Dawn
Latest crypto news and market updates from Dawn.
Ban: to what end?IN April I was living in Islamabad, in a leafy neighbourhood I had moved to after a few months cooped up in the Red Zone. The talks were on and the city was full of foreign correspondents. We passed a coffee shop on our way out of town and half the café was press. What I remember is how much everybody loved Islamabad. On camera and off it. The hills, the food, the hospitality. Testimonials. The state was delighted, and none of it required a form. It is August now. Those same correspondents cannot travel to any city outside Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi to produce a story without a No Objection Certificate from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The fixers who drove them around must register on a government portal, as must freelancers, translators and camera operators. For a weekend in Murree, a journalist may apply. Permission may be granted within three working days. Feted in April. Registered in August. We do not even change the cast. And Al Jazeera’s website has not opened from my desk in Karachi since last Sunday. Two browsers, a phone on mobile data. The page sits there and gives up. No order has been published. The PTA has confirmed nothing. What the ministry did say was that it had taken note of Al Jazeera’s “selective reporting”, that the channel had sought to “misrepresent” the elections in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, and that such “yellow journalism” confirmed the agenda of external actors with vested interests. A government may say that. It should contest any report it dislikes, and it has every means to do so. Restricting access to the report is the thing nobody has put in writing. That distinction matters more than it sounds. A rebuttal adds to the record. A block subtracts from it, and what it subtracts is not the story. It is the ability to check the story. What exactly did the Al Jazeera ban achieve? Because the appetite does not disappear when the reporting does. Nobody stops wanting to know. They simply take what is left, and what is left is whatever costs nothing to produce. Reporting from a difficult district costs money, time, risk and now paperwork. A monologue about that district, filmed in a bedroom in Lahore or London, costs nothing and is regulated by nobody. Every restriction we impose falls on the expensive, checkable kind of journalism and leaves the cheap, unverifiable kind entirely untouched. Then, when a figure appears that the state does not like, it has no way to disprove it. It has spent years dismantling the means by which anything could be disproved. The number stands, uncheckable, and the denial is worth exactly as much as the claim. So, what does a ban achieve? YouTube was blocked in September 2012 for three years. The film that caused it was never removed from the internet. Anyone determined used a proxy. Parliament passed a unanimous resolution asking for it to end. It lifted only because Google agreed to launch a local version. X was blocked in February 2024 after being used to raise allegations of election fraud. It returned 15 months later. VPN use is estimated to have risen 6,000 per cent, and Pakistan recorded the highest financial losses in the world from internet restrictions that year. Cabinet ministers used VPNs to reach the platform their own government had blocked. Al Jazeera was blocked once before, in 2013, after publishing the Abbottabad Commission report. The report was read worldwide. None achieved what the ban was for. Each one ended, but not one because it ‘worked’. What survived each was the impression that the state had something to hide, the one outcome a ban cannot reverse. We are told each time that this is an exception. A particular provocation, a particular moment. The Foreign Media Facilitation Guidelines, 2026, remove that alibi. They are not a response to anything. They are the permanent version. On Wednesday, the BBC said it was “extremely concerned” and called for the restrictions to be reversed. Its statement noted that it reaches around 8.6 million people in Pakistan every week, and that its journalists, including local staff here, must be able to travel the country to hear the voices of ordinary citizens. This is what the ban achieved. Not less scrutiny. A BBC statement, a joint appeal from local and international rights groups, and a week of coverage abroad about Pakistan restricting the press. The ministry warned of external actors with vested interests. Then it went and produced them. A confident state does not need to clear the room before it makes its case. It makes the case. So, who will be left to say what happened. And when nobody is, whose account will we be arguing about next? The writer is a journalist and conducts writing workshops in Karachi. X: @ LedeingLady Published in Dawn, August 9th, 2026Dawn
Trump's on-again-off-again war against Iran: in his own wordsDonald Trump has made some of the most aggressive public threats about military action of any modern US president. He has walked back many of them too. The 80-year-old Republican’s comments about the US war against Iran have shifted, sometimes dramatically and quickly, since the conflict erupted on February 28. He has repeatedly declared victory, claiming Iran’s military capabilities were utterly defeated, only to later tweak the war timeline or threaten Tehran with more strikes. He praised Iran’s new leaders on June 17 as “very smart” and “far less radicalised” than their predecessors killed in US and Israeli strikes. By July 8, a frustrated Trump changed his tune. “I don’t want to deal with them anymore, they’re scum,” he said. Here are some of the main examples of Trump’s threats against Iran, and how he has dialed them back. March 21 “If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump’s threat, made on his Truth Social platform, was striking given that an intentional attack on power plants, deemed essential civilian infrastructure, is widely considered a war crime. March 23 Two days later, Trump extended the deadline for five days, citing “very good and productive conversations” with Iran. He then paused the “period of Energy Plant destruction by 10 days” to April 6, citing ongoing diplomatic talks. April 5 With time running out on his 10-day extension, Trump unleashed a profanity-laden post on Easter Sunday: “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.” He concluded by saying “Praise be to Allah.” April 7 “A whole civilisation will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” Trump announced in a post that many interpreted as a threat to wipe out Iran and it’s population of roughly 90 million. April 7 Hours later, he said: “I agree to suspend the bombing and attack of Iran for a period of two weeks,” Trump said, accepting a truce proposal from war mediators after he spoke to leaders in Pakistan. June 11 “The United States will be hitting Iran… VERY HARD TONIGHT” and “at some point in the not too distant future, we will be taking Kharg Island” and other oil infrastructure locations, Trump posted on Truth Social. June 11 Five hours later Trump said he “cancelled the scheduled strikes and bombings against Iran this evening,” citing progress in negotiations towards securing a deal aimed at ending the war. An interim deal to end the fighting was signed in June, but within a month the conflict re-intensified, with Iran hitting US facilities across the Middle East and US forces striking Iranian coastal defenses but expanding the targets to include bridges and infrastructure. July 31 “We’ll be hitting them very hard, and you know at some point they’re going to say, ‘We just can’t take it anymore,’” Trump told a meeting of his cabinet Friday. August 1 “We have just been asked by Iran, and other Middle Eastern Countries, to hold off any attack,” Trump said, claiming that “the perimeters of a deal has been agreed to.” Iran’s state media vigorously denied that such a request was made by the Islamic republic.Dawn
Trump says US 'locked and loaded' but will hold off on fresh Iran attack in hope of quick dealUnited States President Donald Trump said late on Saturday he would hold off on a fresh attack on Iran as long as a deal could be reached quickly to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions and reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Iran and “other Middle Eastern Countries” asked for a time to complete a deal that would lead to “the Immediate, Complete and Total” reopening of the Strait and “an end to Iran’s nuclear threat,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “Based on this request, I have agreed, for the future benefit of the WORLD and, likewise, the survival of a successful and prosperous Iran, to cancel the attack, subject to being able to rapidly make a DEAL.” Israel “joins me in this commitment,” Trump wrote. Israel did not immediately make a public statement on the issue. Iran warned the US this weekend against any adventurous action and said it would retaliate decisively if American forces followed through on Trump’s threats of fresh attacks on Iranian targets. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchis comments in separate phone calls on Saturday with senior Turkish, Pakistani and Saudi officials came just hours after Kuwait’s army said it destroyed hostile drones launched by Iran against several vital facilities. Speaking to Chief of Defence Forces Field Marshal Asim Munir and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, Araqchi said Iran would respond decisively to any “aggression” and discussed the consequences of destabilising actions” by the US, as well as prospects for heightened regional insecurity, according to Araqchi’s Telegram account. Araqchi later told Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan that any attacks by the US and Israel or participation by regional countries in such actions would be met with a proportionate response. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman spoke to Trump on Saturday and “expressed concern and asked for clarity” about Us plans for Iran, a US official told Axios. The Saudi crown prince spoke to Trump, a White House official told Reuters, but did not provide details. Later, the Saudi Press Agency said that the crown prince stressed the “necessity of prioritising dialogue to de-escalate tensions” in the Middle East. Nournews, a media outlet affiliated with Iran’s top security body, said on Saturday that US attacks on Iranian energy infrastructure would prompt Iranian strikes on oil fields in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, as well as the gas fields of Qatar and Israel, saying, “all will be burned to ashes”. At a cabinet meeting on Friday at the Camp David retreat, Trump said he believed US negotiators, including his son-in-law Jared Kushner, special envoy Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, could still reach a deal with Iran. But Trump also said he was losing faith in the Iranians, saying, “They break their word so often” a claim Tehran has frequently levelled at Washington and said he would be “hitting them”. Strait of Hormuz Oil prices have stayed high since US and Israeli forces started the war with strikes on Iran on February 28. Trump has argued that his stated goal of keeping Iran from gaining nuclear weapons justifies higher fuel costs in the near term, but the economic pain has put political pressure on him to find a way to end the war. Benchmark Brent crude futures rose 24 per cent in July, and analysts polled by Reuters expect prices to rise further this year. The risk of Iranian attacks has deterred most shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, an important conduit for global energy supplies, since the start of the conflict, sending shockwaves through the world economy. A government facility in northern Kuwait and civilian property belonging to a company on Bubiyan Island were hit on Saturday, with falling shrapnel causing material damage but no casualties, the Kuwaiti army said. Adding to the energy industry’s concerns, the Houthis in Yemen recently began threatening the Bab el-Mandeb, the strait at the other end of the Red Sea from the Suez Canal, another export route for Saudi crude. The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations said on Saturday it had received reports of two maritime incidents off Oman, including one in which a tanker was struck by an unknown projectile that damaged the engine room. In the other incident, the master of a tanker reported seeing a large splash and an explosion close to the vessel, though no damage was reported.Dawn
Trump says deal reached for 'complete disarmament' of HamasUS President Donald Trump said talks in Cairo between mediators and Hamas leaders on Thursday have led to a phased disarmament agreement in Gaza, but a Hamas official described the deal as a draft and US officials said Israel was sceptical the Palestinian group would surrender its weapons. “Today, the Board of Peace reached a HISTORIC agreement for the COMPLETE DISARMAMENT of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza,” Trump said in a social media post, adding that the disarmament would come in phases. “This is a monumental step toward lasting PEACE and SECURITY.” The agreement was a critical step towards Gaza being governed by a new Palestinian government that will work closely with the so-called Board of Peace, Trump said. “At the same time, Israel will have the security it deserves, with Gaza no longer used as a base for terror attacks,” he added. The Israeli embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump’s announcement. A Hamas source told Reuters the “draft agreement” stipulates that heavy weapons would only be stored and kept under the control of a Palestinian administration, and the weapons cannot be transferred to Israel. “We will not take any action regarding disarmament prior to Israel’s withdrawal from the Strip,” Ghazi Hamad, a member of the Hamas negotiating team, told Al Jazeera. A US official on Thursday told reporters that Israel is “very sceptical that Hamas will disarm”. “We’re very confident they will adhere to it,” the US official added. “If they don’t, obviously President Trump would be very, very disappointed.” There were also questions about how long the process would take. A Board of Peace official gave an estimate of 200 to 320 days, but a US official played down that timeline. An Israeli official, who declined to be identified, said before Trump’s announcement Israel had rejected a proposal. “Israel demands the complete disarmament of Hamas, including the removal of weapons from Gaza and the complete demilitarisation of the Strip as a precondition for any process,” the official said earlier on Thursday. “The 15-point document in question does not provide a satisfactory response to these demands and Israel conveyed its objections.” Earlier, Israeli strikes killed at least six Palestinians in Gaza, including two children, medics said. A roadmap towards Hamas disarmament? Hamas leaders held talks with mediators from Egypt, Qatar and Turkiye on the second phase of Trump’s Gaza plan, as presented to them by his Board of Peace. Trump set up the board to oversee a plan to end Israel’s war in Gaza and rebuild the devastated territory. He appointed members of the board with himself as chair and said last year that the board will supervise Gaza’s temporary governance. “Ahead of us is a Gaza rebuilt, governed by Palestinians and at peace with Israel an a political horizon to a meaningful resolution the Israeli Palestinian conflict,” Nickolay Mladenov, Trump’s Board of Peace envoy for Gaza, said in a statement after the president’s post. Officials involved in the talks shared few details about plans to rebuild Gaza. The plan also calls for a surge in humanitarian aid, governance by a civilian Palestinian administration, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and the deployment of an international force to help maintain security. Handover of weapons could be sticking point The reality on the ground in Gaza, so far, remains far from the goals of the agreement. Hamas wants Israel to commit to ending attacks on Gaza and withdraw its forces. It is not yet clear what will happen regarding light or personal weapons or whether the new Hamas stance will be accepted by Israel or the Board of Peace. The plan includes the elimination of tunnels, arms stockpiles and weapons production facilities, a diplomat involved in the talks said. “This isn’t really a trust deal,” a US official said on Thursday, calling the agreement a “conditions-based deal.” The Israeli military has continued to expand its military occupation of Gaza, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying that Israel intends to expand the area under its control to 70pc of the enclave. It remains unclear how many forces would be available to deploy with the planned International Stabilisation Force, and whether Israeli troops would withdraw from the enclave. Israel will need to leave Gaza Strip: EU The EU’s top diplomat Kaja Kallas has welcomed the agreement with Hamas, but notes that “a lot needs to fall into place” for the deal to work, and that Israel needs to withdraw from the Gaza Strip to enable verification practices. “The plan to disarm Hamas in Gaza, if fully implemented, would be a constructive step towards peace,” she writes on X. “Success depends on the full commitment of all parties. “Verifying Hamas’ compliance will be a significant challenge. Israel would need to eventually withdraw from Gaza,” Kallas adds. She says that the bloc stands ready to support the next steps, including the entry of the National Committee and International Stabilisation Force. Kallas adds that two EU missions on the ground will play an important role in supporting Palestinian state-building efforts. Attacks continue Health officials said separate Israeli strikes had killed at least two children, a woman and three men in Gaza on Thursday. The Israeli military said it struck Hamas fighters in the enclave. The ceasefire in Gaza has been repeatedly violated, with more than 1,200 Palestinians, mostly civilians, being killed by Israeli attacks and four Israeli soldiers being killed since the truce began in October, according to Gaza health officials and Israeli authorities, respectively.Dawn
Iran says Middle East attacks halted after US holds fire amid reported concerns over dwindling munitionsIran said on Sunday it has halted retaliatory attacks against US allies in the Middle East after Washington stopped its strikes on the country for the past two nights. The Iranian declaration came after Washington paused a war nearing its fifth month and reports emerged that concerns over dwindling munitions were restraining plans for further escalation. “These attacks continued until two nights ago, but over the past two nights the Americans have stopped their attacks,” said army spokesman Mohammad Akraminia. “Since… our strategy has essentially been retaliatory, we have also halted our retaliatory operations.” Fighting over the strategic Strait of Hormuz derailed diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran, but the conflict then expanded beyond the vital energy corridor to include attacks on US bases, regional shipping and Gulf allies. But the recent lull has revived hopes of a return to negotiations after nearly two weeks of consecutive nightly US bombardments, although US media reported the pause could also reflect pressure on stockpiles of Patriot interceptors and other defensive weapons. Meanwhile, US operations against Iran were “on a hold”, CNN reported, quoting an unidentified Pentagon source, even as US President Donald Trump threatened a “much higher level” of strikes on Friday. Plans to escalate the campaign have been shelved in part because of those shrinking supplies, The New York Times reported, citing two people briefed on the matter. Trump also faces the risk of a wider Middle East war, the estrangement of vulnerable Gulf allies and further shocks to the global economy, the newspaper said. Vice President JD Vance and top US general Dan Caine both raised concerns about escalation at a White House meeting on Friday, CNN reported. Caine told Trump the military could carry out the options available to him successfully but warned of the possible implications, according to the network. Iran’s army, however, warned on Sunday that the war would widen even further if the US chose to restart its attacks, ahead of a visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington on Tuesday. ‘Much higher level’ Trump said on Friday he had not decided whether to return to an all-out operation. “We’re talking to them right now. I think they’re getting more and more serious,” he told journalists. Trump said Iran faced a choice between a deal and strikes at a “much higher level”. The war that Trump once predicted would last four or five weeks is now nearing its fifth month, and is weighing on the Republican’s approval ratings ahead of crucial US midterm elections in November. The Pentagon had presented Trump with a plan for a 14th night of strikes, but he declined to authorise it in favour of a push for talks, Axios reported. On Sunday, locals in Iranian capital Tehran carried on with a normal morning, dealing with heavy traffic jams on their way to work, an AFP journalist said. Shops and restaurants were open as usual as the city suffered a heatwave. New front Fighting has meanwhile spread to a new front. Houthi rebels on Sunday said they downed a Saudi drone over the northwest of Yemen, a day after the Yemeni group claimed it attacked oil facilities in the Gulf kingdom. A day earlier, the Houthis had said they struck Saudi Aramco sites in Jizan and Yanbu, after Riyadh bombed Houthi targets on Friday. A surface-to-air battery operated by Greek personnel in Saudi Arabia downed two ballistic missiles and a drone over Yanbu, the Greek air force media office said. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran could not be blamed for the escalation and offered to broker talks between the Houthis and Riyadh, saying “there is no military solution”. On Sunday, Iran’s armed forces stopped six vessels attempting to transit the Hormuz Strait over the past 24 hours after warnings, according to state television. Tehran’s effective blockade of the waterway remains the central flashpoint with Washington. Iran said on Sunday it had made progress in talks with neighbouring Oman on “common principles and operational mechanisms” for shipping in the Strait. In June, Oman and Iran said they would discuss imposing service fees, a move Washington opposes, but Muscat also said ships could transit Hormuz via its waters, angering Tehran.Dawn
US holds fire against Iran as reports of concerns over of dwindling munitions emergeIran passed another night without US airstrikes between Saturday and Sunday, as Washington paused a war nearing its fifth month and reports emerged that concerns over dwindling munitions were restraining plans for further escalation. The lull has revived hopes of a return to negotiations after nearly two weeks of consecutive nightly US bombardments, although US media reported the pause could also reflect pressure on stockpiles of Patriot interceptors and other defensive weapons. Fighting over the strategic Strait of Hormuz derailed diplomatic efforts between Washington and Tehran, but the conflict then expanded beyond the vital energy corridor to include attacks on US bases, regional shipping and Gulf allies. However, US operations against Iran were “on a hold”, CNN reported, quoting an unidentified Pentagon source, even as US President Donald Trump threatened a “much higher level” of strikes on Friday. Plans to escalate the campaign have been shelved in part because of those shrinking supplies, The New York Times reported, citing two people briefed on the matter. Trump also faces the risk of a wider Middle East war, the estrangement of vulnerable Gulf allies and further shocks to the global economy, the newspaper said. Vice President JD Vance and top US general Dan Caine both raised concerns about escalation at a White House meeting on Friday, CNN reported. Caine told Trump the military could carry out the options available to him successfully but warned of the possible implications, according to the network. ‘Much higher level’ Trump said on Friday he had not decided whether to return to an all-out operation. “We’re talking to them right now. I think they’re getting more and more serious,” he told journalists. Trump said Iran faced a choice between a deal and strikes at a “much higher level”. The war that Trump once predicted would last four or five weeks is now nearing its fifth month, and is weighing on the Republican’s approval ratings ahead of crucial US midterm elections in November. The Pentagon had presented Trump with a plan for a 14th night of strikes but he declined to authorise it in favour of a push for talks, Axios reported. New front Fighting has meanwhile spread to a new front. Yemen’s Houthi rebels said they struck Saudi Aramco sites in Jizan and Yanbu on Saturday, a day after Riyadh bombed Houthi targets. A surface-to-air battery operated by Greek personnel in Saudi Arabia downed two ballistic missiles and a drone over Yanbu, the Greek air force media office said. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said they had stopped four ships attempting to transit the Strait of Hormuz in 24 hours. Tehran’s effective blockade of the waterway remains the central flashpoint with Washington. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran could not be blamed for the escalation and offered to broker talks between the Houthis and Riyadh, saying “there is no military solution”.Dawn
A new chokepointWITH free transit of vessels through the Strait of Hormuz blocked due to the US-Iran conflict, a new chokepoint has emerged in the region: Bab al-Mandeb on the Red Sea. If free flow of marine traffic is also blocked through this passage, the impact on global commerce would be catastrophic, while the hostilities in and around the Gulf would surely spread to the Red Sea and its environs. Yemen’s pro-Iran Houthi militia had announced a blockade of Saudi ships after Sanaa airport was bombed on July 13, and an aircraft flying in from Iran was diverted to Hodeida. The Houthis have blockaded the Red Sea before, stopping all traffic to and from Israel after the Gaza massacre started, in solidarity with the Palestinians. But the latest closure may have a much wider global impact, considering the situation in Hormuz. It is keeping this in mind, as well as its own dependence on Bab al-Mandeb for energy supplies, that Pakistan on Wednesday condemned the closure, and warned against any attempts to target its vessels. Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also expressed his solidarity with Saudi Arabia during a call with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman yesterday. Considering the dangers of a wider conflict, and the body blow the global economy would receive if Bab al-Mandeb remains closed, the Houthis should reverse their decision. As they are part of Iran’s ‘Axis of Resistance’, Tehran should use its influence with the Yemeni group and advise them to reconsider the blockade. Moreover, since Pakistan has maintained active channels with Iran, Islamabad should suggest to Tehran that closure of the Red Sea route is not a good idea, and will, in fact, further complicate the situation. If anything, efforts need to be made to revive the Houthi-Saudi ceasefire before the largely frozen Yemen conflict restarts. Already, US President Donald Trump has said that he will hold Iran responsible for Houthi attacks. It would be unwise to give the Americans further excuses to expand their war on Iran. The current crisis — from the Gulf to the Red Sea — can be traced back to the disastrous US-Israeli attack on Iran. Tel Aviv and Washington severely miscalculated in this instance, though the Israelis seem only too happy to fight Iran to the last American. Yet while these fires may have been lit by outsiders, it is up to the countries of the region to defuse tensions and prevent a devastating conflict in their neighbourhood. An immediate ceasefire in the Gulf is critical, while efforts need to be made to prevent escalation between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia. In this respect, Pakistan must put its diplomatic efforts in overdrive and, together with other regional powers, attempt to stop the flames of war from consuming the wider Middle East. Published in Dawn, July 24th, 2026Dawn
Killer whales: Orcas blow fish to bits 'for fun', researchers sayA group of killer whales have been documented blowing a sunfish to bits in an unusual underwater escapade offering never-before-seen insights into orca behaviour, according to research released on Thursday. Video released by the US-based NGO Beneath The Waves shows one orca holding the tail of a sunfish, with its fellow whale then charging with full force into the rotund mola, which explodes into pieces. The sunfish is already dead — this isn’t an elaborate murder ritual. Instead, it might be an attempt to turn the fish into smaller bite-sized chunks, researcher Kathryn Ayres said. “Or it could also just be for fun. Orcas are known for playing with their food,” she explained. “Orcas often tear apart prey and share it with other members of the group, including calves and juveniles.” The antics were documented on two occasions in 2024 and 2025 off the Gulf of California, according to the research published in the peer-reviewed Frontiers in Ethology. Mark Peter Simmonds, director of science at OceanCare, likened it to “human formal meals where socialising as well as nutrition are in play”. “Perhaps it is similar to the time when the lead human at a formal meal would carve up the roast,” he told AFP. Killer whales are highly intelligent apex predators and have been known to play with their prey and deploy sophisticated tactics to ensnare them. They have been documented engaging in “wave washing” — cooperating to create choppy waters that knock seals off sheets of ice so they can be more easily captured and eaten. They have also been seen wearing dead salmon as hats for reasons that remain a mystery. And they use tools — research last year showed a critically endangered population of orcas in the Salish Sea breaking off pieces of seaweed to rub and groom each other. “It just really shows us how intelligent orca are,” Rebecca Wellard, a scientist at Western Australia’s Curtin University who was not involved in the research, told AFP. “I think I hope that gives people more respect for complex creatures that are great predators in their environment.” The hapless sunfish can weigh up to 2,000 kilogrammes and is distinct for both its size and peculiar shape featuring a flattened body and fins. They don’t commonly explode, the research points out. “They’re a heavy, bony fish, so it must be some severe ramming,” Wellard said.Dawn
Trump says US-Saudi nuclear deal subject to Riyadh joining Abraham AccordsUS President Donald Trump on Thursday said a landmark deal with Saudi Arabia that would establish a civilian nuclear programme in the Gulf country is contingent on Riyadh joining the Abraham Accords and normalising ties with Israel. In a post on Truth Social, Trump said the deal only pertained to the civilian use of nuclear facilities “such as the ones that Iran and [the] UAE (and others) already have”. He added that the deal “will be approved, but is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords”. The Abraham Accords are a set of agreements brokered under Trump in 2020 and govern the normalisation of diplomatic relations between Israel and countries that have historically been hostile to it. They, however, remain unpopular among the public in many parts of the region, not least because they do not tackle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The move comes as the United States under President Donald Trump fights a war with Iran that began in large part over concerns with Tehran’s nuclear programme — an issue that remains a key point of contention during now-stalled peace talks. Two agreements — one on “peaceful nuclear cooperation” and another on “bilateral safeguards” — were signed by US Energy Secretary Chris Wright and his Saudi counterpart Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, the US Energy Department said. The text of the deals was not immediately made public. “Together, these two agreements lay the legal foundation for a decades-long, multi-billion-dollar partnership that advances several priority economic and strategic objectives, including nuclear non-proliferation,” the department said in a statement. A provision in the deal would potentially see US companies build a uranium enrichment facility in Saudi Arabia, the Wall Street Journal reported. The Energy Department statement made no mention of such a provision and did not offer comment when asked about it by AFP. The deal will be submitted to Congress for review, but the Republican-controlled legislature is unlikely to block its implementation. US lawmakers from both parties and Israeli officials have previously voiced opposition to such a project over fears Saudi Arabia could eventually convert it to develop nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia, like Tehran, has long been adamant about its right to pursue a civilian nuclear programme. Washington has sought in recent years to include any deal concerning a nuclear agreement in a wider strategic effort that would see Saudi Arabia normalise ties with Israel, along with the signing of a US-Saudi defence pact. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia signed a mutual defence pact in September 2025. Proliferation concerns The US signed a nuclear agreement with the kingdom’s neighbour, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), in 2009, although the country does not enrich its own uranium. A drone struck a generator in May near the UAE’s Barakah nuclear plant, the Arab world’s only such facility, causing a fire. Policymakers have long feared that if Iran produced a nuclear weapon, the move would set off an arms race across the Gulf. US Energy Secretary Wright dismissed concerns about proliferation, insisting the deal was in Washington’s economic and strategic interest. “Rest assured, these agreements uphold the highest standards of nuclear safety and non-proliferation, while relying on the world’s best nuclear technology and scientists, designed right here in the United States,” he said in a statement. The US-Saudi deal was signed under Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act. The US has agreements governing nuclear cooperation with more than 50 countries, although the extent varies. Experts said such a deal had been in the works for a considerable period, but some raised concerns about the potential for enrichment on Saudi soil. “It would be a mistake to allow Saudi Arabia the capability for enrichment,” said Matthew Kroenig of the Atlantic Council in comments made before the deal was formally announced. “Washington is right to strengthen its relationship with Riyadh, but it should not do so at the expense of its effective nuclear weapons non-proliferation standards.” Jennifer T. Gordon, director of the Atlantic Council’s Nuclear Energy Policy Initiative, lauded the agreement as a “win for the US over Russia and China”. “Saudi Arabia has made it clear that it will purchase nuclear energy technologies and begin a civil nuclear program; the only question has been whether the kingdom would choose to work with the US and its allies, or whether it would turn to Russia or China,” she said.Dawn
Democratic disconnectTHROUGHOUT our history, we have played around with varying notions of democracy, dictatorship, autocracy, and despotism, mixing and matching these formulas with presidential and parliamentary systems to create a much sought-after hybrid model. These models have wreaked chronic instability, often changing with a greater frequency than people tend to change their cars, houses and, in some cases, jobs. Ironically, amid these constant changes, instability has remained the only real constant underpinning Pakistan governance landscape. Behind these changes have been arguments regarding the inefficiencies of the existing model, the failure of alternatives, or changed socioeconomic circumstances. Whatever the reason, objective, or deficiency identified, one truth has remained: the tendency to sway from one extreme to another because of a consistent state of impatience. What this means is that no matter what model we apply — and then declare a failure — the underlying motivation for doing this again and again is our persistent refusal to fully commit to a solution and give it the time it needs to produce results. Those in power do not have the patience to let the people decide, air their grievances, or make any meaningful contribution to the governance models the rulers extol unless they wholly align with their worldview. Nor do they have the patience to allow institutions — which will sometimes overreach and at others course correct — to develop organically and settle into an equilibrium that serves as an effective system of checks and balances against executive excesses. The people, on the other hand, grow impatient on being disenfranchised, ie, when their voices are restricted, rights curtailed and participation denied. They grow disillusioned, frustrated and eventually angry. In a nutshell, those in power do not have the patience to endure the long periods of democratic continuity required for democracy to bear fruit, whereas the governed do not have the patience to endure autocratic and non-representative tendencies that deprive them of the use of their voice in determining their own future. Those in power do not have the patience to let the people decide. The fundamental state of impatience is apparent. But what is not is what we have achieved in these 78-odd years by refusing to abandon it. Unfortunately, when governments continue to oscillate between democratic representation and autocratic rule, and dismiss the people’s voice as irrelevant, it raises questions about the state’s legitimacy and writ. This should be obvious here. Apparently, it is not. Astonishingly, the state is yet to understand that legitimacy is derived not from the people running the system but from the people for whom the system to govern is being developed. States tend to fare better against existential threats, internal security challenges, and external disturbances in the worst of democratic times than the best of autocratic rule. This is because a system which gives ownership to the people is owned by the people against anyone threatening it. And when do people take ownership? When they have a stake in the system, a say in its running, the power to influence it, and the protection of the rule of law. When the system represents the people, their interests, and their aspirations, they view the state as an extension of themselves rather than something inimical. Granted, certain people will always have grievances. However, a democratic system allows all segments of society to influence state policy. As such, their grievances, even if substantial, are more likely to be channelled through non-violent means. When an aggrieved citizen can speak through elected representatives in parliament or local councils, and reasonably expect to be heard, he has a stake in ensuring that the system continues, because the state’s grievance-addressing mechanisms are knit into his daily life, and as such, he has a reason to be threatened when those systems are threatened. However, what happens when you sever the citizen’s connection with the system by rendering already dysfunctional grievance mechanisms entirely non-responsive? Or when politicians begin to look like representatives against the people rather than representatives of the people? What happens when parliament is no longer representative of the people’s will? And what happens when the judiciary, which was meant to be an independent arbiter between the state and the people, comes to be seen as an employee of the state? Finally, what happens when those seeking the respect of the vote lose respect for themselves? The people lose their stake in the system and any reason to fear its loss. When governing circles conclude that the people are not competent enough to make decisions about their own future, and thereby render their votes, voices and faith in the system irrelevant, the threat to the system is no longer viewed as one to the people but merely as a threat to a system as alien to them as those making the threats. This is dangerous. Proscribed terrorist groups exploit such vacuums to expand their footprint. They depend on the lack of legitimacy of the existing system to create space for their own versions of ‘rule’, claiming to offer greater protection and a greater stake to the people. It is therefore unsurprising that internal unrest finds greater space in autocratic regimes, which alienate the indigenous governance system from the very people they seek to govern. It is imperative that those in power recognise that acknowledging the people’s right to decide their future, to choose who governs them, and to define their relationship with the state, is neither disobedience nor treachery. To the contrary, wanting a connection with the governance model of one’s own country, and being willing to struggle for it and contest attempts to curtail that right, is the greatest form of patriotism. Rulers should be apprehensive of the day when people no longer care enough to do so. Growing dissatisfaction in various parts of the country may be an indication that the public’s patience is wearing thin. Drastic corrections are needed — not urgently, but now. The writer is a lawyer based in Karachi. basil.nabi@gmail.com X: @basilnabi Published in Dawn, July 23rd, 2026Dawn
De-escalation effortsWHILE the exchange of fire across the Gulf — and the wider Middle East — continues between the US and Iran, efforts are also underway to de-escalate matters and revive the ceasefire. An important development in this regard was the series of meetings between Iranian Interior Minister Eskander Momeni and Pakistan’s top civil and military officials on Tuesday. As expected, the regional situation was amongst the main agenda items, and Mr Momeni indicated that talks will continue. That Tehran sent a senior official to Pakistan shows that despite the hostilities, it is still interested in an off-ramp. Meanwhile, speaking in Manila yesterday, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio used a tough tone for Iran, but did not rule out the possibility of a diplomatic settlement to the conflict. Revival of the peace process is an incredibly difficult undertaking. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has said his country is in a “full-scale war” with the US, and the growing escalation over the last two weeks shows that the conflict is headed in a very dangerous direction. Yet the recent developments in Islamabad, and the fact that the US has not yet slammed the door shut on negotiations, show that there is still a chance — however slim — of restarting the dialogue process. At the same time, trust levels between Washington and Tehran are very low, and it will take exceptional diplomatic skill to bring both belligerents back to the table. As hard as the task to revive the peace process may be, the alternative is a regional war which will be far more destructive than the last round. Already the theatre has expanded, with Iran attacking US bases beyond the Gulf, and Yemen’s Houthis enforcing a blockade of Saudi ships in the Red Sea. To prevent an even more alarming escalation, both sides need to silence their guns and give the negotiators a chance to create the framework for a doable peace. The US must stop attacking Iran and issuing fresh threats, while Iran must refrain from targeting the Gulf states. The escalation may seem controlled at the moment, but in such situations, things can easily get out of hand, and spiral into something much bigger. And just as states such as Pakistan are working behind the scenes to de-escalate, some forces are trying their best to ensure hostilities continue. For example, US Vice President J.D. Vance recently said in a podcast that some in Israel want “to keep the war going on indefinitely”. The American president should realise that continuing on the warpath with Iran will lead to a regional conflagration, and the only way to end this unnecessary conflict is for the US and Iran to work with Pakistan and other negotiators to find an honourable exit. Published in Dawn, July 23rd, 2026Dawn
Islamabad condemns Houthis' threats to Riyadh, warns against targeting Pakistani maritime interestsPakistan on Wednesday condemned the Houthis’ recent threats to Saudi Arabia and to trading with the kingdom via the Red Sea, warning that it had the right to self-defence if its “maritime interests” were targeted in “any hostile act”. Islamabad’s statement comes after Yemen’s Houthi rebels, aligned with Iran, announced an immediate maritime embargo on Saudi Arabia, opening a new front in the Middle East conflict. The naval blockade, if enforced, could cut off access to Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea ports, which have been vital for oil exports as renewed US-Iran fighting limits passage through the Strait of Hormuz. A map showing the locations of the Bab al-Mandeb strait, Strait of Hormuz and Suez Canal. — made using ArcGIS “Threats against commercial shipping and trading with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are unacceptable and violate established principles of international law,” the Foreign Office (FO) said in a statement on Wednesday, denouncing the “continued threats” by Houthis. Islamabad said it was “particularly concerned by reports of threats directed against vessels engaged in lawful commercial trade” with Saudi Arabia. “Such actions threaten regional security, undermine freedom of navigation, challenge the rules-based maritime order and jeopardise uninterrupted flow of global commerce,” the FO highlighted. Furthermore, it declared that “any hostile act against Pakistani-flagged vessels or Pakistani maritime interests will be regarded as a grave threat to Pakistan’s national security and sovereign interests”. The FO warned that Pakistan reserved its right to “take all necessary measures, including lawful use of force, in the exercise of self-defence to protect its maritime assets and national interests”, consistent with the United Nations Charter and international law. Pakistan also said it was “deeply concerned over attempts to drag” Saudi Arabia into the Middle East conflict, as fighting continues between the United States and Iran, which in turn has targeted American military sites in some Gulf countries. Islamabad reiterated its “unwavering support for the security, sovereignty, territorial integrity and prosperity of the brotherly Kingdom of Saudi Arabia”. “While remaining steadfast in its commitment to dialogue, diplomacy and regional de-escalation, Pakistan calls upon all parties to respect international law and ensure the safety and security of international maritime shipping,” the FO statement affirmed. The FO also shared an Arabic version of the statement on its X account. Houthis’ Monday announcement came after the group and Saudi Arabia traded fire last week for the first time in years, threatening a 2022 truce that has held despite expiring. After Houthi fired missiles at Saudi Arabia on July 13, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif had expressed Pakistan’s strong condemnation of the “blatant attacks” against the kingdom, without further specifying the attacks. Islamabad had also backed Riyadh at an emergency UN Security Council briefing on Yemen, calling for all parties concerned to resolve differences through dialogue and diplomacy. Under a “Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement” signed between the two in September 2025, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are to treat any attack on either nation as an act of aggression against both. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have maintained close defence and security ties for decades, and their cooperation has remained an important element of Islamabad’s regional diplomacy. Pakistan had invoked the defence pact through diplomatic intervention in early March to help deter heavier Iranian strikes against Saudi Arabia. Ships change course in Red Sea While it remains unclear how the Houthis would enforce such a blockade, their threats have raised concerns about maritime security and energy shipping in the Red Sea. Four tankers changed their navigational course in the Red Sea on Wednesday, with two signalling the Suez Canal as their new destination, Reuters reports, citing ship tracking data. The vessels all changed their direction, with the other two signalling their destination as open waters in the Red Sea, according to LSEG and MarineTraffic ship tracking data and analysis from British maritime risk management group Vanguard. A fifth ship, a vehicle carrier, appeared to have turned away in the Gulf of Aden on Wednesday after signalling the Saudi port of Jeddah as its next destination, according to shipping data. On Tuesday, three oil tankers loaded with Saudi crude for China and India made U-turns in the Red Sea, heading towards the Suez Canal rather than braving the Yemeni coast at the sea’s mouth, Reuters reported. The Houthis have previously tried to cut off shipping through the Red Sea, leveraging the Bab al-Mandeb strait, a chokepoint at its southern tip which vessels must navigate when travelling to or from the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean. Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea port of Yanbu has been crucial for exporting oil, bypassing Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz during its war with the United States. Crude oil exports from Saudi Arabia fell for a third straight month in May to a record low, data from the Joint Organisations Data Initiative (JODI) showed on Tuesday, with the US-Iran conflict disrupting shipments across the Gulf. Exports fell to about 3.434 million barrels per day in May, from 3.986m bpd in April. US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that his country would “take care of” the Houthis if they followed through on the threat to blockade Saudi Arabia’s ports.Dawn