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.
-U43648517271Shc-1440x752@IlSole24Ore-Web.jpg?r=1170x507&ssl=1 "War breaking news. Trump postpones decision: nothing after two hours in Situation Room")
Iran, Trump shares draft agreement with Israel and other allies
US President Donald Trump has circulated the draft peace agreement for the war with Iran among allies, including Israel, while attempts are underway to prevent new ceasefire violations from escalating and derailing any agreement. Meanwhile, in an effort to accelerate negotiations, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Mohammad Ishaq Dar, will be in Washington today to meet with his US counterpart, Marco Rubio.
Yesterday, Tehran targeted a US air base in Kuwait after Washington struck what it called an Iranian drone operation near the Strait of Hormuz, highlighting the fragility of the situation as both negotiating parties refuse to give in on the final points of disagreement. On Wednesday, Trump’s cabinet was scheduled to discuss the deal, but Axios – which reported on the terms of the deal reached – reported that the US president needed a few more days to reflect on the eventual go-ahead.
Direct military negotiations between Israel and Lebanon start today at the Pentagon
The first direct meeting between Lebanese and Israeli military delegations opens today at the Pentagon as part of the negotiations promoted by the United States after the truce that came into effect, at least on paper, in mid-April. The talks take place while Israel intensifies raids and bombardments in Lebanon, including the southern suburbs of Beirut. The Jewish state has issued several forced displacement orders to Israeli civilians in Nabatiye and Tyre, the two main Lebanese cities in the south of the country. Beirut’s armed forces come to the table with a position defined by President Joseph Aoun, who is considered close to the United States: a complete ceasefire, an end to Israeli operations, withdrawal from the occupied areas in the south, and increased army deployment along the border. Beirut also demands the release of Lebanese prisoners, the return of displaced persons, and international support for reconstruction. The meeting follows two previous negotiating sessions held in Washington on 14 and 15 May, which led to the extension of the ‘truce’ for 45 days. The United States, engaged in large-scale negotiations with Hezbollah supporter Iran, is aiming to strengthen direct military coordination between the two sides. In this sense, a new political round at the State Department is scheduled for 2 and 3 June. However, the most delicate knot remains on the table: Israel claims the right to conduct preventive operations against threats considered imminent, a formula contested by Beirut and at the centre of internal Lebanese tensions. At the same time, Washington continues to exert pressure on the Hezbollah disarmament dossier, while the Shiite movement reiterates its rejection of direct negotiations and continues its operations against the Israeli occupation forces in southern Lebanon. According to data gathered from Lebanese sources, more than 4,500 Israeli violations, more than 5,500 homes destroyed, and direct or indirect Israeli military control over more than 65 locations in South Lebanon have been recorded since the start of the mid-April ‘truce’.
Emir Qatar hears Trump, ‘priority to political and diplomatic solutions’
Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani has asked US President Donald Trump to “prioritise political and diplomatic solutions” in the Middle East, in the context of negotiations between Washington and Tehran for a possible agreement. The request came during a phone call between the two leaders, during which international efforts to reduce tensions in the region were addressed. This was reported by the Qatari state agency Qna. Al Thani emphasised ‘the need to prioritise political and diplomatic solutions, as well as dialogue between all parties, to consolidate regional security and stability and avoid further tensions and escalation’. Washington meanwhile confirmed an agreement in principle with Iran to extend the 60-day truce and guarantee shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, but the understanding remains pending Trump’s approval and has not yet been confirmed by Tehran.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Israeli and Lebanese military delegations opened Pentagon-mediated talks Friday morning in Washington, launching a new U.S.-brokered security coordination track aimed at preventing renewed escalation along the Israel–Lebanon border and shoring up a fragile ceasefire reached in mid-April.
A State Department official told Fox News Digital that, “As we have continuously stated, the only path to lasting peace is through direct negotiations between the two sovereign governments.”
The discussions mark a shift from diplomatic negotiations into direct military coordination, with talks expected to focus on ceasefire enforcement, border stability, Israeli withdrawal from parts of southern Lebanon and the role of the Lebanese Armed Forces in containing Hezbollah.
ISRAEL MOVES TOWARDS CEASEFIRE DEAL WITH HEZBOLLAH: REPORTS
Michael Needham, counselor for the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa, Lebanese Ambassador to the U.S. Nada Hamadeh Moawad, and Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter pose for a photo before a meeting at the State Department in Washington, D.C., on April 14, 2026. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo)
The talks come weeks after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire first reached during the broader regional conflict tied to the U.S.–Iran war. While large-scale fighting has eased, Israeli forces continue operating inside parts of southern Lebanon and Hezbollah maintains drone and rocket capabilities, keeping tensions high along the border.
The ceasefire was extended on May 15 for another 45 days, creating pressure on both sides to show progress before the current arrangement expires.
But analysts say the central question overshadowing the talks is whether Lebanon can realistically curb Hezbollah’s military power without risking internal collapse.
“This will be the first meeting between representatives of the militaries since the start of the negotiation process between Lebanon and Israel,” Ahmed Sharawi, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, told Fox News Digital.
Representing Lebanon in the talks is Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal, who previously served as commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces in southern Lebanon, an area where Hezbollah maintains a strong presence. Hezbollah is the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist organization designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization.
“What we should expect is talks regarding de-confliction and what the expectations are for the LAF in terms of the broader disarmament plan against Hezbollah’s weapons,” he said.
Sharawi said the chances of a broader breakthrough remain limited so long as Hezbollah remains heavily armed and politically entrenched inside Lebanon.
“The biggest obstacle here is that the Lebanese state is yet to present a feasible plan to disarm Hezbollah,” he said.
LAWMAKERS QUESTION WHETHER US MOVING FAST ENOUGH TO CAPITALIZE ON HEZBOLLAH’S WEAKENED STATE
But analysts say the central question overshadowing the talks is whether Lebanon can realistically curb Hezbollah’s military power without risking internal collapse. (Ibrahim AMRO / AFP via Getty Images)
He pointed to the terms of the November 2024 ceasefire agreement, which placed responsibility for disarming Hezbollah on the Lebanese state.
“We are yet to see the confiscation of one single bullet from Hezbollah,” Sharawi said.
He also warned that Hezbollah’s deep support among Lebanon’s Shiite population complicates any attempt to move toward normalization with Israel.
“There’s a fear of a civil war,” he said. “That also accounts for the Lebanese state’s unwillingness to disarm Hezbollah.”
The talks opened as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled Israel intends to maintain military pressure on Hezbollah despite the negotiations.
Sharawi argued the Trump administration nevertheless appears determined to push the process forward as part of a broader effort to weaken Iranian influence in the region.
“The reason behind these meetings is that President Trump is really trying to push for a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon,” he said. “Peace between these two countries could really undermine Hezbollah and its influence in Lebanon.”
WALTZ SAYS TRUMP HAS CREATED ‘BEST CHANCE IN OUR LIFETIME’ TO BREAK HEZBOLLAH’S GRIP ON LEBANON
Churches in the southern Lebanese town of Rmeish remained standing throughout the conflict, as residents say the community resisted Hezbollah attempts to launch rockets from the area. (Jusoor News)
Israeli analysts similarly described the talks less as a breakthrough and more as a strategic signal aimed at Hezbollah.
“The war between us and Hezbollah is continuing,” Yossi Kuperwasser, senior project manager at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security and former head of the Research Division of Israeli Military Intelligence, told Fox News Digital.
“There is no doubt the Lebanese government does not have a monopoly on the use of force in Lebanon,” he said.
‘OVERBLOWN’ REPORTS ON ISRAEL–LEBANON NORMALIZATION RISK HINDERING BORDER TALKS BEFORE THEY BEGIN: OFFICIAL
IDF troops discovered a Hezbollah weapons cache near a UNIFIL post in southern Lebanon in 2024. (IDF Spokesman’s Unit)
Kuperwasser said expectations for an immediate diplomatic breakthrough should remain low, but argued the talks themselves send an important political message.
“The purpose of these talks is first and foremost to send a message to Hezbollah and also to the Americans,” he said. “Both sides are prepared to sit together against Hezbollah and signal that they are moving, even if slowly, toward normalization between Israel and Lebanon.”
He argued Hezbollah has been weakened politically and militarily by the ongoing conflict and by growing frustration among Lebanese civilians displaced by the fighting.
“For years Hezbollah portrayed itself as the defender of Lebanon,” Kuperwasser said. “Now many Lebanese see Hezbollah as responsible for the suffering Lebanon is experiencing.”
Kuperwasser added that while Israel supports strengthening the Lebanese army, Beirut fears direct confrontation with Hezbollah could ignite another civil war.
“The Lebanese government fears military action against Hezbollah would lead to civil war,” he said. “That fear shapes everything.”
The talks also come amid mounting domestic pressure inside Israel, where critics of Netanyahu have accused the government of pursuing containment rather than decisive military victory against Hezbollah.
Speaking Friday during a visit to Israel’s northern front, Netanyahu said Israeli forces had crossed the Litani River and were operating across multiple parts of Lebanon.
“We are operating in Beirut, in the Bekaa Valley, across the entire front and striking Hezbollah hard,” Netanyahu said.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
A woman holds her dog as she walks past burned cars a day after an Israeli airstrike in Beirut, Lebanon, on April 9, 2026. (Emilio Morenatti/AP)
Meanwhile, Lebanon’s leadership is attempting to balance growing American pressure with fears of internal instability and renewed sectarian conflict.
Neither the Israeli Embassy in Washington nor the Lebanese Embassy in Washington immediately responded to requests for comment. The Pentagon did not have anything to add when asked to comment.
The United Nations has confirmed it placed Israel on a blacklist of countries suspected of committing sexual violence against civilians, and pushed back on accusations made by Israel regarding its inclusion.
The list, part of a “conflict-related sexual violence” report released on Friday, prompted Israel’s foreign ministry to say it would sever all ties with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.
list of 3 itemsend of listRecommended Stories
Last August, the UN cited “credible information” regarding sexual violence committed by Israeli security forces against Palestinian detainees in prisons and other detention centres, and said UN inspectors had been denied access to the facilities.
“We invited the representative of the UN to come to Israel to check those ridiculous allegations. They chose not to come,” Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon posted on X on Thursday.
“I never received an iota of information on measures taken by the government of Israel on implementation of the preventive measures,” Pramila Patten, the UN official who authored the report, told reporters on Friday at a briefing at the UN’s New York headquarters.
“I have made several requests in writing, and sometimes during meetings, for details about initial steps, including the issuance of orders of command information on access and information on accountability measures, but I did not get any response on the substantive aspect of the preventive measures,” she added.
Patten did confirm that there had been an invitation from Israel, but referred also to disagreements about the scope of the visit and related issues of access and cooperation, and said it ultimately had to be suspended due to Israel’s war on Gaza.
‘Multiple incidents’ in Gaza and occupied West Bank
This year’s report said that in 2025 “the United Nations verified multiple incidents of conflict-related sexual violence, including as a form of torture, inflicted against 14 men, seven women, nine boys and one girl from the Gaza Strip and the [occupied] West Bank.”
It said 13 of the attacks happened last year, and 18 in 2023 and 2024.
“Violations consisted of rape, including with objects, gang rape, attempted rape, physical violence to the genitals, instances of targeted shooting of the genitals, touching of breasts and genitals, strip and cavity searches conducted without apparent security justification, forced nudity and threats of rape,” it said.
“Rape and gang rape, in some cases repeated, were perpetrated against nine victims, the majority Palestinians from Gaza,” it said, adding that perpetrators included Israeli armed and security forces. The assaults occurred primarily during detention and interrogation in several sites, including military camps, at checkpoints and during Israeli military operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
It said survivors included journalists and human rights defenders and in some cases, the violations were filmed or photographed, including one case of rape.
The report added that sexual violence against female detainees included mostly threats of rape, forced nudity, unwanted touching, and humiliating or degrading strip searches without justification, while men and boys were targeted with rape, attempted rape and violence to the genitals.
This resulted in five male victims suffering severe rectal bleeding or swelling for multiple days or weeks, it added.
Russia added to list alongside Israel
The latest UN report also contains harrowing descriptions of abuses at the hands of Russia’s military after “findings of continued patterns of sexual violence documented”.
The UN human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine had verified 310 cases of conflict-related sexual violence perpetrated by Russian armed and security forces.
It said the cases, including rape, gang rape, genital mutilation, electric shocks and beatings to the genitals, injured 280 men, 26 women and four girls.
The report’s annex lists 77 parties deemed responsible for patterns of conflict-related sexual violence, including 62 non-state actors.
New additions include three non-state armed groups operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Nearly 10,000 cases of conflict-related sexual violence were recorded worldwide last year – more than double the previous year’s figure, the report said.
Being added to the list does not automatically carry specific punitive measures such as sanctions, although public naming and shaming can cause significant reputational damage for the states involved, and those repeatedly listed are barred from UN peacekeeping operations.
Patten said the increase in cases of conflict-related sexual violence verified by the United Nations marks a very disturbing trend that was still only the “very tip of the iceberg”.
“This number can be attributed to the fact that we are going through a time when we have a record number of extremely violent conflicts, and the fact that perpetrators are feeling emboldened by a context of impunity, where this crime is almost cost-free,” she said.
-
Indiana4 minutes agoPolice searching for missing man with autism last seen riding bike in Highland, Indiana
-
Iowa7 minutes agoChicago Cubs’ Matt Shaw expected to begin rehab assignment with Iowa
-
Kansas12 minutes agoKansas man sentenced to 4 years in connection with 13-year-old Linn County boy’s death
-
Kentucky19 minutes agoSocial media companies pay $27 million to settle Kentucky school district’s lawsuit over social media harms, records show
-
Louisiana22 minutes agoHow is U.S. immigration policy hurting a key Louisiana industry? : Consider This from NPR
-
Maine27 minutes agoSkowhegan students get epic view of their work in western Maine
-
Maryland34 minutes agoMaryland schools rank 3rd in nation in post-pandemic reading recovery – WTOP News
-
Michigan37 minutes agoMichigan House reaches settlement to end $645M work project funding battle
