By Saifuddin
In the present era, as the world moves away from the grip of a unipolar system, we are witnessing political currents that have seriously challenged the logic of arrogance and dominance, especially that of the West and, in particular, the United States with its pharaonic posture. This logic, built on military force, economic sanctions, and interference in the internal affairs of other nations, is now losing its effectiveness in the face of unprecedented resistance from the peoples of the region.
In this context, the final moments of the deadline set by the U.S. president for Iran ended in what can be seen as an embarrassing setback. The threats that had stirred talk of major change in the region were once again drawn into a swirl of diplomatic shifts.
This situation not only faded the image of an arrogant, pharaoh-like America, but also raised a key question at the global level: do harsh deadlines still carry real weight, or are they now just the start of another cycle that ends in words rather than action?
The history of the Iranian nation over the past few decades shows that standing against external pressure and harsh sanctions is not just a slogan, but a lived reality. Despite repeated efforts by the United States to weaken Iran’s economy and break its will, the nation has held on to its political independence and national pride. It has shown that the “logic of pressure” does not work on a people shaped by courage and resistance.
The U.S. approach of political pressure, and its claims of dominance, have lost their force. They seek to impose their will on others, but the Iranian people have made it clear that the fate of the world is not decided in the White House alone.
In relation to the ongoing tensions in the Middle East, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, as a responsible and independent system, has consistently stressed that regional issues should be resolved through dialogue and mutual respect, not through the influence of foreign powers. This stance, which supports stability among neighboring countries and rejects divisive policies driven by the West, reflects a truly independent and principled approach.
On the other hand, in contrast to the independent positions of Iran and Afghanistan, Pakistan’s military-influenced regime appears caught in a crisis rooted in proxy politics. A clear example is the recent actions of Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, especially a tweet that was first posted in an unconscious, almost scripted form, and then quickly revised in line with external guidance. This incident made it clear that the country’s political direction is shaped not in Islamabad, but in other capitals.
Such “scripted politics” amounts to the loss of a nation’s independence. The way Pakistan’s military-influenced regime manages political shifts, and sacrifices national interests to satisfy powerful foreign actors, is now widely criticized across the region. It is seen as clear evidence of the failure of proxy politics.
