The breakdown of the MoU between Iran and the United States does not come as a surprise. It was structurally designed as such. The main questions remained unresolved in this agreement – Gaza and the two-state solution through the establishment of Palestine. Israel conspicuously remained absent from the framework. How could an agreement last when half of the parties involved in the conflict remained dissatisfied with its contents?
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte's support for US action against Iran is a remarkable development. On 3 July, US intelligence warned Poland of a Russian attack and a possible ground invasion from Belarus or from Kaliningrad Oblast – a Russian exclave on the Baltic Sea, sandwiched between NATO and EU members Poland and Lithuania.
At the recent NATO summit in Ankara, Trump also brought up the Greenland question. Both statements certainly pressured NATO members, including Britain and France, who have pledged to send their vessels to maintain the southern corridor in the Strait of Hormuz along the Omani coast. Germany has also shown an intention to join them. These moves by the erstwhile reluctant Europeans to join the US campaign against Iran ostensibly stem from these two factors.
At the NATO summit, Trump also appreciated Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan for staying out of the conflict in the Middle East. Trump's agreement to supply F-35 jets and their engines to Turkey could be a reward for this gesture from Erdoğan. Those who were speculating about the Saudis leaving the US security umbrella probably forgot the fact that the Saudi royal family has $1.4 trillion invested in the United States, largely parked in banks controlled by Jews. The smaller Gulf states, such as Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, can scarcely make decisions out of sync with US wishes. Even Oman, which was believed to be leaning towards Iran, allowed the creation of the southern corridor.
With these realities in place, those imagining a grand Muslim alliance – a Muslim NATO – should bring their dreams into the light of day.
In my previous article, published on 17 June 2026, I argued why India would attack Pakistan in 2028. As new factors leap onto the chessboard, that day might arrive earlier than 2028. The reasons are out in the open: Indian media has been building a narrative against Pakistan for the last two weeks, since that piece was published.
The real challenge for China is not Malacca, but Pakistan, which stands bewildered, split between the Gulf and Iran, and between the United States and China itself
The focus is on the Indus Waters Treaty and China's support for Pakistan on it. Following this, two important things happened: during her recent visit to New Delhi, Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi echoed the Indian narrative on cross-border terrorism involving Pakistan. Simultaneously, former Singaporean diplomat Bilahari Kausikan criticised Pakistan as a state teetering on the brink of failure – his posture and wording were less those of a diplomat and more those of a stand-up comedian.
During his recent visit to Indonesia on 7 July, Modi and Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto sealed a major defence deal, allowing Jakarta to acquire Indian BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles. Subianto called Modi his favourite man in India. Reports suggest that the Philippines will be the next to receive Indian BrahMos missiles – the UAE is already on the list. The point in focus is the Strait of Malacca – a narrow passage between Indonesia, Singapore and the Philippines.
The signal is clear. The target is China's main trade route. The alternative is CPEC, running through Gilgit-Baltistan, Kashmir, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan – regions of Pakistan all under attack simultaneously, both politically and militarily. Indian intentions and manoeuvres are not hidden. It is openly provoking the Afghan Taliban, the TTP and the BLA, arming them, while its media is building a narrative incessantly. That is where Indian and US interests converge, along with those of Israel, the UAE and other regional players, who find the BRI, CPEC and a stable, stronger Pakistani economy a threat to their interests and regional ambitions.
Iran, on the other hand, poses the same challenge, with substantial Chinese investment in its ports and infrastructure, its access to the Arabian and Caspian Seas, and, of course, the Strait of Hormuz. Nothing is hidden any more. Neither the intentions nor the ambitions. The impression created in the Indian and Israeli media that the United States was changing its priorities by distancing itself from both key partners was a distraction. It was done to temporarily lure Pakistan and Iran into a discussion that would allow Israel and its hexagonal alliance partners to reposition themselves and put pressure on China by creating a threat around Malacca. The message is clear: stay out of the Iran issue, or we shall choke you through Malacca.
The real challenge for China is not Malacca, but Pakistan, which stands bewildered, split between the Gulf and Iran, and between the United States and China itself. Many in Islamabad became super-excited about the peace talks being held in Islamabad, seeing them as a great diplomatic victory. Some even went on building sandcastles, imagining a grand Muslim bloc stretching from Turkey to Malaysia. Many blocks from this castle have already fallen, one by one, before our very eyes over the past few weeks.
China's problems, and Pakistan's own, will begin to solve themselves once clarity dawns upon Islamabad. The sooner it embraces reality and its real allies, the better. The crisis may be even closer than we can imagine at this moment.