THE UAE’s exit from Opec is another sign of the major geopolitical shifts that are reshaping the global order. One of the organisation’s top producers, the UAE’s decision seems largely influenced by the politics of oil. Yet geopolitical calculations, and intra-Gulf rivalries, specifically with Saudi Arabia, are also at play here.

As per reports, the Emiratis were unhappy with the quotas placed by Opec on members, and wanted to pump as much crude as they desired. This was reflected in an Emirati government statement, after the announcement of Abu Dhabi’s exit, that the UAE had made “greater sacrifices for the benefit of all”.

Seemingly, the UAE feels the time for ‘sacrifice’ is over and it is willing to jettison Arab and Gulf consensus, preferring to act independently in the global arena. Aside from the politics of oil, the decision also speaks of the UAE’s desire to present itself as an equal of Saudi Arabia, which — given Riyadh’s economic heft and oil wealth — plays a distinct role in the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Opec has often been described as a ‘cartel’ by the Western press. Perhaps this unkind categorisation stems from the fact that the states that founded Opec in 1960 championed the nationalisation of oil, which was anathema to the Western oil giants. Many in the West have not forgotten the ‘oil weapon’ deployed by Opec during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, which punished friends of the Zionist state.

Furthermore, for better or for worse, Opec is an organisation of energy producers of the Global South. How long the Saudis are able to keep the grouping afloat is uncertain, as geopolitical allegiances shift, and the Arab, Islamic and Third World ‘solidarity’ of yore is tested. As the UAE has shown, now it is every man for himself.

Beyond oil, differences between the UAE and Saudi Arabia have been growing over the years. Even during the Iran war, Abu Dhabi took a more confrontational stance towards Tehran, whereas Riyadh’s messaging has been mixed, denouncing Iran’s attacks on itself and its GCC allies, while keeping the door open for diplomatic outreach with Iran. Moreover, the Saudis and Emiratis have openly clashed over Yemen, supporting rival local groups, as well as in Sudan. Meanwhile, both powerful Arab states are similarly vying for influence in Libya.

Whether the UAE’s departure from Opec leads to further ruptures within the GCC or not remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: states such as Pakistan, which maintain deep ties with both countries, will have to calibrate their foreign policies accordingly. Islamabad already has had a taste of things to come, when the UAE demanded its deposit back, and Pakistan obliged.

Published in Dawn, April 30th, 2026

THE State Bank’s decision to raise its key policy rate by 100 basis points to 11.5pc signals a shift in priorities from supporting growth to protecting macroeconomic stability, preserving exchange rate confidence, and preventing inflation from becoming entrenched amid risks arising from the Gulf crisis.

Coming at a time when inflationary pressures are re-emerging and external vulnerabilities intensifying, the move reflects the assessment that risks to stability now outweigh gains from monetary easing. The decision also reveals a growing recognition of the trade-off between growth and stability. Headline inflation rose to 7.3pc in March, while core inflation edged up to 7.8pc, and is expected to stay above the medium-term target range of 5-7pc for much of the next fiscal as higher global oil prices feed into domestic costs.

“Inflation was projected to increase up to the upper bound of the target range even before the onset of the Middle East conflict, mainly due to adverse base effects,” the monetary policy noted. In this context, the SBP governor said the rate hike was a “pre-emptive move” to contain second-round effects before they became entrenched. Policy tightening, therefore, aims to prevent current price pressures from spilling into core inflation, particularly through higher transport and production costs, which can lead to broader price increases.

The Middle East war has drastically complicated our macroeconomic outlook. Elevated energy prices, rising freight charges and higher insurance premiums are putting pressure on an import-dependent economy exposed to external shocks. The SBP has rightly concluded that ignoring these risks could endanger our still fragile economic stability. Its stress on protecting exchange rate confidence is significant, given our history of imported inflation spirals triggered by currency weakness. This is where the growth-versus-stability trade-off is most evident.

Higher borrowing costs will dampen the investment appetite, slow credit expansion and weigh on sectors already sensitive to interest rate movements such as manufacturing and construction. However, allowing inflation expectations to become unanchored would inflict far greater damage on long-term growth prospects. The external account offers some reassurance, but not enough to justify complacency.

Remittances remain the principal anchor of stability, financing both the current account and more than 100pc of the trade imbalance. Foreign exchange reserves have also improved aided by external financing inflows and debt rollovers. Still, these buffers remain vulnerable to prolonged geopolitical shock, particularly if oil prices stay elevated for an extended period.

The bank’s decision serves as a defensive measure aimed at protecting reserves and preventing renewed pressure on the rupee. The future direction of rates will largely depend on the duration of the crisis, with prolonged stress potentially requiring a sustained tighter monetary stance.

Published in Dawn, April 29th, 2026

THE US is undoubtedly the world’s top military and economic power at this time. Yet as the Iran quagmire has shown, despite its great wealth and cutting-edge firepower, America has failed to subdue a far less powerful adversary.

In fact, it seems that those that run the US have not heeded the lessons of history, especially in cases where America’s involvement in military aggression against other states has resulted in an eventual retreat by Washington — without achieving its aims. These unfulfilled goals have included regime change, ‘humanitarian’ interventions, as well as punitive measures against states refusing to toe the American line.

In the process, the US has left a trail of destruction across Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. Yet it continues to repeat the same failed policies, thinking that military might alone can punish ‘errant’ states. The so-called ‘Donroe Doctrine’ practised by the current administration is part of a long list of flawed foreign policies, though some would argue that President Donald Trump has outdone many of his predecessors where reckless military adventures are concerned.

Observers point out that over the past few decades, the US has taken up the role of Europe’s erstwhile imperial powers, which colonised and plundered faraway lands, while maintaining the fiction of ‘responsibility to protect’ native populations from their own rulers. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya offer cautionary tales about just how wrong US military adventurism can go.

Tens of thousands of civilian deaths collectively and broken states and societies have been the primary result of this interventionism. The US has also paid dearly in blood and treasure, with trillions of dollars poured into ruinous wars, and has suffered troop casualties. Earlier, there was the Vietnam debacle and regime change actions in South and Central America. Yet the same folly is being repeated in Iran, while Cuba may be next on the menu.

Regrettably, the American establishment has little idea about the cultures, values and history of the countries it has attacked. It seems that US foreign policy decisions are made by those close to the military-industrial complex — which stands to gain handsomely from endless wars — rather than professional diplomats. The late president Gen Dwight Eisenhower had, in fact, cautioned against the growing influence of the arms industry in government. His successors in the White House failed to heed this warning.

States all over the world have many internal problems. But that should not mean a role for the US, or any other country for that matter, as global policeman. Democracy and reform are internal organic processes that cannot be delivered through foreign military intervention. Instead of trying to fix the world, the US needs to look inward, and improve the quality of life for millions of Americans struggling to pay their bills.

Published in Dawn, April 28th, 2026

VACCINES rarely make the headlines unless there is an outbreak. This World Immunisation Week, it is a moment to reflect on how one of Pakistan’s quietest public-health successes remains one of its most consequential.

Since the Expanded Programme on Immunisation began in 1978, vaccines have helped avert 2.6m child deaths, protected millions of mothers and children, and contributed to a 99.8pc reduction in paralytic polio since 1994. WHO estimates routine immunisation averts up to 17pc of childhood mortality in Pakistan.

Few health interventions achieve so much for so little. But this year’s theme — ‘For every generation, vaccines work’ — should not invite complacency. It should prompt a harder question: can the state ensure they reach every child?

There are worrying signs that make this question so pressing. Pakistan reported over 16,000 measles cases in 2025, with more than half among unvaccinated children. A preventable disease is resurging because too many children are missing routine doses, with deadly consequences for those already weakened by malnutrition.

While that is dangerous in itself, it is also a warning that immunity gaps are widening. Children may miss doses because of weak outreach, disrupted delivery, poor follow-up or misinformation. Some, however, receive no routine vaccines at all. These ‘zero-dose’ children are missed because health services do not reach them — a sign of structural failure, not parental neglect.

Pakistan’s Big Catch-Up campaign, which reached 2.8m children who had missed routine doses, showed progress. It also exposed the scale of gaps in routine immunisation. This is why immunisation cannot be treated as a series of emergency drives mounted when risk spikes. It must be understood as a routine public service, sustained through functioning primary healthcare, reliable cold chains, disease surveillance and last-mile delivery.

The polio campaign offers lessons. Its vast infrastructure shows what political focus can achieve. Yet polio’s persistence in pockets of the country shows that the final barriers remain less about the vaccine than about reaching every child. The same lesson applies more broadly. Vaccine hesitancy is blamed on ignorance, but misinformation, distrust and unreliable services also play a role.

Meanwhile, climate shocks, displacement and urban growth are making immunisation harder, especially for children in informal settlements and disaster-hit communities. Every missed vaccine also carries economic costs, pushing preventable illness onto families and an already strained health system.

The next frontier is not simply more campaigns, but closing immunity gaps through stronger routine systems. That requires budgets to protect immunisation financing, support front-line workers and strengthen local delivery. Immunisation is not an issue to be revisited each April, but a test of whether the state can reliably reach every child, every time.

Published in Dawn, April 26th, 2026

THE fact that the truce between Israel and Lebanon has been extended for three weeks should be welcomed. But there should be no illusions about Tel Aviv’s intentions in Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East. It is not seeking genuine peace; instead, the objective is clearly to destroy all forces that stand in its way of expansion.

The Zionist state’s ultimate dream — a nightmare for the rest of the states of the region — is one of a ‘Greater Israel’. Under American aegis, Lebanese and Israeli officials extended the truce in Washington, with US President Donald Trump commenting that his country would work with Lebanon to “protect itself from Hezbollah”. Any protection the Lebanese need is from Israel’s brutal attacks — despite the extension of the ceasefire, Tel Aviv continued its hostile activities on Lebanese soil yesterday.

Israel has caused immense devastation in Lebanon after initiating hostilities in early March. The death toll exceeds 2,200, with Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil among the latest victims. She was killed on Wednesday in an Israeli strike. Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam has termed her killing a war crime. In fact, her death is one in a series of war crimes committed by Israel across occupied Palestine, Lebanon and Iran.

The aim of Israel-Lebanon parleys seems to be the disarmament of Hezbollah. Perhaps this focus is misplaced; the goal of the talks should be the complete withdrawal of Israel from Lebanese territory, and a pledge from Tel Aviv not to attack the Arab state again. Of course, this cannot be expected from Israel, which has been regularly violating Lebanese sovereignty since 1948. It currently occupies a so-called security zone in Lebanon, demolishing villages and homes in the south. Remarking on this illegal occupation, the Israeli prime minister has said “we are not leaving”. The past few days also saw extremist Israeli settlers cross over into Syria and Lebanon, before being herded back.

Lebanon has seen decades of foreign invasions and internal strife. The road to normalcy lies in ending the Israeli occupation and preventing the frequent invasions of its belligerent neighbour. Hezbollah’s arms are an internal Lebanese matter, and Israel and the US should not be dictating the terms.

All Lebanese political forces must work to end the Israeli occupation of their land. They must ensure that a ‘peace deal’ does not turn out to be an instrument of surrender. Israel rarely gives up territory it has occupied unless the terms are tilted heavily in its favour. The OIC, the Arab League, as well as other international actors must see to it that Israel ends its hostilities in Lebanon permanently, and is held to account for the loss of lives in Lebanon, and the massive destruction of property there.

Published in Dawn, April 25th, 2026

AMONG the many developments this month that Pakistanis can take pride in is the news that one of their own will soon be heading to space. Two candidates, Zeeshan Ali and Khurram Daud, have been selected for China’s manned space programme after clearing multiple rounds of selection procedures. They will be travelling to that country soon to start training. One will eventually join a Chinese flight mission as a payload specialist and become the first foreign astronaut to board China’s space station.

The news has been celebrated in Pakistan, but China, too, seems equally excited about it. The China Manned Space Agency has described it as a “landmark event in the history of China’s space industry” and has cited the Pakistani candidates’ participation in its programme as an example of Beijing’s “willingness to share its space development achievements with the international community”. Both Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and China’s Ambassador to Pakistan Jiang Zaidong feted the two candidates at PMO on Thursday.

Many Pakistanis, young and old, who have dreamt of travelling to space will see this as a most exciting development. They will wait eagerly for these two young candidates to share their experiences in spaceflight training, and for the would-be space traveller to relive the journey and adventure for those of us who remain earth-bound. It is hoped that the media attention will also kindle an interest among younger Pakistanis in astronomy and astrophysics and inspire a healthy sense of wonder in what lies in the great beyond.

It is highly commendable that the present government took this initiative, and it is hoped that its educational and scientific benefits will be shared far and wide. China, too, deserves appreciation for welcoming Pakistan’s space aspirations and providing an opportunity to two young hopefuls to participate in its space programme. The partnership between the two nations has often been described in superlatives; in this case at least, it truly seems bound for high places.

Published in Dawn, April 24th, 2026

THOUGH the US has extended the Iran ceasefire — thanks largely to effective Pakistani diplomacy to prevent sliding back towards war — the situation in the Gulf remains extremely volatile. Amongst the biggest sticking points are the respective blockades of the Gulf: Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and the US blockade of Iranian ports.

Each side is expecting the other to blink first and lift the blockade, and until there is a satisfactory resolution to this issue, it is difficult to see peace talks scheduled in Islamabad going ahead. While Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif did meet the Iranian ambassador in the capital on Wednesday, at the time of writing there was no indication that Iran had decided on attending talks in Pakistan. Meanwhile, there were reports that the IRGC had seized at least two unauthorised vessels.

Although it would have been preferable if the US had lifted its blockade — and the Iranians had responded by ending their own closure — as a confidence-building measure along with the ceasefire extension, both sides, particularly Iran, should not let this chance at a diplomatic solution lapse. The Hormuz closure is a consequence of the war, not its main cause. The Iranians should consider returning to the table, especially when Pakistan is doing all it can to facilitate successful parleys.

Many of Tehran’s objections are justified; after all it was attacked by the US-Israeli combo, and not the other way around. But negotiations are the only way out of this quagmire, with the other choice being a ruinous return to war, which would be a disaster for the entire region. Iranian negotiators should bring all their points of contention to the table.

There needs to be substantive progress at the talks; they should not be a mere photo opportunity. And while the US is not helping matters by issuing threats to Iran, with President Donald Trump leading the pack with his provocative social media posts, the parties involved should not lose sight of the bigger picture. That remains addressing the core issues that have fuelled this war, and bridging the mistrust between Washington and Tehran as much as possible.

The nuclear issue is not impossible to resolve. But for any resolution, both sides must engage in good faith, and show up at the talks. If the US wants progress on the nuclear file, it must also offer a substantive non-aggression pact, promising not to attack Iran, while restraining its ally Israel.

Presently, much of the world opinion is with Iran, as the international community sees that it was the victim in this conflict. Yet if economic pain due to the blockades in the Gulf intensifies, then that sentiment may shift in the opposite direction, especially if Iran is seen as shunning negotiations.

Published in Dawn, April 23rd, 2026

ISLAMABAD is all set to host the second round of US-Iran talks. But the million-dollar question is: will they go ahead?

At the time of writing, uncertainty about the fate of the parleys continued, with no confirmation of Iranian participation. It appears that until the US lifts the blockade of Iranian ports, Tehran’s representatives are unlikely to get on a plane to Pakistan.

However, there were no indications that the American administration was seeking to bring down the temperature and signal its willingness to talk in good faith by lifting the blockade. Instead, President Donald Trump said his military was “ready to go”. It is in this context that Iranian officials have said they will not negotiate “under the shadow of threats”.

While the Iranian blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has caused massive global economic turbulence, and the entire international community seeks to have the key maritime passage reopened at the earliest, it was the US and Israel that initiated hostilities. As such, it is their responsibility — particularly of the US — to end it, even if it means swallowing a bitter pill.

Though the current American leadership is unlikely to admit to its hubris in launching this ‘war of choice’ and rocking the global order in the process, it must now, for the sake of regional and indeed world peace, shed its rigid posture and lift the blockade of Iranian ports. Tehran should reciprocate by allowing free passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Short of this step, and the complete cessation of Israeli attacks in Lebanon, it may not be possible to save the peace process.

There are two options: either both parties agree to make compromises, extend the ceasefire and come to Islamabad to work out the bare bones of an agreement. Or return to war. There seem to be no other alternatives.

The US has been trumpeting the Iranian nuclear issue. But it should not be forgotten that this issue was largely resolved by the JCPOA, which Mr Trump, in his first term, jettisoned without much thought. Even more recently, there was significant progress on nuclear talks before Washington and Tel Aviv launched the war. Therefore, if the US wants to resolve the nuclear question peacefully, it is very much possible. But if it would rather keep on threatening Iran and changing the goalposts, Tehran will continue to respond in the same coin.

Practically the entire international community — expect for Israel and the religious right in the US — is hoping for a peaceful resolution to this crisis. Mr Trump must do the right thing by showing Iran that the US is willing to accommodate and compromise. If he chooses to indulge in more bellicosity and threats, he will be mainly responsible for the chaos that ensues.

Published in Dawn, April 22nd, 2026

AS the fate of the US-Iran peace talks expected to be held in Islamabad hangs in the balance, the international community remains on tenterhooks. At the time of writing, Iran had not made a decision about attending, citing mistrust of the US, and violations of the ceasefire allegedly committed by America. The two-week truce is due to end soon.

As per Tehran, there are three main irritants that have called the status of the talks into question: America’s blockade of Iranian ports, its attack on an Iranian cargo ship on Sunday, and delays in the Lebanon ceasefire. Unless these issues are addressed, and there is some sort of compromise, it is difficult to say whether the second round will go ahead, even as the Americans are reportedly due in Islamabad this morning.

Amongst the biggest obstacles to peace is the mixed messaging from the White House, frequently combining offers of peace and bombastic threats in the same sentence. For example, US President Donald Trump said he is offering a “fair and reasonable deal”, yet in the same post threatened to destroy all of Iran’s power plants and bridges in case there is no agreement. He further asserted there would be “no more Mr nice guy” — in all caps — in case Iran did not agree to a deal.

Mr Trump should realise that such bellicose rhetoric has failed to disturb the Iranians, and has only hardened their tone. Moreover, the US war secretary, who peppers his public statements with extremist religious rhetoric, coarse language and threats, seems to be doing all he can to ensure that the talks collapse.

Instead of such bellicosity, which has resulted in much tragedy in Iran and brought America no tangible benefits in this disastrous war, the US should adopt a constructive approach towards Tehran. On Iran’s part, its first vice president has said there should be “a free oil market for all” or “significant costs for everyone”.

If the negotiations are to proceed and produce a positive outcome, the US should immediately lift the blockade of Iranian ports, while Tehran should respond by ensuring free passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, Washington’s threats and bullying should end, and both sides must meet in good faith, respecting the norms of diplomacy. Israel should also be firmly told to end its hostile actions in Lebanon.

Pakistan has invested much time and effort in this Herculean diplomatic exercise, and practically the entire international community has recognised its efforts for peace. There is an urgent need to make a deal to achieve a lasting and just peace — no party can afford to lose sight of this goal. If this opportunity is lost, the consequences for all will be extremely grim.

Published in Dawn, April 21st, 2026

WITH the prime minister having concluded a three-nation tour to marshal support for Pakistan’s diplomatic efforts in the Middle East, and the chief of defence forces wrapping up an important, three-day trip to Iran, attention turned once again to Islamabad over the weekend.

Even though key stakeholders have been silent about setting a date, the federal capital, it seems, is already preparing to host another round of high-level engagements, with security plans and logistical arrangements being put in place to welcome high-profile foreign dignitaries. Routes along which VVIPs are expected to travel have been cleaned and spruced up, curbs have been repainted, and the CDA was said to have engaged in some feverish landscaping, according to local media reports. Offices in the Red Zone have been told to stay shut, and traffic diversion plans are being devised to ensure that everything stays smooth and in control during what is expected to be the most important event Pakistan has hosted in years.

By all accounts, the Pakistani civil and military leaderships have outdone themselves. They have already earned much respect and gratitude not just on both sides engaged in the war, but also in world capitals weary and worried about where the hostilities had seemed headed before the ceasefire was called. The leadership is now aiming for the ultimate goal: a formal agreement or memorandum between the US and Iran that brings lasting peace to the region.

It seems that the negotiations did not end after US Vice-President J.D. Vance’s abrupt departure last Sunday, and much continued to be discussed and deliberated through backchannels, facilitated by Pakistan, long after the negotiating parties had left. US President Donald Trump’s flurry of posts on his social media platform on Friday made it seem as if the war was all but over.

Yet it would perhaps be too optimistic to expect that this nightmare is over. There have been rumblings over the weekend, with the terms of the ceasefire being tested in Lebanon and leaders on both sides still sticking to rigid positions over the Strait of Hormuz and locked in a war of words. With no date formally announced for round two and the clock on the ceasefire running out, there was uncertainty over how the chips would fall. While negotiations have clearly reached a very advanced stage, the last few hurdles that remain must also be removed.

Both sides, it seems, will need to make some more sacrifices if they wish for the hostilities to stop. If efforts to bring Iran and America to a long-term settlement are successful, and a treaty or a precursor to one is signed in Islamabad, Pakistan will deserve credit for pulling off what had once seemed highly improbable. Much is riding on the events of the next few days. One can only hope for the best.

Published in Dawn, April 20th, 2026

AMONGST Iran’s conditions in the 10-point plan Tehran forwarded to the US as part of the ceasefire was a demand for compensation for the damage inflicted on the country by America and Israel on Feb 28.

As per reports, the issue of war reparations was also brought up during the recent negotiations in Islamabad. Many international law experts say that the US, prima facie, is liable to pay Iran compensation, especially where attacks on its civilian infrastructure are concerned. The extent of damage is considerable.

The American media itself has identified the large number of civilian targets attacked. For example, The New York Times has verified damage to nearly 40 schools and healthcare facilities that have been hit. The paper notes that this may only be a “fraction of the devastation”.

As per the Iranian Red Crescent, at least 763 schools and 316 health centres are amongst the targets hit by the US-Israeli combo. Perhaps the most monstrous attack of this campaign was the strike on a school in Minab, which killed around 175 people, mostly schoolgirls. The US military’s preliminary investigations indicate that their forces were responsible for this atrocity, due to the use of “outdated information”.

American military representatives have said they do not intentionally target civilians, while the Israeli military says it operates as per the “law of armed conflict”, taking maximum precautions. Considering what the Zionist war machine has done in Gaza and Lebanon, there is not a grain of truth in the latter claim. Moreover, many legal experts, including Americans, have said that international law has been violated in this war.

While on paper the American military is subject to robust checks and balances to ensure that the rules of engagement are followed within the bounds of humanitarian law, the US war secretary has thrown many of these safeguards out of the window, terming them “stupid”. If this is the philosophy guiding his military, violations and atrocities are to be expected.

If the US wants to convince the Iranians it is sincere about making a long-lasting deal, it is morally bound to address Tehran’s claims about war reparations. A figure of $270bn has been quoted. While the exact assessment of the war damage may take time, the American administration should commit to making payments for the massive destruction it has caused in Iran, as it is the aggressor in this conflict, and in numerous instances displayed a clear lack of concern for civilian life.

Israel, meanwhile, only respects the law of the jungle and cannot be expected to adhere to international law. Perhaps Washington can divert the billions it sends to arm the Zionist state annually towards the reconstruction of Iran’s schools, hospitals and universities.

Published in Dawn, April 19th, 2026

AS summer approaches, households and industries across the country are again facing prolonged power outages as night-time electricity demand, driven by cooling needs, far exceeds the available supply. To contain the power shortages, the government is running its costly furnace oil-based power plants at full capacity and delaying maintenance of its nuclear facilities.

The Middle East crisis and LNG supply disruptions are chiefly to blame for the shortage, which has been exacerbated by reduced hydropower availability as rainfall and lower irrigation demand have limited the release of water from reservoirs. The power minister says that LNG-fired plants, with an approximate capacity of 6,000 MW, are producing only around 500 MW due to gas shortages, while hydropower output has fallen to about 1,600 MW — roughly half the level of last April.

With Qatar declaring force majeure after nearly 17pc of its gas production went offline last month, following Iran’s missile strikes on its gas fields, prolonged power outages were anticipated once summer kicked in. The petroleum minister says the country intends to purchase expensive spot LNG cargoes to offset the supply crunch from Qatar, but the move will strain the finances of both government and consumers.

Most urban areas have been experiencing forced load-shedding of up to six hours a day as the night-time peak supply gap widens to nearly 4,000 MW. Experts warn that outages are likely to lengthen further, with peak night-time demand surging from 20,000 MW to 28,000-30,000 MW. Consumers may also see their monthly power bills spike. The current crisis has once again underscored the structural vulnerability of our power sector to external geopolitical shocks as a result of its heavy reliance on imported fossil fuels. Frequent price volatility in global energy markets, compounded this time by supply disruptions, demonstrates the need to shift towards solar energy as a viable medium- to long-term solution to Pakistan’s energy woes.

That said, without rapid and large-scale adoption of battery storage solutions, such a transition will only worsen structural weaknesses. Even though rooftop solar has added an estimated 18,000 MW in the last eight years, it has cut daytime grid demand and shifted shortages to evening peaks when solar generation falls and LNG-fired plants are needed. The transition must then be complemented by large-scale adoption of battery storage systems.

However, this is easier said than done. While the predictable long-term savings and broader economic benefits of solar power are attractive to households, farmers and businesses facing high tariffs and unreliable grid supply, the adoption of battery storage systems is far less straightforward, chiefly due to high upfront costs. The government could facilitate the adoption of battery storage systems by providing access to cheaper financing and removing taxes on imports of the technology.

Published in Dawn, April 18th, 2026