Louder Rhetoric, Diminishing Credibility

The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has claimed that its latest military campaign struck nearly 140 targets in Iran—far exceeding the scale of its previous rounds of attacks. Whether this figure is accurate or not is almost secondary. More important is the strategic narrative such claims are designed to create and the political objectives they may serve.

One emerging perception is that the conflict is no longer confined to military confrontation. It has evolved into a struggle over energy markets, regional influence, and financial leverage. Continued instability in the Gulf discourages investment, disrupts confidence, and keeps a strategic premium on energy supplies. Critics argue that prolonged tension can also benefit major energy exporters outside the region by sustaining higher oil and gas prices.

A second perception is that repeated references to Iranian attacks on American military facilities reinforce the argument for maintaining an extensive US military presence across the Gulf. From this perspective, every escalation strengthens the case that these bases remain indispensable for the security of America's Arab partners, even though their continued presence itself remains a subject of debate.

There are also wider economic considerations. Analysts have suggested that continued hostilities delay any possibility of normalizing Iran's oil exports, resolving disputes over frozen Iranian assets, or addressing future claims for compensation arising from wartime destruction. As long as the conflict persists, diplomacy inevitably takes a back seat to military calculations.

Perhaps the greatest casualty, however, is credibility. In modern warfare, information has become as powerful as missiles. Every claim of battlefield success is instantly challenged by satellite imagery, independent analysts, and social media. Governments no longer enjoy an uncontested monopoly over the narrative. If official statements are perceived to exaggerate military achievements or downplay setbacks, public trust erodes rapidly.

History reminds us that wars are fought not only on the battlefield but also in the realm of perception. Military victories may shape today's headlines, but credibility determines tomorrow's legitimacy. In an age of instant information, winning the narrative may ultimately prove more difficult—and more important—than winning the war itself.

Who Is the Terrorist? The United States or Iran

"Terrorist" is perhaps the most powerful label in modern geopolitics. Once attached to a country, organization or individual, it often becomes sufficient to justify sanctions, military intervention and even targeted killings. Yet a fundamental question remains unanswered: Who decides what constitutes terrorism, and are the same standards applied to everyone?

The continuing confrontation between the United States plus Israel and Iran exposes this dilemma. Although, a ceasefire was announced in April, military exchanges have continued, with each side accusing the other of violating the agreement. Amid the exchange of accusations, an uncomfortable reality has emerged—the principles of international law appear to change depending on who is using force.

The United States and Israel have defended targeted strikes against senior Iranian military commanders and political leaders as legitimate acts of self-defense. Their critics argue that these operations amount to political assassinations carried out without judicial process and in violation of international law.

The disagreement is not merely legal; it goes to the heart of how the international community defines legitimate use of force.

Similarly, Iran has maintained that military bases used to launch attacks against its territory become lawful military targets, regardless of where they are located. Arab governments, understandably, fear that such retaliation could draw the entire region into a wider conflict. At the same time, competing media narratives often shape public perception more effectively than independently verified facts.

The latest allegation that Iran seeks to assassinate US President Donald Trump has further intensified tensions. If such a plot exists, it deserves unequivocal condemnation. However, it also raises a difficult question. If the targeted killing of foreign leaders or senior officials can be justified as self-defense when undertaken by one state, on what legal or moral basis should similar conduct be judged differently when attributed to another?

This is not an argument in favor of political assassination by any nation. Rather, it is a call for consistency. International law cannot retain credibility if identical actions are described as "self-defense" when committed by allies and "terrorism" when attributed to their adversaries.

The real question, therefore, is not simply who the terrorist is. The more important question is whether the world is prepared to uphold one universal standard of justice—or continue living with two.

 

At PSX volatility spikes daily trading 25.7%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during the outgoing week driven by uncertainties surrounding the US-Iran conflict, pushing oil prices to US$80/ bbl before retreating. The benchmark index declined 4,626 points decline on Wednesday, but recovered partially on Friday. The index closed the week at 182,242 points, down 3,130 points or 1.7%WoW. Market activity remained strong, with average daily trading volume up 25.7%WoW to 1.3 billion shares.

On the macroeconomic front, worker remittances for June 2026 increased by 2%YoY to US$3.5 billion, taking FY26 total to a record high of US$41.6 billion, up 9%YoY.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) were reported at US$18.5 billion, as of July 03, 2026.

Yields during first FY27 T-Bills auction fell by 31-40 bps across all tenors.

Cement sales rose 18%YoY in June 2026 to 4.3 million tons, led by domestic dispatches, taking full year FY26 sales to 50.5 million tons, a 4-year high.

Other major news inflow during the week included: 1) Saudi makes biggest oil price cut in decades, 2) GoP buys more LNG as flows through Hormuz fail to recover, 3) IMF forecasts 3.5% growth rate for Pakistan’s economy in FY27, 4) RDA inflows increased to US$2.8 billion in FY26, and 5) Removal of MDR to provide leverage to banks.

Top performing sectors were: Synthetic & Rayon, Refinery, and Leasing Companies, while lagged included: Sugar & Allied Industries, Close-End Mutual Funds, and Transport.

Major buying was recorded by Individuals and Banks aggregated US$24.5 million. Major sellers were Companies and Mutual Funds with flows of US$20.9 million and US$11.3 million, respectively.

Top performing scrips were: IBFL, GHNI, CNERGY, PGLC, and LOTCHEM, while laggards included: MEHT, NPL, TPLRF1, KTML, and SNGP.

According to AKD Securities, going forward, positive progress on US-Iran conflict, along with moderating international oil prices towards pre-conflict levels would remain the key focus.

Additionally, favorable financial results for the period ended June 30, 2026 would support market sentiment in the near term. Market continues to trade at attractive valuations.

The brokerage house forecasts the benchmark Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2026.

Top picks of the brokerage house include: OGDC, PPL, UBL, MEBL, HBL, FFC, ENGROH, PSO, LUCK, FCCL, INDU, ILP and SYS.

Iran seeks to assassinate Donald Trump

Recent media reports alleging that Iran seeks to assassinate US President Donald Trump, alongside claims that Trump has instructed the United States to launch a devastating military response should such an attack occur, raise a far more important question than the headlines themselves. Are the rules governing the use of force universal, or are they reserved only for the powerful?

This is not a debate about personalities. It is a debate about principles.

For years, the United States and Israel have defended targeted killings of foreign military and political leaders as legitimate acts of self-defense or national security. Their argument is that extraordinary threats justify extraordinary measures. However, if this doctrine is accepted as a legitimate principle of international conduct, can other states not invoke the very same rationale when they perceive an existential threat?

The issue is not whether Iran is right or wrong. The issue is whether international law can survive if every country adopts the same standard. A principle that applies only to one nation is not a principle at all; it is simply an expression of power.

International politics has long demonstrated that labels are rarely neutral. One nation's freedom fighter is another nation's terrorist. Likewise, one country's "targeted strike" may be viewed by another as political assassination or an act of war. Perspectives differ, but the consequences remain the same.

Iran has endured US sanctions, diplomatic isolation and repeated military threats for nearly half a century. From Tehran's perspective, these policies represent continuous hostility. It is therefore understandable why successive Iranian leaders have described the United States as the "Great Satan." Whether one agrees with that description is beside the point. The reality is that prolonged confrontation has deepened mistrust on both sides.

History offers a consistent lesson. Political assassinations rarely resolve conflicts. More often, they fuel retaliation, strengthen hardliners, weaken diplomacy and perpetuate cycles of violence. Every action establishes a precedent, and every precedent eventually finds a new claimant.

The world should therefore resist the normalization of assassination as an instrument of statecraft. If the targeted killing of another country's political leadership becomes an accepted practice, no head of state can reasonably expect immunity from the same logic. Such a doctrine would make global politics less stable and far more dangerous.

The United States still has an opportunity to reverse this trajectory. Military threats, sanctions and coercion have failed to produce lasting stability in the Middle East. A renewed commitment to diplomacy, respect for sovereignty and the gradual easing of sanctions would serve regional and global security far better than another cycle of escalation.

The international order cannot be sustained through selective justice. The same rules must govern allies and adversaries alike. Otherwise, the world risks replacing the rule of law with the law of retaliation—a path from which there are no true victors.

China has 7 of world’s 10 biggest banks

China’s big four state-run banks are the largest in the world in terms of asset scale, a new report has found, underscoring Beijing’s rising ambitions to build the country into a global financial powerhouse.

The ranking released by The Banker magazine on Wednesday was topped by the four Chinese banks – Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China and Bank of China – with JPMorgan Chase following in fifth place.

In total, Chinese banks made up seven of the top 10 in the ranking, which lists global banks in terms of tier-one capital size. All seven of them are controlled by the Chinese government.

Postal Savings Bank of China broke into the top 10 for the first time, while US giants Bank of America and Citigroup ranked sixth and eighth, respectively.

Chinese banks collectively held US$54.8 trillion in total assets, more than double the US$25 trillion held by US banks in the ranking, data showed.

However, the race is not only about size, as US banks continue to hold the advantage in terms of profitability.

Chinese banks in the top 1,000 ranking reported combined pre-tax profits of US$392 billion, compared with US$328 billion for US banks.

The publication noted that American lenders maintained a clear lead in profitability performance, while European banks recorded stronger earnings growth after a relatively weak previous year.

The expansion of China’s banks is closely linked to Beijing’s broader financial ambitions: increasing the global role of the yuan, developing alternative cross-border financing channels and extending China’s influence through overseas banking operations.

Silvia Pavoni, editor-in-chief of The Banker, said Chinese banks’ international expansion and efforts to promote yuan internationalization would become increasingly important drivers of future growth and profitability.

“China’s largest banks continue to underpin their dominance,” Pavoni said, adding that the scale and resilience of the country’s banking sector remained significant as the global economy faced uncertainty and geopolitical challenges.

 

The Gulf Must Not Become the Next Casualty

President Donald Trump's latest remarks should be treated as more than political rhetoric. For the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), they should serve as a strategic warning. Every indication that the United States is prepared to sustain pressure on Iran rather than prioritize reconciliation raises an uncomfortable question: who stands to lose the most from another prolonged regional confrontation?

The answer is unlikely to be Washington or Tehran. It is the Gulf.

Over the past decade, GCC countries have invested hundreds of billions of dollars to diversify their economies, attract foreign investment and transform themselves into global hubs for trade, finance and tourism. Those ambitions depend on one indispensable ingredient—regional stability. Every new military crisis threatens to undermine years of economic progress.

Modern conflicts are no longer judged solely by territorial gains or military victories. They also reshape energy markets, sustain defence industries, influence financial markets and reinforce geopolitical leverage. Periods of prolonged uncertainty often coincide with higher military spending, increased demand for sophisticated weapons systems and heightened volatility in global commodity and equity markets. International media organizations also benefit from continuous coverage of unfolding crises. Yet the countries closest to the conflict invariably bear the greatest economic and security costs.

Energy remains at the heart of this equation. Any threat to Gulf shipping routes or oil infrastructure immediately disrupts global markets, increases freight and insurance costs and weakens investor confidence. While uncertainty pushes energy prices higher, it also encourages consuming nations to diversify supplies and seek alternative sources, creating long-term challenges for traditional exporters.

The GCC must also confront a strategic reality. Iran possesses limited capability to inflict decisive damage on the United States itself. However, American military installations across the Gulf represent visible strategic assets that could become focal points during any wider regional escalation. Whether justified or not, the presence of these facilities inevitably exposes host nations to risks that originate beyond their own borders.

This does not argue for abandoning long-standing security partnerships. Rather, it calls for a sober reassessment of whether existing arrangements continue to maximize Gulf security or inadvertently increase regional vulnerability. Every sovereign nation has both the right and the responsibility to periodically evaluate defence partnerships in light of changing geopolitical realities.

The Gulf has reached a pivotal moment. "Business as usual" is no longer a strategy. GCC leaders should collectively champion de-escalation, strengthen regional diplomacy and ensure that their territories do not become the principal arena for conflicts driven by external rivalries. Stability—not perpetual confrontation—is the foundation upon which the Gulf's future prosperity, security and global influence will ultimately rest.

Trump’s Iran Policy: Follow the Money, Not the Rhetoric

Donald Trump returned to the White House promising to end America's "endless wars" and restore stability through the "America First" agenda. Yet his handling of Iran has told a different story. Since the fragile US-Iran ceasefire was announced, violations have become almost routine. Washington's position has oscillated between calls for restraint and renewed threats. The latest example came when President Trump declared that the interim deal aimed at ending the conflict was "over," once again injecting uncertainty into already fragile global markets.

The reaction was immediate. Wall Street's major indices slipped as investors reassessed geopolitical risks. The ripple effects reached far beyond the United States. Pakistan Stock Exchange also came under heavy selling pressure before recovering part of its losses by the close. Financial markets have become hostages to political messaging emanating from Washington.

During the US presidential campaign, I wrote that it mattered little whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris won the election. The occupant of the White House would change, but the powerful interests shaping American foreign policy would remain remarkably constant. Recent developments have only reinforced that conviction.

Washington's Iran policy appears to have become an exercise in managing competing domestic interests rather than pursuing a coherent diplomatic strategy. Every escalation benefits someone. Defence contractors receive larger orders as regional insecurity grows. Oil companies gain from heightened uncertainty in energy markets. Wall Street profits from volatility that creates trading opportunities. Major media organizations thrive on continuous crisis coverage that attracts audiences and advertising revenues.

None of these realities proves that any one of these powerful constituencies dictates White House decisions. But when every major policy shift repeatedly advances their commercial interests, skepticism is both natural and justified. In politics, patterns often reveal more than official statements.

The uncomfortable truth is that modern American foreign policy increasingly resembles a marketplace where geopolitical crises generate economic opportunities for influential stakeholders. Peace rarely produces exceptional corporate earnings. Tension does.

This is why Trump's changing posture towards Iran deserves closer scrutiny. The issue is not whether he personally seeks confrontation or compromise. The more important question is whether any American president can formulate Middle East policy free from the influence of the military-industrial establishment, energy giants, financial markets and the corporate media.

Perhaps the real lesson is this - American presidents come and go, campaign slogans change, and foreign policy narratives evolve. Yet the beneficiaries of prolonged instability appear strikingly familiar. Until that cycle is broken, the world will continue to pay the price for wars that are declared in the name of security but often end by serving the interests of power and profit.