I do not recognize any international law.
My judgment is the law. This appears to be the guiding spirit of the Trump Doctrine. More than sixty organizations have been banned from US funding, over half of them UN-approved. Immigrant visas to 75 countries, including Pakistan, have been frozen. This is not rule-based order; it is the law of kingship. The impact on the world is profound. A new world order has emerged. After Venezuela, Iran and Green-land are under threat. Canada may be next.
Strategy and politics are twin sisters, reflecting an unending game on the chessboard of the global landscape. The only constant in strategy is change and this principle guides any serious examination of shifting global realities. International and strategic dimensions, both regionally and globally, have undergone a rapid sea change and continue to evolve at an extraordinary pace. Events are unfolding so quickly that they must be followed in real time. The wars in Ukraine and Gaza over the past two years have exposed the vulnerabilities of all participating players.
The threat of US intervention in Venezuela and the rhetoric surrounding the annexation of Greenland signal a return to a nineteenth-century strategic order, where powerful states sought to dominate regions and expand spheres of influence. America has reasserted the Monroe Doctrine, alongside echoes of Mackinder’s Heartland theory. After Venezuela, Ukraine in Europe and Taiwan in East Asia appear most vulnerable. The world now stands divided into competing spheres of superpower influence.
In South Asia, India has historically flexed its muscles against smaller neighbours. This posture is now emboldened, with Indian hawks openly discussing another invasion of Bangladesh. Meanwhile, Israel’s objective of conquering and holding Gaza has not been fully achieved. Instead, the conflict has exposed Israel’s vulnerabilities and shattered the myth of invincibility. Phase Two of the strategy is unfolding and the appointment of Tony Blair is significant. Yemen, a small country, has challenged Israel’s supremacy. Iran’s counterstrike earlier in Doha and the clear warning by its President demonstrate preparedness for escalation. Iran remains firmly within the sphere of influence of Russia and China, making any Venezuelan-style adventure extremely dangerous.
The geopolitical milieu of the Middle East is changing rapidly. Israel has modified its plans for “Greater Israel.” Those opposing Israeli domination in Gaza are being punished, with the latest example being the US invasion of Venezuela. Several Arab countries, including Sudan, have joined the Abraham Accords. Pressure continues on Saudi Arabia and indirectly on Pakistan. During a recent US visit, Crown Prince Mohammad resisted this pressure, making approval conditional.
The UN’s endorsement of US-engineered restructuring and security plans, allegedly sup-ported by leading Muslim countries, is now disputed. Deploying Muslim troops for such a force presents an extremely complex dilemma. Will these armies only disarm Hamas or will they also restrain Israeli aggression in Gaza? The plan contains many grey areas, particularly since the two-state formula remains undefined. While Israel’s Prime Minister again speaks of two states, Gaza has already been divided into zones: a reconstructed green zone and a devastated red zone where the population is compressed. This structural anomaly is likely to fuel future conflict.
Hamas has declared it will not disarm or allow Israel a free hand. It is already reorganizing along the Lebanese border. While some resistance to the Trump plan exists among Arab states, the balance of power in the Middle East remains fluid and heavily dependent on Russian and Chinese interests. Renewed threats to US bases have altered regional perceptions. Reliance on American security guarantees is now questioned, prompting diversification in security alignments. This marks a major realignment in the region, even if Washington believes its objectives have been achieved. In Europe, the Ukraine–Russia war is approaching a terminal phase. Ukraine’s acceptance of a US-proposed ceasefire framework represents a major setback for NATO. It symbolizes Ukraine’s effective surrender and the consolidation of Russia as a dominant military power in Europe. US sanctions have backfired diplomatically, strategically and economically. Russia has demonstrated resilience, military capability and financial endurance. NATO’s weaknesses are exposed, as European states quietly negotiate gas supplies with Moscow amid economic strain and rising defence costs. Europe must now confront the reality of Russian power.
Bangladesh is asserting independence from India’s hegemonic influence, altering the regional balance. India’s eastern flank now faces pressure from both China and Bangladesh. India is unlikely to remain passive and may attempt to recalibrate through coercion. A potential Bangladesh–Pakistan defence alignment could further shift the balance. The roots of tension trace back to the 1906 partition of Bengal. New strategic challenges may emerge involving Arunachal Pradesh, Assam and Bangladesh.
Regionally and in the Middle East, a potential Pakistan–Saudi–Turkey alignment could re-shape power dynamics. China and Russia are closely observing these developments, particularly amid Iran’s internal instability. Terrorism in Pakistan has surged by over 300 percent in the past two years, with links traced to Afghanistan-based groups such as the TTP. The Afghan regime appears either unwilling or incapable of controlling these elements. Internal tribal divisions, lack of inclusivity and divergent objectives weaken governance.
Tensions between the Haqqani and Kandahar factions further destabilize the situation. Dialogue with terrorist groups under such conditions is naïve; the question remains, whom to engage? Indian and Mossad involvement cannot be dismissed. Pakistan faces mounting pressure on multiple fronts. Political polarization deepens internal fault lines, which adversaries exploit through sleeper cells. Surrounded by hostile forces, Pakistan confronts an increasingly anarchic world where the sanctity of borders has eroded and the use of force has become normalized. In this transformed global order, Chairman Mao’s dictum that “power flows from the barrel of a gun” appears reaffirmed.
—The author is a Brigadier Retired, a decorated officer with 32 years of active combat experience, 30 years in corporate sector as MD/COO. A column writer, Researcher and TV analyst.
