Home Blog

Did U.S. Marines Guards Gun Down Pakistani Protesters in Karachi? Another Chapter of American Impunity Unfolds in Karachi

In the shadowed streets of Karachi, where grief over a distant assassination boiled into rage, thousands poured out this weekend chanting against the United States. They mourned Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, killed in U.S.-Israeli airstrikes that shattered Tehran’s skyline. But as the crowd surged toward the American Consulate on Mai Kolachi Road, gunfire erupted—not from Pakistani police, but from U.S. Marines guards stationed inside. Several crumpled to the pavement, with at least 12 Pakistanis felled by bullets that day, their blood staining the soil of their homeland. In a cruel irony, the government’s response was not to demand justice from Washington, but to unleash tear gas and batons on survivors, killing two more in Islamabad and suppressing the outcry nationwide.

This is how Pakistan, in its deference to foreign powers, turns inward, effectively complicit in the deaths of its own citizens.

The shootings on March 1, 2026, marked a grim escalation in the fallout from Khamenei’s death, which ignited protests across Pakistan’s Shia communities—comprising about 15 percent of the population, or 37 million people. Demonstrators viewed the ayatollah not just as Iran’s spiritual guide but as a religious authority whose loss felt profoundly personal. In Karachi, the crowd breached the consulate’s outer wall, hurling stones and setting fires, prompting Marines to open fire in what is being described as a defensive measure.

Reuters reported that at least 10 died, also quoting two U.S. officials who say U.S. Marine security guards fired their weapons when protesters tried to storm the U.S. Consulate in Karachi. Those same officials say it is still unclear whether Marine gunfire caused any of the deaths or injuries, and they do not confirm who, specifically, is responsible for the reported casualties.

Meanwhile, local hospitals like Civil Hospital have confirmed bullet wounds, not tear gas injuries or baton fractures. Similar violence flared in Lahore, Skardu, and Gilgit-Baltistan, where Shia-majority crowds torched U.N. offices, pushing the national death toll to over 20.

Pakistan’s leadership, under Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, responded with mourning for Khamenei but silence toward Washington. No demarche was filed, no U.S. ambassador summoned. Instead, officials like Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi and Sindh Chief Minister Murad Ali Shah imposed Section 144 bans on gatherings in Punjab, Sindh, and Islamabad, deploying forces to shield diplomatic sites. In Skardu, protesters were dispersed with tear gas, leading to additional fatalities. Sharif postponed a Moscow visit to manage optics, but critics saw it as prioritizing U.S. relations over national dignity.

This deference echoes a historical pattern. In 2011, CIA contractor Raymond Davis killed two Pakistanis in Lahore; the government coerced blood money settlements, released him without trial, and absorbed domestic backlash rather than challenge American impunity. Analysts draw parallels, noting how Pakistan’s reliance on U.S. aid—billions since the Cold War—has eroded its sovereignty.

“A government that condemns its own citizens for protesting a foreign military’s killing of Pakistanis on Pakistani ground has answered, without ambiguity, the question of whose interests it is organized to serve,” reported Brief.pk.

Social media amplified the outrage. On X, users like Haider Ali decried the government’s silence: “The Pakistani state is SILENT on the murder of its own citizens by a foreign force, just to appease Trump and the US.” Others lamented: “10 protestors killed by US marine today in Karachi yet no words from Government and no action by Pakistan—pakistan is a slave country.” Reports from Dawn and Al Jazeera highlighted investigations into the shootings, but skepticism abounds.

Broader regional tensions compound the crisis. Pakistan’s “open war” with Afghanistan, amid U.S.-backed strikes, and accusations of allowing American airspace for Iran attacks, position it as Washington’s “B-team.” Deputy Prime Minister Ishaq Dar affirmed no compromise on sovereignty, yet actions suggest otherwise. As protests simmer under curfews, experts warn of sectarian rifts and eroded trust. For families of the dead, the killings underscore a painful truth: In pursuing alliances abroad, Pakistan risks devouring its own at home.

The Betrayed Brotherhood: Pakistan’s Afghan Quagmire and the Folly of Strategic Depth

In the rugged borderlands where the Durand Line separates Pakistan and Afghanistan, a once-unlikely conflict has erupted into open hostility once again. As of February 2026, the two nations—bound by history, ethnicity, and religion—are locked in a cycle of airstrikes, border clashes, and mutual accusations that threaten regional stability.

From sporadic skirmishes to a low-intensity war, Pakistan has launched repeated military operations into Afghan territory in last few months. This confrontation is not merely a border dispute; it is the bitter harvest of Pakistan’s long-standing policy of nurturing Afghan militants, only to be betrayed by the very forces it empowered.

Pakistan’s entanglement with the Afghan Taliban dates back decades. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s, Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, often seen as the “deep state” orchestrating foreign policy, funneled U.S. and Saudi aid to mujahideen fighters, laying the groundwork for the Taliban’s rise in the 1990s. Post-9/11, despite joining the U.S.-led coalition against the Afghan Taliban, Pakistan provided covert sanctuary and support to the groups leadership, viewing them as a bulwark against Indian influence. This “strategic depth” doctrine—envisioning Afghanistan as a friendly rear base in any potential conflict with India—became the cornerstone of Pakistan’s military strategy. Islamabad’s generals believed a Taliban-led government would ensure a pliable neighbor, preventing encirclement by hostile powers.

Yet, this calculus has catastrophically backfired. Since the Taliban’s 2021 takeover of Kabul, relations have soured dramatically. The Afghan Taliban, once Pakistan’s proxies, have refused to rein in the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), a splinter group waging a deadly insurgency against Islamabad. The TTP, also known as Fitna al-Khawarij in Pakistani rhetoric, has launched over 1,000 attacks in recent years, killing hundreds of soldiers and civilians. Afghan Taliban leaders, sharing ideological ties with the TTP, have apparently provided safe havens, funding, and even protection in Kabul, however the TTP is just not limited to having safe havens in Afghans, as Islamist militant organizations in Pakistan, sometimes state backed, also facilitate the Pakistani Taliban,

The deep state’s fingerprints are everywhere in this fiasco. The military’s dominance over civilian governments has perpetuated short-sighted policies, ignoring diplomatic avenues in favor of coercion. Failed peace talks, such as those in Istanbul in late 2025, collapsed reportedly due to Pakistani military’s unreasonable demands. And now this new escalation has been marked by Pakistan’s airstrikes, ostensibly targeting TTP hideouts but increasingly drawing international condemnation for civilian casualties.

In December 2025, strikes in Paktika province killed at least 46 people, mostly women and children, according to Afghan and international media reports. More recently, on February 21-22, 2026, Pakistan Air Force jets bombed sites in Nangarhar and Paktika, claiming to eliminate 70 militants. However, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) confirmed credible reports of at least 13 civilian deaths and seven injuries, including children. Afghan officials reported higher tolls: 17-18 civilians in one instance, with homes, madrassas, and mosques damaged. Amnesty International called for independent investigations, highlighting a pattern where precision strikes devolve into indiscriminate violence. International media outlets have documented how these operations rarely hit high-value militants, instead terrorizing border communities and fueling anti-Pakistan sentiment in Afghanistan.

This war’s roots lie squarely in the flawed policies of Pakistan’s military, particularly under Chief of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir. Elevated to unprecedented power through manipulation of civilian politicians and the parliament via constitutional amendments, since his ascension, Munir has adopted a hardline stance, threatening “crushing blows” against Kabul over its support to the Pakistani Taliban, while he faces economic collapse, Baloch insurgency, and political turmoil from Imran Khan’s supporters. Critics therefore argue that Munir’s Afghan adventurism instead of engagement could also be his way to distract the public from his governance failures, rallying nationalist fervor amid rising terrorism and poverty.

In Balochistan, a Surging Insurgency Challenges Pakistan’s Fragile Hold

QUETTA, Pakistan — In the arid expanses of Balochistan, Pakistan’s largest and most resource-rich province, a wave of coordinated militant attacks has transformed simmering discontent into open warfare, raising alarms that Islamabad is losing its grip on a region long plagued by separatist strife. The Balochistan Liberation Army (B.L.A.), a pro-independence insurgent group, unleashed what it called Operation Herof 2.0 in late January, a brazen offensive that exposed the vulnerabilities of Pakistan’s military and ignited fears of broader regional instability.

The assaults began on Jan. 30 and extended into early February, spanning at least 10 cities, including the provincial capital, Quetta, the strategic port of Gwadar, and remote outposts like Nushki and Mastung. Militants stormed police stations, security installations, banks, schools and even a high-security prison, employing suicide bombings, gun battles and hostage-taking tactics. In Nushki, a desert town of about 50,000, insurgents seized control of key buildings, triggering a three-day standoff that required Pakistani forces to deploy drones, helicopters and ground troops to reclaim the area. Videos circulated on social media showed B.L.A. fighters, including women, patrolling streets and celebrating their temporary dominance, a stark symbol of the state’s retreat.

The B.L.A., framed the operation as a “black storm” against occupation, claiming it killed over 360 Pakistani security personnel while losing 93 of its own fighters, including elite suicide squads. The group’s spokesman, Jeeyand Baloch, described it as the “largest, most intense and most organized military operation” in its history, with attacks in 14 cities and the capture of several soldiers. Pakistani authorities, however, painted a different picture: 31 civilians and 17 security forces dead, with counteroperations under the banner Radd-ul-Fitna-1 eliminating 216 militants and dismantling sleeper cells. By Feb. 5, the military declared the operation concluded, insisting control had been restored.

Yet, beneath these conflicting tallies lies a deeper crisis. In a rare admission, Pakistan’s defense minister, Khawaja Asif, told Parliament that the army is “physically handicapped” against insurgents who are better equipped, controlling up to 40 percent of Balochistan’s territory. Analysts say the province, which borders Afghanistan and Iran and hosts China’s multibillion-dollar Gwadar port under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, has devolved into a near-war zone. Roads are blocked, internet services suspended, and residents report curfew-like conditions amid ongoing skirmishes. “The military’s overwhelming force has only amplified grievances,” said Ayesha Siddiqa, a Pakistani political scientist.

Balochistan’s insurgency traces back to 1948, when the region was forcibly annexed by Pakistan. Separatists decry exploitation of its vast natural gas, copper and gold reserves, which enrich the central government while leaving locals in poverty — the province has the country’s lowest literacy rates and highest unemployment. Decades of military crackdowns, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings have fueled radicalization. The B.L.A., formed in the early 2000s, has evolved from guerrilla tactics to sophisticated operations, including female fighters like Asifa Mengal, symbolizing a generational shift.

This latest escalation, dubbed Herof 2.0 after a 2024 predecessor, has drawn international scrutiny. Attacks on Chinese interests threaten Beijing’s investments, while U.S. officials have quietly noted the province’s strategic value amid tensions with Pakistan. Iranian border skirmishes add to the volatility, with Baloch militants operating across frontiers. “Balochistan is no longer a peripheral issue; it’s a tinderbox,” said Christine Fair, a Georgetown University professor specializing in South Asian security.

For Islamabad, the stakes are existential. The military, which consumes a quarter of the national budget, faces multiple fronts: Taliban affiliates in the northwest, tensions with India over Kashmir, and now this internal rebellion. Provincial Chief Minister Sarfaraz Bugti, a former insurgent turned government ally, appeared emotional in public statements, lamenting the loss of life and vowing resilience. But with insurgents claiming downed drones and prisoner swaps, the narrative of control frays.

As clearance operations wind down, questions linger about Pakistan’s strategy. Force alone has failed to quell the unrest; dialogue with nationalists remains elusive amid mutual distrust. Without addressing root causes — economic marginalization, political autonomy and human rights abuses — Balochistan risks slipping further from Islamabad’s grasp, potentially fracturing the federation and destabilizing a nuclear-armed nation already on edge.

British Hitmen Plot Targets Pakistani Dissidents Shahzad Akbar and Adil Raja In the UK

  • Reports suggests four British men have been charged in connection with coordinated attacks on two Pakistani dissidents in the UK, amid concerns of transnational repression linked to critics of Pakistan’s military-backed government.
  • The incidents, occurring between December 24 and 31, 2025, involved assaults and an arson attempt, targeting supporters of jailed former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan.
  • Evidence leans toward a “planned and sophisticated” plot, with one suspect described as a “hitman for hire,” though motivations remain under investigation without confirmed foreign state involvement.
  • The case highlights debates on exile safety, with counterterrorism police leading probes to ensure balanced views on potential political motivations.

In a case that has drawn attention to the vulnerabilities of political exiles on British soil, four men have been charged in connection with a series of brazen attacks on two prominent Pakistani dissidents, supporters of the imprisoned former Prime Minister Imran Khan. The incidents, unfolding over the final week of 2025, involved physical assaults and an attempted arson, prompting an investigation by counterterrorism police into what authorities described as “highly targeted” violence.

The sequence began on Christmas Eve, when Mirza Shahzad Akbar, a 48-year-old human rights lawyer who served in Mr. Khan’s cabinet before fleeing to Britain, opened his door in Cambridgeshire to a man disguised in workman’s attire. The assailant, after confirming Mr. Akbar’s identity, unleashed a barrage of punches—up to 30 blows—leaving him with cuts, bruising and a broken nose. Simultaneously, in Chesham, Buckinghamshire, two men allegedly forced entry into the home of Adil Raja, a journalist and former military officer known for exposing alleged corruption within Pakistan’s armed forces. Mr. Raja was not present, but the intruders vandalized the property.

A week later, on New Year’s Eve, the aggression escalated with an arson attempt at Mr. Akbar’s residence, involving a prohibited weapon and intent to endanger life. Both victims, outspoken critics of Pakistan’s military-backed government, have lived in exile amid fears of reprisal. Mr. Akbar, now in hiding, told reporters the attacks felt orchestrated by hired hands, though he stopped short of direct accusations. “These were not random,” he said in a statement, expressing grave concerns for his family’s safety.

British authorities moved swiftly. After initial local police involvement, the Counter Terrorism Command assumed control, citing the attacks’ precision and potential political undertones. Raids across London, Essex, the Midlands and beyond led to multiple arrests. On January 23, 2026, three men were charged: Karl Blackbird, 40, of Bedworth, and Clark McAulay, 39, of Coventry, each faced conspiracy to commit assault occasioning actual bodily harm—Mr. Blackbird for both incidents, Mr. McAulay for the Chesham break-in. Doneto Brammer, 21, from north London, was accused of possessing a prohibited weapon and two counts of conspiracy to commit arson.

The latest development came on January 26, when Louis Regan, a 25-year-old university student from Birmingham, appeared at Westminster Magistrates’ Court. Prosecutors portrayed Mr. Regan as the “controlling mind” behind the Christmas Eve plots, a “hitman for hire” who allegedly conducted reconnaissance trips and disguised himself for the assault on Mr. Akbar. Deputy Chief Magistrate Tan Ikram remanded him in custody, noting the case’s severity. All four defendants are set to appear at the Old Bailey on February 13.

The investigation continues, with detectives exploring possible motivations and connections between the events. While no foreign state has been implicated, the case echoes transnational repression concerns, similar to incidents involving Iranian or Russian dissidents in Europe. Human rights advocates have urged thorough scrutiny, emphasizing Britain’s role as a haven for free speech.

Scotland Yard’s statement underscored an “open mind” approach, but the arrests signal a robust response to threats against exiles. As one official noted, such violence undermines democratic values. For Mr. Akbar and Mr. Raja, the ordeal highlights the long reach of political vendettas, even across borders.

Detailed Chronology of Incidents

The attacks commenced on December 24, 2025, with synchronized assaults at approximately 8 a.m. GMT. Mr. Akbar’s encounter involved a disguised attacker who fled after the beating. In Chesham, the intruders caused property damage but no injuries. The New Year’s Eve arson, linked only to Mr. Brammer among the charged, involved reckless endangerment but was thwarted before major harm.

Profiles of Key Individuals
– Mirza Shahzad Akbar: Exile since 2022, former special assistant to Imran Khan on accountability. Known for anti-corruption campaigns against military figures.
– Adil Raja: Online journalist with millions of followers, accuses Pakistan’s army of electoral interference and human rights abuses.
– Suspects: All British-born; Mr. Regan, a sport science student, allegedly led planning. Others appear as operatives, with no prior public ties to Pakistan.

Broader Context and Controversies

These events fit a pattern of alleged harassment against Khan supporters abroad, amid Pakistan’s political turmoil following his 2023 ousting and imprisonment on fabricated charges. Rights groups like Amnesty International have documented similar threats, urging international probes.

Ongoing Investigations and Reactions

Police conducted seven raids, releasing some suspects on bail while holding others. A 34-year-old from Essex and a 40-year-old woman from London remain under scrutiny. Public reactions on platforms like X highlight solidarity with victims, with posts from activists like Peter Tatchell criticizing inconsistent police responses to threats. Experts suggest forensic evidence, including CCTV and disguises, strengthens the case, but full motivations may emerge in trial.

 

Pakistan’s Entanglement in Sudan’s Proxy War: Bolstering Saudi Interests Amid Geopolitical Shifts

In a move that underscores the intricate web of Middle Eastern alliances, Pakistan has reportedly deepened its involvement in the ongoing proxy war in Sudan, aligning itself firmly with Saudi Arabia’s strategic objectives. The conflict in Sudan, pitting the military government led by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) commanded by Mohammed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo, has become a battleground for regional powers. Saudi Arabia supports the Sudanese government, viewing it as a critical bulwark against instability that could spill over into the Red Sea region. In contrast, the United Arab Emirates backs the RSF, fueling a proxy struggle that has devastated the country since 2023. Pakistan’s entry into this fray comes via a mediated arms deal, where it supplies fighter jets to Khartoum, effectively tipping the scales in favor of Riyadh’s proxies.

At the heart of this arrangement is Saudi Arabia’s role as an intermediary in a potential $4 billion deal for Pakistan’s JF-17 Thunder jets, along with associated equipment and support. Riyadh is converting $2 billion in outstanding loans to Pakistan into funding for this military package, which also includes drones, light attack aircraft, and air defense systems valued at around $1.5 billion. This financial maneuvering not only alleviates Pakistan’s economic pressures but also ensures that Sudan’s forces receive the hardware needed to counter RSF advances. By arming Burhan’s regime, Pakistan is directly aiding Saudi Arabia’s efforts to prevent the government’s collapse, which Riyadh sees as essential for maintaining influence in the Horn of Africa. This involvement marks a significant escalation for Islamabad, which has historically provided mercenary support and training to Gulf states but is now stepping into active armament supply in a high-stakes proxy conflict.

The JF-17 jets, licensed from China, have been positioned through aggressive marketing and narrative-building campaigns as a cost-effective alternative to Western aircraft. Pakistani defense officials have employed effective propaganda to promote these jets globally, crafting stories of reliability and affordability to undercut established players in the arms market. This approach aims to boost Pakistan’s nascent defense industry by appealing to budget-conscious buyers in conflict zones, even as questions linger about the jets’ real-world performance and interoperability.

More alarmingly, this deal signals Saudi Arabia’s gradual pivot away from its longstanding dependence on U.S. weaponry. For decades, Riyadh has been a top importer of American arms, accounting for nearly a quarter of U.S. exports in recent years. However, escalating costs and geopolitical frictions—exacerbated by events like the Gaza conflict and tensions with Iran—have prompted Saudi leaders to explore alternatives. By facilitating the acquisition of Chinese-origin jets produced in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia is effectively ditching U.S. systems in favor of cheaper, non-interoperable options from Eastern suppliers. This shift not only diversifies Riyadh’s arsenal but also challenges Washington’s dominance in the global arms trade.

For Pakistan, this transaction represents a stark betrayal of its relationship with the United States. Islamabad has long benefited from U.S. military aid, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic support, particularly in counterterrorism efforts. Yet, by promoting and selling Chinese-licensed weapons that directly compete with American products, Pakistan is undermining the very alliance that has sustained it. This move prioritizes short-term gains from Gulf patrons over long-term ties with Washington, risking sanctions or reduced cooperation. As the Sudan conflict drags on, Pakistan’s actions highlight how economic desperation and regional ambitions can erode traditional partnerships, reshaping the Middle East’s security landscape in unpredictable ways.

Pakistan Terror Groups Exploit Gaza

In the shadow of the protracted conflict in Gaza, Pakistani militant groups designated as terrorists by the United Nations are channeling humanitarian appeals into efforts to rebuild their own networks and bolster recruitment, according to recent reports from European analysts and assessments by security officials.

Groups like Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), both proscribed for their roles in attacks against India and beyond, have seized on the Israel-Hamas war to solicit donations under the guise of aid for Palestinians. A report recently published details how these organizations are raising funds for items like mosque reconstruction, prayer mats and winter kits, while diverting resources to revive terror infrastructure damaged by international sanctions.

The campaigns, often conducted through digital wallets, cryptocurrencies and mobile apps like Easypaisa, aim to evade scrutiny from global watchdogs such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which has long criticized Pakistan’s lax enforcement against terror financing.

Family members of JeM’s founder, Masood Azhar — a U.N.-designated terrorist believed to be living freely in Pakistan — are at the forefront. His son, Hammad Azhar, and brother, Talha al-Saif, have been linked to these drives, promoting donations for “religious causes” that mask support for operations in Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, LeT, infamous for the 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people, has leveraged online platforms to collect funds ostensibly for Gaza relief, but with ties to rebuilding training camps and arming recruits.

This tactic is not new, but the Gaza crisis, which has displaced millions and drawn global sympathy since October 2023, provides fresh cover. The U.S. State Department’s 2019 Country Reports on Terrorism highlighted Pakistan as a “safe harbor” for regionally focused groups like JeM and LeT, noting Islamabad’s failure to act against leaders like Azhar and Sajid Mir, the alleged Mumbai plotter. Despite indictments against LeT founder Hafiz Saeed on terror financing charges, enforcement remains inconsistent, allowing these outfits to operate with impunity.

Experts warn that this exploitation could exacerbate regional instability. The well-known Brookings Institution, in an analysis of counterterrorism strategies, has noted in past how passive governments like Pakistan’s enable jihadist networks to thrive, drawing parallels to pre-9/11 Saudi Arabia. The Global Terrorism Index, published by the Institute for Economics and Peace, has ranked Pakistan among the top countries impacted by terrorism, with groups like Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) shifting focus amid declining deaths but persistent activity.

Also recent videos circulating on social media show senior Hamas figures sharing stages with LeT-linked operatives in Pakistan, raising alarms about potential alliances. Such cross-pollination could extend threats beyond South Asia, as seen in past plots like the failed 2010 Times Square bombing tied to TTP.

Pakistan’s government has denied harboring terrorists, pointing to military operations against domestic threats. But critics, including U.S. lawmakers in congressional hearings on terror finance, argue that unilateral actions fall short without multilateral pressure. As Gaza’s humanitarian needs mount — with over 40,000 reported deaths and widespread destruction — the diversion of aid by sanctioned groups underscores the challenges of policing global philanthropy in conflict zones.

The FATF, in its latest reviews, has urged Pakistan to strengthen oversight of nonprofits and digital transactions. Yet, with JeM and LeT’s networks resilient, the line between relief and radicalization blurs, posing risks to India, Afghanistan and potentially the West. As one European report concluded, these efforts not only fund violence but also radicalize youth disillusioned by the Gaza plight, perpetuating a cycle of terror.

Nexus Between ISIS Affiliate and Pakistani Militant Group Draws Scrutiny

Recent international intelligence reports have illuminated a troubling alliance between the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP), an affiliate of the Islamic State militant group, and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a Pakistan-based organization long designated as a terrorist entity by the United Nations. This partnership, reportedly nurtured under the auspices of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), underscores Islamabad’s complex role in regional security dynamics, according to analysts and classified assessments.

The revelations come amid heightened concerns over Pakistan’s provision of safe havens to extremist networks in South and Central Asia. A pivotal event was the late December 2025 arrest of Mehmet Gören, a high-ranking ISKP operative, by Turkish intelligence near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Gören’s detention, detailed in these reports, has exposed layers of operational coordination between ISKP and LeT, aimed at advancing Pakistan’s strategic interests.

LeT, infamous for orchestrating the 2008 Mumbai attacks that killed 166 people, has historically benefited from ISI support, including funding and logistics. Evidence of Pakistan’s ties to ISKP has mounted over the years. In April 2024, Afghan authorities apprehended Tajik nationals who confessed to receiving directives to train in Quetta, Pakistan, before deployment. A video statement from Abdul Rahim Muslim Dost, an ISKP founding member, alleged that ISI officers channeled financial aid to Hafiz Saeed Khan, the group’s Pakistan-born leader until his death in a 2016 drone strike. The 2020 capture of ISKP chief Aslam Farooqi, also a Pakistani national, further laid bare these connections, with a senior Afghan official describing ISKP as “essentially a demon child” of the ISI.

At a United Nations forum in March 2024, Dr. Naseem Baloch, chairman of the Baloch National Movement, asserted that ISIS training camps in Balochistan operate under Pakistani military oversight. Circulating among intelligence circles is a photograph depicting ISKP’s Balochistan coordinator, Mir Shafiq Mengal, presenting a pistol to LeT senior commander Rana Mohammad Ashfaq—a gesture symbolizing their formalized collaboration under ISI guidance.

International intelligence reports describe this nexus as serving multiple Pakistani objectives: quelling Baloch separatist insurgencies domestically, undermining elements within Afghanistan’s Taliban leadership perceived as resistant to Islamabad’s influence, and sustaining pressure on India, particularly in the disputed region of Jammu and Kashmir. Mengal, accused of leading a private militia against Baloch nationalists, has been instrumental since around 2015, facilitating ISKP’s funding, arms transfers, and safe houses in districts like Mastung and Khuzdar.

A setback for these operations occurred in March 2025, when Baloch armed groups overran an ISKP base in Mastung, resulting in about 30 militant deaths. In response, the ISI reportedly enlisted LeT to bolster ISKP’s capabilities. A June 2025 meeting in Balochistan, attended by Ashfaq and his deputy, Saifullah Kasuri, culminated in pledges to wage armed struggle against “anti-Pakistan” forces.

Operationally, the groups share training facilities in Balochistan for cross-border attacks. ISKP’s propaganda, including its magazine Yalgaar, has increasingly emphasized expansion into Kashmir, aligning with Pakistan’s geopolitical aims beyond mere ideological affinity.

This evolving alliance poses significant risks, experts warn, potentially destabilizing Balochistan and Afghanistan while reigniting violence in Kashmir. ISKP’s anti-American stance and access to Pakistani recruitment networks enhance its resilience, prompting questions about Pakistan’s status as a Major Non-NATO Ally and its commitment to counterterrorism efforts. As regional tensions simmer, these reports highlight the perils of proxy warfare in an already volatile landscape.

Pakistan’s ISPR Descends to Street Slang

In a rare departure from the typically measured and formal tone of Pakistan’s military communications, Lieutenant General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry, the Director General of Inter-Services Public Relations (DG ISPR), employed colloquial and derisive language during a press briefing on January 6, 2026, drawing widespread criticism for what observers described as unprofessionalism and a sign of institutional strain.

The briefing, held in Rawalpindi, came amid heightened tensions with neighboring countries including Afghanistan and India and domestic challenges including economic pressures and security operations in border regions. Lt. Gen. Chaudhry, who has held the post since December 2022, addressed a range of topics, from Pakistan’s strategic posture to allegations of external interference. He asserted that Pakistan must evolve into a “hard state” by 2026 to counter threats, claiming that adversaries—whether approaching “from above or below, from the right or left, alone or together”—would face resolute opposition.

It appears that the ISPR chief’s harsh press conference was to send a message to neighboring Afghanistan and India but also to internal opposition the military has been facing since the arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, over politically motivated charges, as per international human rights observers.

The most contentious moment in the DG ISPR’s presser involved his repeated use of street slang in issuing warnings. In one instance, directed broadly at perceived foes, he remarked, “Ek baar mazaa nahi karadiya na, toh paise wapas,” roughly translating to “If I don’t give you enjoyment once, then money back.” This phrase, evocative of casual marketplace haggling or refund policies in everyday commerce, was interpreted by critics as trivializing grave military matters and injecting mockery into what should have been a sober exposition of national security policy.

Adding to the controversy, Lt. Gen. Chaudhry dismissed the Taliban-led administration in Afghanistan, stating there is “no government” there and describing the country as “just a geographical expression, not a Government.” This comment, shared widely on social media, risked inflaming relations with Kabul at a time when Pakistan grapples with cross-border militancy and refugee issues.

The language struck a chord on X, where users amplified the clips and quotes, often with sarcasm or condemnation. Posts featured video excerpts, questioning what the statements implied about the Pakistan Army’s professionalism, accompanied by laughing emojis that reflected public bemusement.

International media reports echoed this sentiment. Accounts detailed how the DG’s mocking phrases, including the refund quip, were wielded while addressing regional threats, framing the episode as a stoop to “street language.” Intelligence analysts cited in various reports viewed the briefing not as bravado but as a symptom of insecurity, eroding the polished image the ISPR has cultivated for decades.

The incident occurs against a backdrop of Pakistan’s complex regional dynamics and uptick in terrorism in the country. Relations with neighbors remain fraught, marked by longstanding disputes and accusations of cross-border activities, while ties with Afghanistan have deteriorated since the Taliban’s 2021 takeover, exacerbated by insurgencies. Domestically, the army faces scrutiny over political influence, economic woes, and human rights concerns in restive provinces.

Although analysts argue, Pakistan’s terrorism woes are largely internal, stemming from decades of military sponsorship of militant groups intended as proxies against regional rivals. These groups, including elements linked to the Afghan Taliban and others, have increasingly turned against Islamabad, fueling domestic insurgencies like the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan. Rather than addressing this blowback, officials now deflect blame toward India and Afghanistan, accusing them of harboring or funding anti-Pakistan elements—a narrative that risks escalating tensions without resolving root causes.

ISPR’s Directive: Silencing Pakistani Media on UAE-Saudi Tensions in Yemen

In a move that underscores the delicate balancing act Pakistan maintains in its foreign relations, the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), the media wing of Pakistan’s armed forces, has reportedly issued a directive banning local media from covering escalating tensions between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Saudi Arabia in Yemen. This development, first highlighted by a U.S.-based news outlet, has sparked debates on press freedom, military influence over journalism, and Pakistan’s strategic ties with Gulf nations. The alleged ban comes amid reports of a rift between two of Pakistan’s key allies, forcing Islamabad into a position of enforced neutrality.

Background on the UAE-Saudi Tensions

The conflict in Yemen has long been a proxy battleground for regional powers, with Saudi Arabia leading a coalition against Houthi rebels since 2015. The UAE, initially a staunch partner in this effort, has increasingly pursued its own interests, including supporting southern separatist groups that have clashed with Saudi-backed forces. Recent escalations, including military standoffs and diplomatic strains, have highlighted a growing divide between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi.

Pakistan, which relies heavily on economic aid, remittances, and military cooperation from both countries, finds itself in a precarious spot. Saudi Arabia is a major donor and hosts millions of Pakistani expatriates, while the UAE is a significant investor and trade partner. Any public discourse on the tensions could risk alienating one or both, prompting what appears to be a preemptive media clampdown.

The ISPR Directive: What We Know

According to a leaked message reported by Drop Site News, ISPR instructed all television channels and newspapers to cease coverage of the UAE-Saudi conflict in Yemen. The directive, described as a “complete silence” order, led to multiple outlets halting ongoing reports and removing previously published content. This was corroborated by Indian media outlet ThePrint, which detailed how Pakistani authorities engaged in behind-the-scenes diplomacy to manage the fallout while enforcing the media blackout.

Social media posts amplified the story, with users sharing screenshots and analyses of the alleged ISPR communication. One viral post from an account focused on geopolitics claimed the ban was part of a broader effort to protect Pakistan’s relations with its “closest allies.” However, not all reports were unanimous; some Pakistani voices, including a fact-checker from the Ministry of Information, dismissed the leak as “baseless propaganda” and noted the absence of coverage in major local outlets like Dawn or Geo News as evidence of its falsehood.

Despite these denials, the pattern aligns with historical precedents. ISPR has previously influenced media narratives on sensitive issues, such as internal political rallies or international disputes. For instance, in 2023, authorities banned coverage of a story from The Intercept regarding U.S. involvement in Pakistani politics, citing similar directives.

How the Ban Was Implemented

The enforcement appears swift and comprehensive. Following the directive, Pakistani media outlets reportedly reduced or eliminated stories on the Yemen standoff. Television channels, which often rely on ISPR for military-related briefings, complied to avoid repercussions such as license suspensions by the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA).

Journalists and analysts have noted this as part of a broader trend of military oversight. In interviews, former military officials like Gen. Asad Durrani have acknowledged ISPR’s role in approving or banning analysts to push preferred narratives. This control extends to blackouts on political figures, such as past restrictions on coverage of Imran Khan.

Implications for Press Freedom and Diplomacy

Critics argue that such bans erode journalistic independence in Pakistan, where media is already under pressure from both state and non-state actors. The incident raises questions about transparency: If tensions between UAE and Saudi Arabia affect regional stability, why shield the public from information?

Diplomatically, the move signals Pakistan’s intent to remain neutral. The Foreign Office has expressed solidarity with Saudi Arabia while welcoming de-escalation efforts, avoiding direct commentary on the rift. Yet, some speculate underlying motives, including accusations of “Indian-sponsored proxies” fueling unrelated domestic unrest, as stated by Pakistan’s defense chief.

As of January 5, 2026, the story continues to circulate on international platforms, but Pakistani airwaves remain notably silent. This episode highlights the ongoing tension between national security imperatives and the right to information, leaving observers to wonder how long such censorship can sustain in an era of global connectivity.

U.S. Lawmakers Warn of Grave Threat: Demand Trump Confront Pakistan’s Menacing Transnational Repression on American Soil

Washington, D.C. – A bipartisan coalition of U.S. lawmakers has intensified calls for the Trump administration to confront Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Asim Munir, over accusations of transnational repression targeting pro-democracy activists within the United States. Leading Democrats, including Representatives Greg Casar of Texas and Pramila Jayapal of Washington, both serving on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, are circulating a congressional letter pressing the White House to hold Pakistani military and civilian authorities accountable for threats and intimidation directed at Pakistani Americans.

The initiative stems from escalating concerns following Pakistan’s contentious February 2024 elections, which critics allege involved widespread voter suppression, ballot tampering, and fraud to marginalize former Prime Minister Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party. According to advocacy groups, this domestic crackdown has extended extraterritorially, with Pakistani state actors employing tactics such as surveillance, harassment, and coercion against dissidents abroad, including on U.S. soil. These actions are viewed as a direct challenge to American sovereignty and the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and residents.

In submissions to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission, witnesses and organizations have detailed a pattern of abuses orchestrated by Pakistan’s military-intelligence apparatus, often referred to as the “deep state.” A June 2025 statement from the Community Alliance for Peace and Justice described a “coordinated, whole-of-government effort” involving arbitrary detention of relatives in Pakistan to silence critics in the diaspora. The group highlighted that approximately 1.26 million Pakistani-origin individuals in the U.S. face vulnerability, with many reluctant to report incidents due to fear of reprisals.

Testimony from Pakistani journalist Ahmad Noorani, delivered to the Commission, provided firsthand accounts of repression under General Munir’s leadership. Noorani recounted a March 2025 raid on his family home in Islamabad, allegedly in retaliation for his investigative reporting on Munir’s relatives. His brothers were abducted, tortured, and subjected to a staged “fake encounter” before their release, illustrating what Noorani termed “transnational repression in its most aggressive form.” He accused Munir of leading a “machinery of repression” that includes kidnappings, enforced disappearances, and digital surveillance, extending to exiles in the West.

Similar allegations appear in a July 2025 submission from First Pakistan Global, a U.S.-based nonprofit, which characterized Pakistan under Munir as a “Punitive State” governed through coercion. The document referenced the November 26, 2024, Islamabad protests—dubbed the “Islamabad Massacre”—where military forces reportedly used live ammunition against demonstrators, resulting in suppressed casualty figures and media blackouts. The group warned that such authoritarianism undermines regional stability and U.S. interests.

Lawmakers’ demands include visa bans, restrictions on U.S. assistance, and support for legislation like the Pakistan Democracy Act (H.R. 2311) and the Pakistan Freedom and Accountability Act (H.R. 5271), which would tie aid to improvements in human rights and governance. Bipartisan backing is evident, with earlier letters from Representatives Jack Bergman (R-MI) and Greg Stanton (D-AZ) echoing these calls. Advocates, including Pakistani-American grassroots organizations like the Coalition to Change US Policy on Pakistan, emphasize that isolated measures are insufficient; comprehensive accountability is needed to prevent foreign interference in American communities.

Specific recommendations from Commission submissions urge imposing Global Magnitsky sanctions on Munir and other officials, such as Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi and ISI Director General Lt. General Asim Malik, for their roles in directing abuses. Noorani called for a formal congressional probe into these activities, labeling them “federal crimes” that violate U.S. laws like the Foreign Agents Registration Act. The push also advocates for the Countering Transnational Repression Act of 2025 (H.R. 2158) to bolster protections for diaspora groups.

Pakistani-American Republican activist Junaid Khan, who claims personal victimization through family harassment, welcomed the effort, stating it could lead to targeted sanctions on implicated officials. Supporters argue that allowing a U.S. ally to intimidate dissidents erodes democratic values and national security.

This congressional momentum builds on prior scrutiny, including a 2024 letter to President Biden expressing concerns over human rights violations in Pakistan. As the Trump administration reviews foreign policy, experts suggest these developments could strain U.S.-Pakistan relations, particularly amid ongoing discussions on counterterrorism and regional stability. The White House has yet to respond publicly to the latest letter, but advocates remain optimistic that sustained pressure will yield reforms.

123...14Page 1 of 14
© @ Copyright South Asia Press (SAP) 2020