possible successors to Mahmoud Abbas include Hussein Al Sheikh, his longtime confidant and vice president of the PLO. They also include Marwan Barghouti, a leader of two intifadas, or uprisings, against Israel from 1987-1993 and in the early 2000s, who enjoys great popularity among Palestinians despite being jailed by Israel since 2002 over charges including murder.

Criticism within Fatah

One Fatah leader described Yasser Abbas’ potential role on the Central Committee as “the beginning” and said he would eventually seek a role on the PLO’s top Executive Committee, giving him sway over the umbrella group.

“This seems to be what Yasser Abbas is being prepared for,” said the Fatah leader. But critics within Fatah say the elevation of Yasser Abbas, who controls one of the West Bank’s main cigarette importers, could further entrench distrust among Palestinians with their government after years without national elections.

“Abbas is trying to make holes in the Fatah ship before (his death) by installing his son as heir to the crown. This should be confronted and rejected by all Fatah men,” said another senior Fatah official.

Reham Owda, a Palestinian political analyst, said that while Abbas may be able to help promote his son within Fatah, there is no guarantee that holding a position within the party would translate into success at the polls if and when elections are held.

“This does not resolve the frustration of the Palestinian people, as no democratic elections have taken place since 2006; rather, it increases frustration, since the public is looking forward to democratic elections, legislative and presidential elections,” Owda said.

Published in Dawn, May 6th, 2026

WASHINGTON: On the first anniversary of the May 2025 India-Pakistan conflict, a growing body of commentary from US and international analysts suggests that the next such crisis between the two nuclear-armed neighbours is not only more likely, but will prove dangerous with fewer opportunities for outside powers to contain it.

In a piece published on Tuesday, The Washington Post warned that the world may be underestimating the risks. “You know the world scene is chaotic when we’re approaching the first anniversary of a shooting war between two hostile nuclear powers and very few Americans remember it,” the newspaper noted, adding that another crisis is “probably not a question of if, but when.”

The editorial described the May 2025 conflict as a new form of “non-contact” war, involving missiles, drones and air power without a ground invasion. It cautioned that both sides may now believe they can fight a limited conventional war without triggering nuclear escalation — a conclusion that could prove dangerously flawed.

WaPo also pointed to shifting diplomatic dynamics under President Donald Trump. While acknowledging that US officials “worked the phones and helped calm the situation”, it also highlighted Indian unease over Trump’s repeated claims that he brokered the ceasefire.

US media, think tanks highlight shifting diplomatic dynamics under Trump

“A strong sense of independence and sovereignty is extraordinarily important in Indian political culture,” the editorial observed, warning that strained ties could affect Washington’s ability to mediate in a future crisis.

An earlier report by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the research arm of the US Congress, drew attention to another potential flashpoint: water.

The CRS noted that “the government of India has not presented evidence of a Pakistani link to the attack,” yet responded by placing the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty “in abeyance.”

The report underscored the gravity of this move, pointing out that Islamabad considers water a “Vital National Interest” and has warned that any attempt to disrupt flows “will be considered as an Act of War.”

With around 80 per cent of Pakistan’s agriculture dependent on the Indus basin, analysts say water tensions could emerge as a parallel escalation pathway alongside military confrontation.

Environmental risks were also the focus of a recent report by the Centre for Strategic and Contemporary Research (CSCR), which argues that the consequences of conflict extend far beyond the battlefield.

“The most significant, yet often overlooked, impact of war is on the environment of the region,” the report states, warning that even a limited nuclear exchange could trigger “nuclear cooling” through the release of soot into the atmosphere. Such an event, it adds, could “cool, dry, and darken the earth for decades.”

The study cautions that an India-Pakistan nuclear conflict could disrupt global food systems, leading to a “nuclear famine” that might cause starvation on a massive scale.

Writing in Foreign Affairs, US scholar Elizabeth Threlkeld offered a more detailed look at how escalation dynamics are changing. “India and Pakistan are already using the last exchange to identify gaps to fill and advantages to exploit should fighting break out again,” she notes.

Threlkeld argues that the risk is shifting from deliberate escalation to inadvertent miscalculation. “That may reduce pressure for deliberate nuclear use, but it increases the risk of inadvertent escalation,” she writes, adding that future conflicts will likely involve “deeper strikes, shorter timelines, and new domains.”

She also cautions that Washington may struggle to respond effectively next time, particularly given friction with New Delhi. “Washington may struggle to support de-escalation in a faster-moving, unfamiliar crisis,” she warns.

On its part, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) highlighted how shifting diplomatic alignments are complicating the picture. It notes that “an additional area of tension, from India’s perspective, has resulted from Trump’s claim to have brokered a ceasefire”.

According to the institute, US-Pakistan ties have strengthened since the conflict, with high-level engagement between Washington and Pakistan’s leadership. Pakistan’s role in mediating talks related to the US-Iran crisis has further elevated its diplomatic standing, even as it fuels Indian concerns about a perceived tilt in US policy.

Taken together, these assessments point to a sobering conclusion: while the May 2025 conflict stopped short of nuclear escalation, it may have lowered the threshold for future confrontation.

Published in Dawn, May 6th, 2026

• Dar thanks Trump, Saudi and Turkish efforts towards ceasefire with India
• Asif claims country has emerged as symbol of stability, guarantor of peace in the region
• Pakistan’s ‘principled stance’ resonated, while world rejected Indian narrative for lack of credibility, Tarar maintains

ISLAMABAD: As Pakistan takes centre stage in global diplomatic efforts to end conflict in the Middle East, key leaders have highlighted how the country made significant diplomatic gains and earned recognition at the international level after defeating Indian aggression last year.

In separate engagements held to mark the first anniversary of Marka-i-Haq on Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif and Information Minister Atta Tarar acknowledged the role of the country’s armed forces, backed by the people, in defending Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Addressing ambassadors and members of the diplomatic corps at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Dar stressed that Pakistan’s response to India’s unprovoked aggression had reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence as enshrined in the UN Charter, and that regional peace could not be held hostage by the politics of hatred and division.

The deputy prime minister said the events of last year had brought the region to the brink of disaster, alleging that India’s actions followed a pattern of escalation, including unsubstantiated allegations against Pakistan and inflammatory rhetoric.

He also expressed concern over India’s unilateral decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, terming it a violation of established norms and a threat to regional stability.

He warned that any attempt to stop or divert Pakistan’s share of water would be considered an act of war, as underlined

by the National Security Committee last year, and pointed to “irregular fluctuations” in river flows, particularly in the Chenab River and Jhelum River, as evidence that New Delhi was not living up to its treaty obligations.

Dar appreciated the role played by US President Donald Trump in helping achieve a ceasefire and acknowledged the contributions of Saudi Arabia and Turkey, along with other friendly nations, saying that Islamabad’s current support for peace in the Middle East, including efforts aligned with UN resolutions on Gaza, showcased its commitment to multilateralism.

He said that Pakistan had actively maintained extensive diplomatic outreach, engaging with over 120 foreign ministers and global leaders to build consensus for de-escalation between the US and Iran, as well as facilitating dialogue between the key stakeholders.

He stressed that Pakistan’s efforts were aimed at achieving a win-win out-come for all parties, adding that global economic stability, energy prices and supply chains had been adversely affected by ongoing conflicts.

Meanwhile, speaking at the launch of The Battle of Truth, a book and accompanying documentary which recounts the events of May 2025, Defence Minister Khawaja Asif said that Pakistan had emerged as a more stable and powerful country, becoming a symbol of stability and a guarantor of peace in the region.

Lauding the prompt and decisive response delivered by Pakistan’s armed forces to unprovoked Indian aggression, the defence minister said that the country’s response to any future hostility would be even more forceful.

India’s hegemonic mindset poses a serious challenge to peace and development in South Asia, he said, adding: “We are ready for any kind of Indian proxy war”.

He also maintained that Pakistan had consistently played a constructive role in promoting global peace, being one of the leading contributors to United Nations peacekeeping missions.

Speaking at the same ceremony — organised by Inter-Services Public Relations and his ministry — Information Minister Atta Tarar said that Pakistan’s principled stance resonated more strongly at the global level, as the global community rejected the Indian narrative due to a lack of credibility and consistency.

Published in Dawn, May 6th, 2026

ISLAMABAD: Disagreements bet­ween the judiciary and the government over the scope of legal reforms were amicably resolved through the efforts of the legal community, as the Lahore High Court (LHC) pushed for legislative clarity on the Nikahnama while the Ministry of Law and Justice emphasised the role of constitutional forums in the lawmaking process.

The issue surfaced during proceedings before Justice Jawad Hassan at the Rawalpindi bench of the Lahore High Court, who declared the matter one of “public importance”.

The court pointed out discrepancies between the Urdu and English versions of columns 13 and 16 of the Nikahnama — provisions dealing with dower (haq mehr) and dowry details — observing that vague and inconsistent translations had caused confusion, prolonged litigation, and hardship for female litigants.

The LHC, in its observations, stressed the need to “settle this once and for all” through legislative clarity. It also tasked an eight-member committee with reviewing amendments to the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, particularly focusing on Section 10A concerning matrimonial property rights.

Discrepancies in Urdu and English versions caused confusion and litigation, particularly for women

However, the law ministry expressed reservations regarding judicial intervention in legislative processes, cautioning that pre-legislative review might undermine democratic mechanisms. It maintained that constitutional forums, including parliament and the CII, are the appropriate bodies to ensure compliance with Islamic injunctions and constitutional provisions.

Despite this institutional disagreement, the reform process has gained momentum under the court’s doctrine of continuing mandamus.

Legal observers note that the bar’s active participation has not only highlighted systemic deficiencies but also contributed meaningfully to policy formulation aimed at protecting women’s property rights and reducing litigation arising from ambiguous marital contracts.

With further deliberations and legislative input expected, stakeholders remain optimistic that a standardised, bilingual Nikahnama will soon be introduced, ensuring clarity, enforceability, and legal protection for parties entering into marriage contracts across Pakistan.

Acting on the court’s directives, the law ministry initiated a consultative process and constituted a technical committee, which held multiple sessions to examine transcription errors and broader legal implications.

It recommended that the updated English version be formally translated into Urdu through the National Language Authority, in coordination with the Ministry of Religious Affairs and district administrations.

Legal practitioners played a central role in these deliberations. Additional Attorney General Haseeb Paracha, along with the petitioners’ counsels, worked closely with government officials to streamline proposals.

Published in Dawn, May 6th, 2026

AS the monsoon season approaches, Pakistan faces a familiar anxiety. The memory of the 2022 floods — and the 2025 flooding that again disrupted lives, livelihoods and public finances — remains raw. The government is right to be preparing early for this year’s monsoon. But preparedness, while essential, is not enough. Pakistan must now accelerate, as a national priority, the broader transition to a climate-resilient, low-carbon and inclusive economy.

The science leaves little room for complacency. The world remains off course to limit warming to 1.5°C. For Pakistan, the risks are especially severe. Warming in high mountain regions is expected to outpace the global average, threatening glaciers, downstream river systems, agriculture, cities and the most vulnerable within communities. For a country whose livelihood, economy and food security are tied so closely to the Indus Basin, this is not a distant environmental concern. It is a direct threat to growth, stability and lives.

The forthcoming 2nd Breathe Pakistan International Climate Change Conference — under the stark theme ‘Time Is Running Out: Confronting Pakistan’s Climate Crisis’ — offers a timely moment to build consensus on a whole of society pathway for climate action. As decision-makers and experts gather in Islamabad from around the world in pursuit of this goal, they should keep in mind three things that will be critical to delivering this transition that is so critical for Pakistan: strategic financing, coherent planning and effective coordination.

External climate finance is under strain, just as adaptation needs are rising. Pakistan must mobilise climate finance at a far greater scale. This is not only about securing more international support, though grants and concessional finance remain essential. It is also about increasing domestic resourcing from public and private sector mobilisation and public investment by sharpening the climate focus of disaster preparedness and adaptation into social and economic development spending. Using public resources to crowd in private capital. Delay is the costliest option. Rebuilding after each disaster is far more expensive than investing in preparedness and resilience now.

The cost of transition might be high, but the cost of inaction is bound to be far higher, reminds Mohamed Yahya

This means a practical financing mix: stronger public investment in critical sectors; more blended public-private partnerships in resilient infrastructure, water systems and ecosystem restoration; wider use of green bonds, debt swaps and other fiscal instruments; and closer work with financial institutions, banks and insurers to de-risk private investment in the low-carbon economy. Done well, this will not only finance domestic priorities; it will also strengthen Pakistan’s ability to unlock larger grants and concessional resources from global climate funds.

Coherent planning is the key to delivering on every aspect of Pakistan’s transition. Climate adaptation needs to be built into development plans that shape the economy. Pakistan already has a strong policy and legislative foundation. The National Determined Contribution (NDC 3.0) and National Adaptation Plan provide credible frameworks, and programmes contributing to the Living Indus Initiative show how nature-based solutions can support resilience at scale. But plans and legislation matter only if they lead to investments and actions. Disaster preparedness and adaptation now need to be embedded in sectoral and provincial planning, and reflected in budgets, not just planning documents.

Finally, robust, networked centre-of-government coordination is a vital element. Climate action cannot succeed if coordination is fragmented. Pakistan is not short of institutions or legal frameworks. It has already built important frameworks, including the Climate Change Act. What is needed now is tighter alignment, clearer accountability and stronger coordinated engagement with provincial governments and civil society.

As a national priority, climate resilience should be treated as a core economic governance issue that cuts across the whole of government. When institutions move together, location-specific interventions become more bankable, implementation becomes faster, and reform becomes more durable. Pakistan has shown that it can help shape the global climate conversation. The next test is whether it can turn that leadership into faster domestic delivery and impact. The real measure will be whether or not 2026 becomes the year Pakistan moved decisively from ambition to effective climate action. The cost of transition is high, but the cost of inaction will be far higher.

The writer is the UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Pakistan.

ONE year has passed since India decided to hold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in abeyance. Pakistan’s National Security Council issued a warning, shortly after the Indian Cabinet Committee on Security’s decision, that any attempt to divert water flows will be regarded as an “act of war”. A year later, there are no visible signs towards the treaty’s restoration, and it remains essentially paralysed.

India has expedited development on a number of controversial hydropower projects by revising completion deadlines and making more rigorous funding arrangements. New Delhi has also approved design modifications in order to improve operational flexibility in managing water flows on several projects. Similarly, India has enhanced diversion measures at the Kishanganga project.

The Indian National Register of Large (Specified) Dams lists 15 large (specified) dams in occupied Jammu and Kashmir. The Kiru, Kwar and Pakal Dul are among the projects that India has expanded on the Chenab tributaries.

Additionally, India has upgraded local storage systems and canals while increasing irrigation planning and intra-basin water use. These actions will likely lead to a progressive decrease in downstream water availability and an increase in upstream demand. Since April 2025, all of New Delhi’s initiatives are meant to bring a change from a project-based approach to a water control strategy at the system level. Due to ongoing hydroelectric projects, India’s western river storage capacity could increase two to three times, which will greatly enhance its ability to manipulate water flows.

India has expedited development on a number of controversial hydropower projects.

The majority of these projects are anticipated to be completed between 2030 and 2032. To counter the Indian decision of suspending the IWT, Islamabad had to make a strategic decision: either persuade New Delhi to change its mind or force it to do so. Islamabad has so far preferred a multi-layered legal and diplomatic approach to apply pressure on India.

First, it has sought to utilise the procedural framework of the treaty by formally raising concerns over irregular water flows and the suspension of data exchange through correspondence between its Indus Waters Commissioner and the latter’s Indian counterpart.

Second, Islamabad has continued to advance disputes related to projects such as Ratle and Kishanganga before the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration. Last year in August, the PCA issued a binding award on the interpretation of the IWT. However, New Delhi has brushed aside the court’s decision.

Third, Islamabad has attached hopes to the World Bank for intervention in this issue to ensure that New Delhi restores the treaty.

Pakistan has also explored broader international legal avenues. Islamabad has signalled the possibility of further legal action by framing India’s conduct as a violation of international law, particularly the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Diplomatically, Islamabad has raised the issue at the UN Security Council and several other multilateral forums, and characterised India’s actions as the “weaponisation of water”. Concurrently, Pakistan has systematically documented violations, including the suspension of hydrological data and irregular flows in the Chenab.

However, at this point, Islamabad needs a reality check. The aforementioned efforts may help establish an evidentiary record for future legal or diplomatic purposes but cannot pressurise New Delhi into reversing its decision on the treaty. The World Bank’s president Ajay Banga has already clarified that the bank has no role to play beyond facilitation. After one year, Islamabad needs to reassess its plans and actions with strategic clarity on whether and how to compel or convince India to halt its controversial projects and reinstate the treaty.

For Pakistan, there are three strategic policy options. First, Islamabad’s declaration that any diversion of water would constitute an “act of war” remains deliberately ambiguous. While such ambiguity preserves deterrence by keeping the threshold undefined, it also creates space for misinterpretation and exploitation of the treaty by New Delhi. Pakistan has already announced that since August 2025, India has manipulated water flows on multiple occasions. To mitigate this, Pakistan could articulate a clearer doctrinal position by publicly defining specific triggers or thresholds that would qualify as an act of war. However, formalising these red lines risks locking the leadership into a commitment trap, which could limit policy flexibility during crises and may raise the stakes of escalation if those thresholds are crossed.

Second, Pakistan could pursue renegotiation of the IWT with a precondition of its engagement on India halting controversial hydro projects until a revised framework is finalised. This option, however, could introduce practical and political challenges. Renegotiation of the treaty will demand a high degree of technical expertise, legal preparedness and institutional coordination. In fact, these are the areas where Pakistan currently faces capacity constraints. Moreover, the proposal of renegotiations would likely require discreet back-channel diplomacy. However, India remains unwilling to normalise bilateral relations. Any overt or covert engagement could also impose domestic political costs on the Pakistani leadership, particularly in a polarised political environment.

Third, Islamabad may continue its existing multi-layered strategy, ie, a combination of legal recourse and diplomatic outreach. While this approach avoids immediate escalation, it suffers from structural limitations. Legal mechanisms under the treaty framework are time-consuming and often yield non-binding outcomes, diluting their effectiveness. Utilisation of diplomatic channels could bring awareness of the gravity of the issue, but keeping in view the international environment, it is highly unlikely that the world community would compel India to undo its decision of a year ago to hold the treaty in abeyance.

Time is not on Pakistan’s side. The capacity to rely on treaty-based restrictions will gradually decrease as India’s water projects approach completion. The longer the delay in restoring the treaty, the greater the advantage New Delhi will gain. Given the strategic options available, how Pakistan secures its water future will depend on the decisions it makes now — which constitute some very hard choices indeed.

The writer is a strategic analyst of international security. The views expressed are his own.

X: @itskhurramabbas

Published in Dawn, May 6th, 2026

SPEAKING at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre in Washington, D.C., in early 2012, Henry Kissinger asserted that, since World War II, the US had entered wars without a clear exit strategy, and often sought a way out shortly after engagement. He highlighted the Afghan conflict as an example of a prolonged and unwinnable war. At that time, the US, despite being the world’s greatest military power, was bogged down in a conflict that had entered its second decade. It took another decade for this war to conclude, resulting in utter humiliation for America, which had faced similar challenges in Vietnam and Iraq.

America’s longest war in Afghanistan was triggered by a desire for revenge for 9/11. Its military intervention in Iraq, meanwhile, was initiated under false pretenses regarding the possession by Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). From the outset, both conflicts proved unwinnable, yet deception masked the failures. For nearly two decades, American leaders misled the public about the disastrous outcomes of these wars.

Now, just five years after its disgraceful withdrawal from Afghanistan, the US is embroiled in another conflict with Iran, seemingly ignoring past lessons. Similar to the misleading WMD claims used to justify the Iraq invasion, the exaggerated narrative of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme was invoked to launch an attack on the Islamic Republic. However, weeks of relentless bombing failed to weaken Iran’s resolve, and the fragile ceasefire negotiated by President Donald Trump has reached a critical point. America’s continued blockade of Iran’s ports, along with the recent escalation in tensions, has brought both nations perilously close to yet another round of hostilities.

Trump has once again threatened to “erase Iran from the face of the world”. Nevertheless, he is far from winning this asymmetrical conflict. As German Chancellor Friedrich Merz noted with reference to the US: “An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership… .” This current conflict, unlike previous ones, carries far greater implications not just for the US but for the rest of the world as well.

The Iran war has exposed the limits of America’s military might.

It raises pressing questions about whether the American president has any viable plan to extricate his country from this catastrophic situation. While Trump claims to hold all the cards, most analysts contend that he possesses no significant leverage in this high-stakes game.

The Iran war has exposed the limits of America’s military might in what has been described as an asymmetrical conflict. Iran’s use of weaponised drones represents a significant aspect of modern warfare, effectively transforming the battlefield against a more powerful adversary. Although Iran’s military installations saw great destruction at the hands of the US-Israel combine, Iran’s inexpensive drones and missiles successfully countered the might of the largest military power in the world.

Despite the extensive destruction caused by the relentless bombings carried out by US-Israel warplanes, Iran has continued the mass production of drones and missiles at a fraction of the cost of the weapons produced by its adversaries. According to the Pentagon, the conflict has significantly depleted US stockpiles of sophisticated missiles, which can take years to replenish. America, reportedly, has already incurred losses of $25 billion in this war.

Meanwhile, with an uninterrupted supply of inexpensive drones, each costing approximately $35,000, Iran continues to dictate the terms in the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, where the situation is impacting the global economy. No degree of bombing can remove the primary retaliatory weapon at Iran’s disposal. Iran has also been using drones and missiles to target data centres established by American tech companies, leading to massive losses. This is a clever strategy causing maximum damage to the adversary in an asymmetric war.

While America’s ongoing blockade of Iranian ports may increase economic pressure on Iran, the country can still endure a prolonged conflict. Iran still retains the ability to fire drones at passing oil tankers being escorted by US naval forces through the strait and paralyse the global economy. Trump has repeatedly threatened to deploy ground forces; however, this would be a big blunder and result in greater humiliation for American forces than the one they experienced in Vietnam and Afghanistan. Can an increasingly unpopular president afford to take that risk?

America has never been as isolated in a war as it is now, with its Western allies refusing to join what many of them consider to be an illegal conflict. The Iran war appears to have significantly ruptured the America-led world order, and it seems there is no reversing the tide, given the widening cracks in the Western alliance.

Most concerning for the US is increasing public scrutiny regarding Trump’s mental and physical fitness to lead the country during war. The latest Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll indicates that 59 per cent of respondents believe that Trump lacks the mental sharpness required to lead, while 55pc say he’s not fit to serve as president. It is indeed troubling to have an individual with questionable mental acuity at the helm of the world’s most powerful country during a conflict. However, Trump has dismissed these concerns, as well as the adverse impacts of the war on the American and global economy.

Despite these economic concerns, America’s oil companies and military-industrial complex are reaping substantial war profits. American oil companies, in particular, have benefited hugely due to soaring oil prices, with some estimates projecting a windfall of over $60bn for US producers if high crude prices persist. The conflict has caused US crude oil rates to nearly double, rising from $65 a barrel to over $110 within a month. This surge in prices has led to substantial earnings for energy companies, while consumers face higher fuel costs.

Similarly, US arms manufacturers stand to gain significantly from the massive increase in the defence budget and the growing demand for weapons by Middle Eastern countries. Last week, the Trump administration approved an $8.5bn arms sale to Middle Eastern allies to compensate for losses suffered on account of Iranian attacks. While Trump may not be winning this asymmetrical conflict with Iran, which has had a massive impact on the global economy, some American companies are indeed reaping a windfall.

The writer is an author and journalist.

zhussain100@yahoo.com

X: @hidhussain

Published in Dawn, May 6th, 2026

US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday he would briefly pause an operation to help escort ships through the Strait of Hormuz, citing “great progress” toward a comprehensive agreement with Iran.

Hours earlier, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had outlined the effort that began on Monday to escort stranded tankers out of the Gulf. The strait has been virtually shut since the conflict began, blocking some 20 per cent of world oil supplies and igniting a global energy crisis.

“Based on the request of Pakistan and other Countries, the tremendous Military Success that we have had during the Campaign against the Country of Iran and, additionally, the fact that Great Progress has been made toward a Complete and Final Agreement with Representatives of Iran, we have mutually agreed that, while the Blockade will remain in full force and effect, Project Freedom (The Movement of Ships through the Strait of Hormuz) will be paused for a short period of time to see whether or not the Agreement can be finalized and signed,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

There was no immediate reaction from Tehran, where it was early on Wednesday morning.

Shortly after Trump’s post, US crude oil futures fell $2.30 and broke below $100 per barrel, a much-watched threshold since the conflict sent energy prices soaring two months ago.

The White House did not immediately reply to a request for comment on what progress had been made, or how long the pause would last.

Rubio and other senior administration officials said earlier on Tuesday that Iran could not be allowed to control traffic through the strait.

Iran has effectively sealed off the strait since the US-Israeli campaign began at the end of February. The US has countered by blockading Iranian ports and mounting escorted transits for commercial vessels.

The US military escorts over the last day and a half — dubbed “Project Freedom” by Trump — drew Iranian attacks, threatening an already fragile ceasefire.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards navy warned of a “firm response” if ships deviated from its approved route through the strait, as the country’s chief negotiator said Tehran “had not even started yet,” following a spate of attacks in the crucial trade route.

Rubio says main operation is over

Rubio told reporters at the White House that the US had achieved its objectives in its military campaign, which was launched on February 28 alongside Israel.

“Operation Epic Fury is concluded,” Rubio said. “We’re not cheering for an additional situation to occur.”

“This is not an offensive operation; this is a defensive operation,” Rubio said. “And what that means is very simple — there’s no shooting unless we’re shot at first.”

Rubio said the United States has “achieved the objectives” of the war.

“These guys are facing, they are facing real, catastrophic destruction to their economy,” he said, while adding that Trump still preferred a negotiated deal with Iran.

One of Trump’s central objectives in launching military strikes against Iran was to ensure Tehran does not develop a nuclear weapon, something Tehran has denied seeking. However, Iran has not handed over more than 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium.

US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said earlier on Tuesday that the US had successfully secured a path through the waterway and that hundreds of commercial ships were lining up to pass through. The four-week-old truce with Iran was not over, he added.

“Right now the ceasefire certainly holds, but we’re going to be watching very, very closely,” he said.

General Dan Caine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Iranian attacks against US forces fell “below the threshold of restarting major combat operations at this point”.

Asked what Iran would need to do to violate the ceasefire, Trump said: “They know what not to do.”