World
‘Don’t see a major war with India, but have to be ready’: Pakistan ex-NSA

Islamabad, Pakistan – Eleven days after gunmen shot 26 people dead in the scenic valley of Baisaran in Indian-administered Kashmir’s Pahalgam, India and Pakistan stand on the brink of a military standoff.
The nuclear-armed neighbours have each announced a series of tit-for-tat steps against the other since the attack on April 22, which India has implicitly blamed Pakistan for, even as Islamabad has denied any role in the killings.
India has suspended its participation in the Indus Waters Treaty that enforces a water-sharing mechanism Pakistan depends on. Pakistan has threatened to walk away from the 1972 Simla Agreement that committed both nations to recognising a previous ceasefire line as a Line of Control (LoC) – a de-facto border – between them in Kashmir, a disputed region that they each partly control but that they both claim in its entirety. Both nations have also expelled each other’s citizens and scaled back their diplomatic missions.
Despite a ceasefire agreement being in place since 2021, the current escalation is the most serious since 2019, when India launched air strikes on Pakistani soil following an attack on Indian soldiers in Pulwama, in Indian-administered Kashmir, that killed 40 troops. In recent days, they have traded fire across the LoC.
And the region is now on edge, amid growing expectations that India might launch a military operation against Pakistan this time too.
Yet, both countries have also engaged their diplomatic partners. On Wednesday, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio called Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, urging both sides to find a path to de-escalation. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth called his Indian counterpart, Rajnath Singh, on Thursday to condemn the attack and offered “strong support” to India.
Sharif met envoys from China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, three of Pakistan’s closest allies, to seek their support, and urged the ambassadors of the two Gulf nations to “impress upon India to de-escalate and defuse tensions”.
To understand how Pakistani strategists who have worked on ties with India view what might happen next, Al Jazeera spoke with Moeed Yusuf, who served as Pakistan’s national security adviser (NSA) between May 2021 and April 2022 under former Prime Minister Imran Khan.
Prior to his role as NSA, Yusuf also worked as a special adviser to Khan on matters related to national security starting in December 2019, four months after the Indian government, under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, revoked the special status of Indian-administered Kashmir.
Based in Lahore, Yusuf is currently the vice chancellor of a private university and has authored and edited several books on South Asia and regional security. His most recent book, Brokering Peace in Nuclear Environments: US Crisis Management in South Asia, was published in 2018.
Al Jazeera: How do you assess moves made by both sides so far in the crisis?
Moeed Yusuf: India and Pakistan have for long struggled in terms of crisis management. They don’t have a bilateral crisis management mechanism, which is the fundamental concern.
The number one crisis management tool used by both sides has been the reliance on third parties, with the idea being that they would try and restrain them both and help de-escalate the crisis.
This time, I feel the problem India has run into is that they followed the old playbook, but the leader of the most important third party, the United States, didn’t show up to support India.
It appears that they have so far taken a neutral and a hands-off position, as indicated by President Donald Trump few days ago. (Trump said that he knew the leaders of both India and Pakistan, and believed that they could resolve the crisis on their own.)
Pakistan’s response is directly linked to the Indian response, and that is historically how it has been, with both countries going tit-for-tat with each other. This time too, a number of punitive steps have been announced.
The problem is that these are easy to set into motion but very difficult to reverse, even when things get better, and they may wish to do so.
Unfortunately, in every crisis between them, the retaliatory steps are becoming more and more substantive, as in this case, India has decided to hold Indus Water Treaty in abeyance, which is illegal as the treaty provides no such provision.
Al Jazeera: Do you believe a strike is imminent and if both sides are indicating preparedness for a showdown?
Yusuf: In such moments, it is impossible to say. Action from India remains plausible and possible, but the window where imminence was a real concern has passed.
What usually happens in crises is that countries pick up troop or logistics movements, or their allies inform them, or they rely on ground intelligence to determine what might happen. Sometimes, these can be misread and can lead the offensive side to see an opportunity to act where none exists or the defensive side to believe an attack may be coming when it isn’t the case.
Pakistan naturally has to show commitment to prepare for any eventuality. You don’t know what will come next, so you have to be ready.
Having said that, I don’t think we are going to see a major war, but in these circumstances, you can never predict, and one little misunderstanding or miscalculation can lead to something major.
Al Jazeera: How do you see the role of third parties such as the US, China and Gulf States in this crisis, and how would you compare it with previous instances?
Yusuf: My last book, Brokering Peace (2018) was on the third-party management in Pakistan-India context, and this is such a vital element for both as they have internalised and built it into their calculus that a third-party country will inevitably come in.
The idea is that a third-party mediator will step in, and the two nations will agree to stop because that is what they really want, instead of escalating further.
And the leader of the pack of third-party countries is the United States since the Kargil war of 1999. (Pakistani forces crossed the LoC to try to take control of strategic heights in Ladakh’s Kargil, but India eventually managed to take back the territory. Then-US President Bill Clinton is credited with helping end that conflict.)
Everybody else, including China, ultimately backs the US position, which prioritises immediate de-escalation above all else during the crisis.
This changed somewhat in the 2016 surgical strikes and 2019 Pulwama crisis when the US leaned heavily on India’s side, perhaps unwittingly even emboldening them to act in 2019.
(In 2016, Indian troops launched a cross-border “surgical strike” that New Delhi said targeted armed fighters planning to attack India, after gunmen killed 19 Indian soldiers in an attack on an army base in Uri, Indian-administered Kashmir. Three years later, Indian fighter jets bombed what New Delhi said were bases of “terrorists” in Balakot, in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, after the attack on the Indian military convoy in which 40 soldiers were killed. India and Pakistan then engaged in an aerial dogfight, and an Indian pilot was captured and subsequently returned.)
However, this time, you have a president in the White House who turned around and told both Pakistan and India to figure it out themselves.
This, I think, has hurt India more than Pakistan, because for Pakistan, they had discounted the possibility of significant US support in recent years, thinking they have gotten too close to India due to their strategic relationship.
But India would have been hoping for the Americans to put their foot down and pressure Pakistan, which did not exactly materialise. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s phone call again is playing down the middle, where they are telling both the countries to get out of war.
So, what they have done has, oddly enough, still played a role in holding India back so far, since India didn’t (so far) feel as emboldened to take action as they may have during Pulwama in 2019.
Gulf countries have played a more active role than before. China, too, has made a statement of restraint.

Al Jazeera: How has Pakistan’s relationship with India evolved in recent years?
Yusuf: There has been a sea change in the relationship between the two countries. When I was in office, despite serious problems and India’s unilateral moves in Kashmir in 2019, we saw a ceasefire agreement on the Line of Control as well as back-channel talks.
We have tried to move ahead and reduce India’s incentive to destabilise Pakistan, but I think India has lost that opportunity due to its own intransigence, hubris and an ideological bent that continues to force them to demean and threaten Pakistan.
That has led to a change in Pakistan as well, where the leadership is now convinced that the policy of restraint did not deliver, and India has misused and abused Pakistan’s offers for dialogue.
The view now is that if India doesn’t want to talk, Pakistan shouldn’t be pleading either. If India does reach out, we will likely respond, but there isn’t any desperation in Pakistan at all.
This is not a good place to be for either country. I have long believed and argued that ultimately for Pakistan to get to where we want to go economically, and for India to get to where it says it wants to go regionally, it cannot happen unless both improve their relationship. For now, though, with the current Indian attitude, unfortunately, I see little hope.
Al Jazeera: Do you anticipate any direct India-Pakistan talks at any level during or after this crisis?
Yes – I don’t know when it will be, or who will it be through or with, but I think one of the key lessons Indians could probably walk away with once all this is over is that attempting to isolate Pakistan isn’t working.
Indus Water Treaty in abeyance? Simla Agreement’s potential suspension? These are major decisions, and the two countries will need to talk to sort these out, and I think at some point in future they will engage.
But I also don’t think that Pakistan will make a move towards rapprochement, as we have offered opportunities for dialogues so many times recently to no avail. As I said, the mood in Pakistan has also firmed up on this question.
Ultimately, the Indians need to basically decide if they want to talk or not. If they come forth, I think Pakistan will still respond positively to it.
*This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

World
YouTube to start bringing back creators banned for COVID-19 and election misinformation
NEW YORK (AP) — YouTube will offer creators a way to rejoin the streaming platform if they were banned for violating COVID-19 and election misinformation policies that are no longer in effect, its parent company Alphabet said Tuesday.
In a letter submitted in response to subpoenas from the House Judiciary Committee, attorneys for Alphabet said the decision to bring back banned accounts reflected the company’s commitment to free speech. It said the company values conservative voices on its platform and recognizes their reach and important role in civic discourse.
“No matter the political atmosphere, YouTube will continue to enable free expression on its platform, particularly as it relates to issues subject to political debate,” the letter read.
The move is the latest in a cascade of content moderation rollbacks from tech companies, who cracked down on false information during the pandemic and after the 2020 election but have since faced pressure from President Donald Trump and other conservatives who argue they unlawfully stifled right-wing voices in the process.
It comes as tech CEOs, including Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai, have sought a closer relationship with the Republican president, including through high-dollar donations to his campaign and attending events in Washington.
YouTube in 2023 phased out its policy to remove content that falsely claims the 2020 election, or other past U.S. presidential elections, were marred by “widespread fraud, errors or glitches.”
The platform in 2024 also retired its standalone COVID-19 content restrictions, allowing various treatments for the disease to be discussed. COVID-19 misinformation now falls under YouTube’s broader medical misinformation policy.
Among the creators who have been banned from YouTube under the now-expired policies are prominent conservative influencers, including Dan Bongino, who now serves as deputy director of the FBI. For people who make money on social media, access to monetization on YouTube can be significant, earning them large sums through ad revenue.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and other congressional Republicans have pressured tech companies to reverse content moderation policies created under former President Joe Biden and accused Biden’s administration of unfairly wielding its power over the companies to chill lawful online speech.
In Tuesday’s letter, Alphabet’s lawyers said senior Biden administration officials “conducted repeated and sustained outreach” to coerce the company to remove pandemic-related YouTube videos that did not violate company policies.
“It is unacceptable and wrong when any government, including the Biden Administration, attempts to dictate how the Company moderates content, and the Company has consistently fought against those efforts on First Amendment grounds,” the letter said.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has also accused the Biden administration of pressuring employees to inappropriately censor content during the COVID-19 pandemic. Elon Musk, the owner of the social platform X, has accused the FBI of illegally coercing Twitter before his tenure to suppress a story about Hunter Biden.
The Supreme Court last year sided with former President Joe Biden’s administration in a dispute with Republican-led states over how far the federal government can go to combat controversial social media posts on topics including COVID-19 and election security.
Asked for more information about the reinstatement process, a spokesperson for YouTube did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
World
Syria’s new president takes center stage at UNGA as concerns linger over terrorist past

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Once a member of al Qaeda and the Islamic State and now leading Syria’s fragile transition since toppling the Bashar Assad regime, Ahmed al-Sharaa is ready to take to the global center stage at the United Nations General Assembly Wednesday and make his case for a new path forward for his war-torn nation.
“This marks the first participation in high-level meetings of a Syrian president at the United Nations General Assembly since 1967, so this is a very big deal,” Natasha Hall, senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told Fox News Digital.
“On such a historic occasion, what he will try to emphasize and underline is that this is a new day for Syria. They have overthrown the brutal dictatorship of the Assad regime. He will talk about the progress that’s been made and what more progress needs to happen in terms of recognition and the lifting of U.N. sanctions to help Syria move forward,” Hall added.
TRUMP’S MIDDLE EAST TOUR BEGINS WITH SYRIA LOOMING AS STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITY
Interim Syria President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks during the Concordia Annual Summit in New York, Monday, Sept. 22, 2025. (Photo/Andres Kudacki)
A high-ranking Syrian government official confirmed to Fox News Digital that al-Sharaa will use the opportunity at the U.N. to present Syria’s vision for stability, reconstruction, and reconciliation.
“The most important issues he will raise include the need to lift all forms of unilateral sanctions that continue to hinder Syria’s recovery, the importance of combating terrorism in all its forms, the return of displaced Syrians and refugees, and the advancement of a genuinely inclusive political process rooted in the will of the Syrian people,” the Syrian official said.
Al-Sharaa, who led the Islamist rebel group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) to victory over Assad, ditched his military fatigues for a Western-style suit and has been on a charm offensive, hosting European and Western diplomats and politicians in hopes of bringing Syria out from its international pariah status.
The new Syrian leader received an unprecedented endorsement from President Donald Trump when the two met in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in May.
Trump called al-Sharaa a “young, attractive, tough guy,” announcing that the U.S. would lift sanctions in place since the Assad era and even discussed normalizing relations.

People welcome the leader of Syria’s Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group that headed a lightning rebel offensive snatching Damascus from government control, Ahmed al-Sharaa (C), before his address at the capital’s landmark Umayyad Mosque on December 8, 2024. Al-Sharaa gave a speech as the crowd chanted “Allahu akbar (God is greatest),” in a video shared by the rebels on their Telegram channel showed. (Aref Tammawi/AFP via Getty Images)
Hall noted that al-Sharaa might be looking to secure a security pact between Israel and Syria along the UNGA sidelines, emphasizing that he seeks a Syria that is at peace with its neighbors and doesn’t want to position Syria to be a threat to any outside forces, particularly Israel.
He will also be looking to secure much-needed reconstruction aid to rebuild a country ravaged by 13 years of civil war. The cost for reconstruction is estimated to be between $250 and $400 billion, and 16.7 million people, or 75% of the population, are in dire need of humanitarian assistance, according to the U.N.
Since seizing Damascus, he has publicly said all the right things. He promised an inclusive government that would represent all religious and ethnic factions in Syria, uphold women’s rights and protect minority rights.
ISLAMIST GROUP RUNNING SYRIA HAS MIXED RECORD OVER GOVERNANCE IN PROVINCE, RULED WITH ‘IRON FIST’
Al-Sharaa also fulfilled promises to target ISIS and other terrorist groups operating in Syria. One month after taking power, Syrian security forces seized a shipment of heavy ammunition destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon, once a key ally of the Assad regime and Iran’s Axis of Resistance.
While optimism for a new Syria remains high, some caution it’s still too soon to judge al-Sharaa as a Western ally given his terrorist past.
“Al-Sharaa is not a democrat. He ruled Idlib without power-sharing. So far, in terms of control of vital government functions like security, foreign affairs, intelligence and justice, he has put loyalists in place,” former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford told Fox News Digital.
Ford, who was the last U.S. ambassador in Damascus in 2011, said the crucial question is whether, over time, individual political and civil liberties will be respected and that people maintain, as they have now, the freedom to organize and protest.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio shakes hands with Syrian interim President Ahmad al-Sharaa at the Lotte New York Palace Hotel, on the sidelines of the 80th United Nations General Assembly at the United Nations headquarters, Monday, Sept. 22, 2025. (Bing Guan/Pool Photo via AP)
“Al-Sharaa’s heavy hand ruling Idlib prior to Assad’s fall has been lighter in Damascus, Aleppo and elsewhere. But so far, there is more political freedom to speak and protest in Syria than in many other countries in the region, such as Egypt, Algeria and some Gulf states,” Ford added.
Ambassador Barbara Leaf, who served as assistant secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, visited Damascus and met with Shara in December, becoming the highest-ranking official to meet with Syrian leadership since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011.
Leaf, a distinguished diplomatic fellow with the Middle East Institute, told Fox News Digital about her initial contact with Shara right after HTS overthrew Assad. Her mission was to get eyes on him, to assess him and to send a clear signal on U.S. expectations if he was going to lead a new Syria.
“My takeaway from the meeting was that he came across as somebody who was very well-prepared for the discussion. He had clearly anticipated all of the topics that I raised and he had pretty thoughtful responses with a readiness to engage,” she said.

Syrian security forces walk together along a street, after clashes between Syrian government troops and local Druze fighters resumed in the southern Druze city of Sweida early on Wednesday, collapsing a ceasefire announced just hours earlier that aimed to put an end to days of deadly sectarian bloodshed, in Sweida, Syria, July 16, 2025. (Karam al-Masri/Reuters)
Al-Sharaa made a point several times to say that Syria would no longer be a threat or a staging point for threats against its neighbors, including Israel, and that he would not allow the Iranians, Hezbollah or Palestinian groups, to use Syrian territory to conduct terrorist activities, the ambassador said.
“I came to the sense that he was already making a shift from being a military commander to being a politician, to being a political leader,” Ambassador Leaf noted.
While Ambassador Leaf highlighted his pragmatism, his true intentions as the new leader of Syria remain murky.
The ambassador said that it appears al-Sharaa has traveled a trajectory away from his jihadist terrorist past, but it remains a question how far he is willing to go to effectuate what she believes is an intention to form an Islamist style of governance.
CHRISTIAN WATCH GROUP RISES UP TO PROTECT COMMUNITY AMID GROWING VIOLENCE IN SYRIA
“Does he want to formulate a kind of Islamist governance, conservative governance and social order that, frankly, Syria has not seen? And would he be willing to use force to get there? That’s an unknown,” the ambassador cautioned.
What’s concerning for Ambassador Leaf and others is that many of the people serving in key roles in the transitional government are close associates of al-Sharaa and others affiliated with HTS and other allied armed rebel groups.
“Al-Sharaa is still engaged in a careful balancing act within his own government between liberal opposition voices, former regime bureaucrats and more Islamist proponents aligned still with HTS’ mission and principles,” Caroline Rose, director of The New Lines Institute, told Fox News Digital.

Ahmed al-Sharaa, once known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, is seen in Syria Feb. 7, 2023. Since becoming the country’s president, he has gone back to his given name. (Omar Haj Kadour/AFP via Getty Images)
EVANGELICAL LEADER SAYS US MUST PROTECT SYRIAN CHRISTIANS FROM ATTACKS BY JIHADI TERRORISTS
Rose, who traveled to Syria earlier this year, said that Syria’s complex political dynamics have led not only to gridlock, but even incapacity in times of crisis, “such as failure to rein in radical Sunni fighters during violent outbreaks in Latakia and Suwayda, but also policies appeasing more conservative elements of al-Sharaa’s support network, such as the ruling requiring full-body swimwear at Syrian pools and beaches.”
While Syria’s new government has looked to consolidate control over a restive society, Shara’s forces had to manage a fragile society divided along ethnic and religious lines.
Syria has experienced a wave of sectarian violence since the revolution to overthrow Assad. Government security forces retaliated after forces loyal to the Assad regime launched an attack in the coastal city of Latakia, Assad’s hometown. In total, around 1,400 people, mostly civilians, were massacred, according to the U.N. Most of the victims from the Alawites, a minority group in Syria, which the Assad family belonged to, as well as from the Druze community.
It was the worst episode of violence since the overthrow of Assad in December 2024.

In this photo released by the Syrian official news agency SANA, a Civil Defense worker inspects the damage inside Mar Elias church where a suicide bomber detonated himself in Dweil’a on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria, Sunday, June 22, 2025. (SANA via AP)
Clashes between Bedouin tribes, Druze militias and government forces in Suweida led to hundreds of deaths and drew in Israeli military intervention — to protect Syria’s Druze minority. A ceasefire was eventually agreed to but the spiraling ethnic violence highlights Syria’s rocky transition.
The country’s dwindling Christian community has also felt the brunt of extremist violence. In June, the Islamic State was suspected of carrying out a deadly suicide bombing at a Greek Orthodox church in Syria, which killed 22 worshipers and injured 63 others. Christians have also been attacked and, in some cases, killed, allegedly by forces tied to the al-Sharaa government.
The new authorities will also have to incorporate Kurdish forces operating in Northeast Syria, where the Syrian Democratic Forces have been crucial to the U.S.-led counter-ISIS campaign. Any disruptions in the merging of the SDF into the Syrian state raises the risk of an ISIS resurgence.
World
Palestine as a state – what would that actually look like?
For a Palestinian state to be internationally recognised and built, Israel’s current government would need to halt its relentless opposition to Palestinian statehood and Israel’s main ally, the United States, would need to agree on a two-state solution, which it no longer does.
-
Health1 week ago
Who Makes Vaccine Policy Decisions in RFK Jr.’s Health Department?
-
Finance4 days ago
Reimagining Finance: Derek Kudsee on Coda’s AI-Powered Future
-
Lifestyle1 week ago
Bobbi Brown doesn’t listen to men in suits about makeup : Wild Card with Rachel Martin
-
Business1 week ago
How Nexstar’s Proposed TV Merger Is Tied to Jimmy Kimmel’s Suspension
-
North Dakota4 days ago
Board approves Brent Sanford as new ‘commissioner’ of North Dakota University System
-
Technology3 days ago
These earbuds include a tiny wired microphone you can hold
-
Crypto3 days ago
Texas brothers charged in cryptocurrency kidnapping, robbery in MN
-
World1 week ago
Russian jets enter Estonia's airspace in latest test for NATO