In a wide-ranging interview with Al Jazeera, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, spoke on a multitude of topics. Against the backdrop of an emergency Arab-Islamic summit convened after an Israeli strike on Qatar and amidst the ongoing crisis in Gaza, Dar’s commentary addressed a spectrum of pressing geopolitical issues.
He covered themes ranging from the systemic failures of the United Nations, to persistent regional security threats involving India and Afghanistan, and the imperative for a unified Islamic bloc. His remarks reflect a response to global circumstances defined by an erosion of international law and the perceived impotence of multilateral institutions. This foreign policy framework is premised upon a profound disillusionment with the post-war global order, advocating for a self-reliant and assertive Islamic bloc, and reasserting Pakistan’s role as a military and nuclear power prepared to enforce its strategic red lines.
The Collapse of Multilateralism
At the core of Dar’s position is a systemic critique of the international security architecture, particularly the United Nations Security Council. He posits that its failure to enforce its own resolutions has rendered it impotent, thereby creating a permissive environment for state aggression. The minister highlighted the crises in Palestine and Kashmir, framing them as parallel examples of the UN’s systemic failure to protect Muslim populations, rather than isolated regional disputes. By repeatedly referencing the non-implementation of resolutions on Palestine and Jammu & Kashmir, he constructs a narrative of systemic international failure.
This parallel serves a dual strategic purpose: it bolsters support for Pakistan’s position on Kashmir within the Muslim world and elevates the conflict from a bilateral dispute to a global question of international law. His critique that the UNSC’s primary mandate to maintain peace and security is failing implies that the current system is not working. The strike on Qatar, a mediating state, is positioned as empirical evidence that the existing system offers no protection.
Forging a New Path
This diagnosis of systemic failure serves as the predicate for Dar’s policy prescription, the Ummah must develop its own strategic pathway. He explicitly states that the two billion Muslims represented at the summit expect more than another perfunctory declaration. The demand for a clear road map and concrete steps signals a shift from a reactive to a proactive strategic posture.
Among the different proposals he presented, the most bold is the concept of an Arab/Islamic security force. While carefully framed for defensive, not offensive purposes, the suggestion of a collective military mechanism outside existing international frameworks constitutes a significant departure from established norms. It implies that in the absence of UN action, the Islamic world must develop the capacity for collective self-defense. This line of thinking challenges the regional security architecture, long dominated by external powers. Dar’s warning against hegemonic attitudes within regions, citing India’s failed attempt, serves as an implicit message to larger powers that collective security must be based on the sovereign equality of states, a principle Pakistan feels has been consistently violated.
Pakistan’s Hard Power and Red Lines
Throughout the interview, Dar substantiates his diplomatic arguments with explicit references to Pakistan’s military capabilities. He reminds the audience that Pakistan is the only nuclear Muslim country, a status presented as both a deterrent and a significant geopolitical lever. This constitutes a clear exercise in strategic communication: the nuclear arsenal guarantees Pakistan’s sovereignty and ensures its influence in international forums. He complements this by highlighting the country’s very effective army, air force, and navy, referencing its conventional capabilities to underscore that Pakistan is not solely reliant on its nuclear deterrent.
This emphasis on hard power is most pronounced when discussing regional threats. His assertion that any Indian attempt to violate the Indus Waters Treaty will be treated as an act of war constitutes an unambiguous strategic red line. Similarly, his demand that Afghanistan act decisively against terrorist groups, followed by the warning that attacks on Pakistani nationals will invite any and all responses, demonstrates a zero-tolerance policy. This rhetoric shifts the discourse from negotiation to deterrence. Pakistan, under this framework, prefers dialogue but will not hesitate to employ force when its core security interests are challenged. This dual approach is designed to project strength and resolve to both adversaries and allies. His dismissal of the US as a “trustworthy guarantor” further solidifies this stance, advocating for a future security paradigm managed by regional powers.
A New Posture for a Fractured World
Ishaq Dar’s interview transcends a mere diplomatic statement, functioning as a policy manifesto for a new era in Pakistani foreign policy and a call to action for the Muslim world. It articulates a vision of strategic autonomy premised on three pillars: a criticism of failing international system, the pursuit of collective self-reliance through concrete action, and the leveraging of national power as the ultimate guarantor of security.
By linking global and regional security dynamics, and by backing diplomatic initiatives with credible military deterrence, Dar has outlined a pragmatic and assertive strategic vision for navigating an increasingly fractured world.
Multilateralism in Crisis: Pakistan’s Call for Collective Islamic Security
In a wide-ranging interview with Al Jazeera, Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister, Ishaq Dar, spoke on a multitude of topics. Against the backdrop of an emergency Arab-Islamic summit convened after an Israeli strike on Qatar and amidst the ongoing crisis in Gaza, Dar’s commentary addressed a spectrum of pressing geopolitical issues.
He covered themes ranging from the systemic failures of the United Nations, to persistent regional security threats involving India and Afghanistan, and the imperative for a unified Islamic bloc. His remarks reflect a response to global circumstances defined by an erosion of international law and the perceived impotence of multilateral institutions. This foreign policy framework is premised upon a profound disillusionment with the post-war global order, advocating for a self-reliant and assertive Islamic bloc, and reasserting Pakistan’s role as a military and nuclear power prepared to enforce its strategic red lines.
The Collapse of Multilateralism
At the core of Dar’s position is a systemic critique of the international security architecture, particularly the United Nations Security Council. He posits that its failure to enforce its own resolutions has rendered it impotent, thereby creating a permissive environment for state aggression. The minister highlighted the crises in Palestine and Kashmir, framing them as parallel examples of the UN’s systemic failure to protect Muslim populations, rather than isolated regional disputes. By repeatedly referencing the non-implementation of resolutions on Palestine and Jammu & Kashmir, he constructs a narrative of systemic international failure.
This parallel serves a dual strategic purpose: it bolsters support for Pakistan’s position on Kashmir within the Muslim world and elevates the conflict from a bilateral dispute to a global question of international law. His critique that the UNSC’s primary mandate to maintain peace and security is failing implies that the current system is not working. The strike on Qatar, a mediating state, is positioned as empirical evidence that the existing system offers no protection.
Forging a New Path
This diagnosis of systemic failure serves as the predicate for Dar’s policy prescription, the Ummah must develop its own strategic pathway. He explicitly states that the two billion Muslims represented at the summit expect more than another perfunctory declaration. The demand for a clear road map and concrete steps signals a shift from a reactive to a proactive strategic posture.
Among the different proposals he presented, the most bold is the concept of an Arab/Islamic security force. While carefully framed for defensive, not offensive purposes, the suggestion of a collective military mechanism outside existing international frameworks constitutes a significant departure from established norms. It implies that in the absence of UN action, the Islamic world must develop the capacity for collective self-defense. This line of thinking challenges the regional security architecture, long dominated by external powers. Dar’s warning against hegemonic attitudes within regions, citing India’s failed attempt, serves as an implicit message to larger powers that collective security must be based on the sovereign equality of states, a principle Pakistan feels has been consistently violated.
Pakistan’s Hard Power and Red Lines
Throughout the interview, Dar substantiates his diplomatic arguments with explicit references to Pakistan’s military capabilities. He reminds the audience that Pakistan is the only nuclear Muslim country, a status presented as both a deterrent and a significant geopolitical lever. This constitutes a clear exercise in strategic communication: the nuclear arsenal guarantees Pakistan’s sovereignty and ensures its influence in international forums. He complements this by highlighting the country’s very effective army, air force, and navy, referencing its conventional capabilities to underscore that Pakistan is not solely reliant on its nuclear deterrent.
This emphasis on hard power is most pronounced when discussing regional threats. His assertion that any Indian attempt to violate the Indus Waters Treaty will be treated as an act of war constitutes an unambiguous strategic red line. Similarly, his demand that Afghanistan act decisively against terrorist groups, followed by the warning that attacks on Pakistani nationals will invite any and all responses, demonstrates a zero-tolerance policy. This rhetoric shifts the discourse from negotiation to deterrence. Pakistan, under this framework, prefers dialogue but will not hesitate to employ force when its core security interests are challenged. This dual approach is designed to project strength and resolve to both adversaries and allies. His dismissal of the US as a “trustworthy guarantor” further solidifies this stance, advocating for a future security paradigm managed by regional powers.
A New Posture for a Fractured World
Ishaq Dar’s interview transcends a mere diplomatic statement, functioning as a policy manifesto for a new era in Pakistani foreign policy and a call to action for the Muslim world. It articulates a vision of strategic autonomy premised on three pillars: a criticism of failing international system, the pursuit of collective self-reliance through concrete action, and the leveraging of national power as the ultimate guarantor of security.
By linking global and regional security dynamics, and by backing diplomatic initiatives with credible military deterrence, Dar has outlined a pragmatic and assertive strategic vision for navigating an increasingly fractured world.
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentary
SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.
Recent
When Insurgents Rule: The Taliban’s Crisis of Governance
The Taliban’s confrontation with Pakistan reveals a deeper failure at the heart of their rule: an insurgent movement incapable of governing the state it conquered. Bound by rigid ideology and fractured by internal rivalries, the Taliban have turned their military victory into a political and economic collapse, exposing the limits of ruling through insurgent logic.
The Great Unknotting: America’s Tech Break with China, and the Return of the American System
As the U.S. unwinds decades of technological interdependence with China, a new industrial and strategic order is emerging. Through selective decoupling, focused on chips, AI, and critical supply chains, Washington aims to restore domestic manufacturing, secure data sovereignty, and revive the Hamiltonian vision of national self-reliance. This is not isolationism but a recalibration of globalization on America’s terms.
Inside the Istanbul Talks: How Taliban Factionalism Killed a Peace Deal
The collapse of the Turkiye-hosted talks to address the TTP threat was not a diplomatic failure but a calculated act of sabotage from within the Taliban regime. Deep factional divides—between Kandahar, Kabul, and Khost blocs—turned mediation into chaos, as Kabul’s power players sought to use the TTP issue as leverage for U.S. re-engagement and financial relief. The episode exposed a regime too fractured and self-interested to act against terrorism or uphold sovereignty.
The Indo-Afghan Arc: Rewriting Pakistan’s Strategic Geography
The deepening India-Afghanistan engagement marks a new strategic era in South Asia. Beneath the façade of humanitarian cooperation lies a calculated effort to constrict Pakistan’s strategic space, from intelligence leverage and soft power projection to potential encirclement on both eastern and western fronts. Drawing from the insights of Iqbal and Khushhal Khan Khattak, this analysis argues that Pakistan must reclaim its strategic selfhood, strengthen regional diplomacy, and transform its western border from a vulnerability into a vision of regional connectivity and stability.
Legitimacy, Agency, and the Illusion of Mediation
The recent talks in Turkey, attended by Afghan representatives, exposed the delicate politics of legitimacy and agency in Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. By rejecting the Taliban’s proposal to include the TTP, Pakistan safeguarded its sovereignty and avoided legitimizing a militant group as a political actor, preserving its authority and strategic narrative.