IT appears that the PML-N, echoing the PPP’s recent offer, is also willing to re-engage with the opposition, at least on counterterrorism policy. Though that may seem like a narrow scope for dialogue, in our vitiated political environment, it does offer an opening. Whether the opposition is interested in taking it up is a different question.

The anger over the dismissal of the elected PTI government in KP is still far from subsiding, and the ruling coalition in Islamabad deserves much of the blame for making a negotiated settlement more difficult than it seemed two weeks ago. That said, the opposition also needs to introspect. From the murmurings of resentment within its ranks, it appears that the outcome of its last round of discussions with the government was not what many were hoping for.

Yet, its street agitation has delivered even less. An offer for dialogue, even if focused on counterterrorism strategy, is still an opportunity to return to the negotiating table and continue from where the last round of talks left off. Complete disengagement will achieve nothing.

Regrettably, the two sides still fail to see the country’s economic, security, and governance crises as challenges that must be solved politically. A nation of 260m can hardly afford such paralysis. The greater onus lies with the government. It is difficult to see how a credible counterterrorism strategy can be framed when the province on the front line of the fight has just been deprived of its elected government.

If Islamabad wants its offer to be taken seriously, it should pair it with a real gesture of good faith, starting with a meaningful voice for KP’s elected representatives in any talks. Yet the government seems consumed by the hubris of unchecked power, while the opposition, particularly the PTI, continues to act as if agitation alone can yield results.

Instead of evading Pakistan’s challenges through constant jousting and whataboutery, the political leadership needs to confront its failings. Counterterrorism, where the stakes for KP are the highest and broad-based consensus is urgently needed, is as good a place as any to begin. But it must lead to a much wider conversation on national issues. If the two sides cannot find common ground even on the fight against terrorism, the public would be justified in wondering what, if anything, they are capable of agreeing on.

Published in Dawn, October 22nd, 2026

THERE had been much speculation about what exactly the trilateral Makkah Joint Defence Agreement entails, other than general commitments about the collective defence of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkiye.

But with the release of the text of the 16-article agreement, there is now some clarity about its objectives. While Article 2 says that an “externally originating armed attack” on any of the signatories will be considered an attack on all, triggering the right of self-defence under the UN Charter, the agreement is silent on offensive action.

This should settle questions about the extent of involvement of the pact allies in the ongoing Saudi-Houthi war, and any future engagement. That it is a purely defensive arrangement was also echoed by the Turkish foreign minister.

He stressed it was not an “offensive agreement”, and ruled out sending his country’s troops to a foreign theatre. Other salient features of the pact include joint defence production, intelligence sharing and the interoperability of forces. Such clarity is welcome. While the defence of Saudi Arabia is important, Pakistan, Turkiye, and other regional states should continue efforts to find a negotiated solution to the Yemen conflict — both between the Saudis and Houthis and within Yemen.

In a related development, Pakistan’s chief of defence forces was in Tehran on Tuesday to try and prevent further escalation on the war front. The message from Tehran is that the US should accept Iran’s seven-point proposal if talks are to restart. A key Iranian demand is a ceasefire on all fronts, the end of the American blockade, lifting of sanctions, and the release of the Islamic Republic’s funds. However, despite the efforts of Pakistan and others, there are troubling noises coming from Washington and Tel Aviv.

The abrasive US war secretary — who is no proponent of peace and dialogue — was recently in Israel, while the Israeli prime minister, who will be fighting for his political survival in next week’s elections, has said he and President Donald Trump need to ‘eliminate’ the “Iranian regime”.

Even the sincerest effort to bring peace to the Gulf, Yemen, and the wider Middle East will come to naught if the US and Israel continue with their provocative behaviour. A strike on Iran after the Israeli and US elections would be a massive blunder, and if there are any mature advisers left in Washington, they should talk the US president out of making any such move, besides warning Tel Aviv against such arrogant action. Iran may be under pressure, but as the past several months have shown, it has the capacity to withstand considerable pain inflicted on it by the US and Israel. Fresh aggression can kick off a firestorm that will be in no one’s control, hence it is best to abandon such reckless plans.

Published in Dawn, October 22nd, 2026