Washington’s Iran Policy: Security Rhetoric, Energy Reality

The dominant narrative in Washington frames Iran as a nuclear threat and a destabilizing regional actor. Yet beneath the moral language and security rhetoric lies a more pragmatic driver - energy geopolitics. The United States’ posture toward Iran appears shaped less by concern for Iranian citizens or nuclear anxieties alone, and more by the strategic calculus of global oil and gas dominance.

Over the past decade, the United States has undergone a structural energy transformation. Once heavily reliant on imported hydrocarbons, America is now a leading oil and LNG exporter. This shift has inevitably altered its foreign policy priorities. Sanctions regimes and diplomatic pressure have systematically constrained the energy exports of major producers viewed as adversarial or strategically inconvenient — including Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. The objective is not merely punitive; it is market-shaping.

Iran presents a unique case. Despite nearly half a century of sanctions, isolation, and economic warfare, the Islamic Republic has neither collapsed nor capitulated. Its economy has been bruised, but its political structure remains intact. History suggests that external pressure has not succeeded in engineering regime change in Tehran. Instead, it has often entrenched domestic resistance while imposing hardships on ordinary Iranians.

The persistence of confrontation raises a critical question, what has been achieved? Sanctions have constrained revenues but not fundamentally altered Iran’s regional behavior or strategic ambitions. Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions inject volatility into global energy markets, adding risk premiums that burden consumers worldwide.

A reassessment is overdue. Durable stability rarely emerges from perpetual pressure. Diplomatic engagement anchored in mutual economic interests — including structured energy cooperation — offers a more realistic pathway. Iran has repeatedly denied seeking nuclear weapons, and whether one accepts this claim or not, diplomacy remains the only verifiable mechanism for accountability.

Washington must recognize a simple geopolitical truth - coexistence delivers more than coercion. Escalatory rhetoric and regime-change fantasies have yielded diminishing returns. A pragmatic reset — reducing hostility, encouraging dialogue, and prioritizing regional stability — would better serve global economic and security interests.

Confrontation may generate headlines. Engagement, however, produces results.

Washington Iran policy, US Iran tensions, Iran sanctions, energy geopolitics, oil politics, nuclear narrative, Middle East stability, regime change debate, global energy markets, US foreign policy,

Trump Must Accept Strategic Reality

For nearly half a century, Washington has relied on sanctions, isolation, and coercion to reshape Iran’s behavior. The results are sobering. Rather than capitulate, Tehran adapted. Its political system endured, its regional footprint expanded, and its negotiating posture hardened. Yet Donald Trump has revived the vocabulary of “maximum pressure,” again pairing economic strangulation with threats of military escalation and even rhetoric about targeting Iran’s top leadership.

This moment is being framed as a last chance for diplomacy. Ali Khamenei, now in his late eighties, faces a consequential decision: accept severe limits on Iran’s nuclear program or risk confrontation with the United States and Israel. Reports suggest U.S. envoys favor transactional breakthroughs, while military planners warn that a campaign against Iran could spiral into a prolonged conflict. Such caution is not academic. The Middle East’s history is littered with wars that began as “limited strikes” and evolved into grinding, unpredictable entanglements.

Even recent use of force underscores the limits of coercion. Joint strikes did not erase Iran’s nuclear capabilities outright. Meanwhile, Tehran signals it will not negotiate away what it views as core deterrence — uranium enrichment rights and missile capacity. Offers like diluting enriched uranium or joining a regional enrichment consortium hint at possible off-ramps, but maximalist demands risk closing those exits before they are fully explored.

There is another underappreciated dimension: regional complicity. Past operational successes by Washington and Tel Aviv were facilitated by access, logistics, and airspace in neighboring Muslim-majority states. If those governments now hesitate or refuse, the military calculus changes dramatically. Geography, not just firepower, shapes outcomes.

Regime-change fantasies should also be retired. Decapitation strategies rarely produce stable, pro-Western transitions; more often they unleash fragmentation, nationalism, and cycles of retaliation. Iran’s leadership has reportedly prepared for succession contingencies, signaling that the state’s continuity does not hinge on one individual.

Strategic reality demands sobriety. Escalation may satisfy domestic political narratives, but it heightens risks for regional stability, global energy markets, and civilian lives. Durable security will not emerge from threats alone. It requires credible diplomacy, respect for redlines, and a recognition that adversaries under pressure do not always break — they often dig in.

The wiser course is clear: de-escalate rhetoric, widen diplomatic space, and prioritize negotiated constraints over another open-ended conflict. History has already delivered its verdict on wars of choice. 

Who Decides War: Trump, or the Constitution?

A credible democracy does not drift into war on the strength of rhetoric, speculation, or executive impulse. Yet that is precisely the anxiety surrounding President Donald Trump and the intensifying discussion of possible US military action against Iran. Reports suggest that lawmakers may soon vote on whether to restrain the president’s authority to initiate hostilities without explicit approval. That vote, if it happens, will not be procedural theater — it will be a constitutional test.

The power to declare war resides with the US Congress, not the White House. This division of authority is not a technicality; it is a safeguard designed to prevent unilateral decisions carrying irreversible human, economic, and geopolitical consequences. Limited defensive strikes may fall within executive discretion, but sustained, weeks-long military operations clearly cross into territory requiring legislative consent.

According to Reuters, the US military has been preparing for the possibility of extended operations should diplomacy fail. Preparation, however, must not be confused with authorization. A democracy’s legitimacy rests not merely on capability, but on adherence to process.

The bipartisan initiatives led by Senators Tim Kaine and Rand Paul, alongside Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, reaffirm a fundamental principle - if war is justified, elected officials must debate it openly and vote on it transparently. Evading that responsibility corrodes accountability and weakens democratic credibility at home and abroad.

Supporters of expansive presidential authority argue that Congress should not restrict national security powers. But oversight is not obstruction. Requiring approval is not weakness. It is the constitutional mechanism ensuring that war reflects national consensus rather than political expediency.

An attack on Iran would reverberate far beyond the battlefield — unsettling global markets, inflaming regional tensions, and risking dangerous escalation across an already volatile Middle East. Such a decision demands scrutiny measured not in cable news cycles, but in constitutional gravity.

If conflict is unavoidable, Congress must own the decision. If peace remains possible, diplomacy must be exhausted. What cannot be justified is silence — or worse, the surrender of legislative authority when it matters most.

PSX Benchmark Index Declines 3.6%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during the week due to persistent geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran, coupled with domestic political noise. Benchmark index declined by 6,434 points or 3.6% during the week to close at 173,170 on Friday. Market participation also slowed with the start of Ramadan, with average daily traded volumes declined by 22%WoW to 831 million shares, as compared to 1.1 billion shares in prior week.

Developments on the economic front remained encouraging, as the country posted Current Account surplus of US$121 million in January 2026, against a deficit of US$393 million in the same period last year, primarily driven by higher workers’ remittances.

Industrial activity (LSMI) expanded by 4.8%YoY in 1HFY26, led by growth in automobile and textile sectors.

Government notified PKR5/ kWh reduction in industrial tariffs, higher than initially announced by Prime Minister.

Power generation increased by 12%YoY in January 2026, supported by the incremental industrial power tariff package and imposition of gas levy on CPPs.

Fertilizer offtakes declined by 48%YoY during January 2026, mainly due to elevated channel inventory following advance procurement in prior month.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$19 million to US$16.2 billion as of February 13, 2026.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) IMF review mission to arrive Pakistan on 25th of this month, 2) Pakistan's bonds draw biggest foreign inflows in 19 months during January this year, 3) IT exports increase by 19%YoY during January, 4) Textile exports increase by 1.3%YoY during 7MFY26, and 5) RDA inflows crosse US$12 billion mark during February 2026.

Sector-wise, Vanaspati & Allied Industries and Woollen were amongst the top performing sectors, while Refinery, Modarabas, and OMCs were the laggards.

During the first four trading sessions, major selling was recorded by Foreigners with a net sell of US$26.5 million. Individuals and Banks absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$14.4 million and US$12.1 million, respectively.

Top performing scrips of the week were: INIL, SSOM, THALL, BNWM, and MUREB, while laggards included: PIOC, TRG, UNITY, PSO, and MEHT.

AKD Securities expect market to recover as domestic and geopolitical uncertainties subside, with market trading at attractive valuations of forward PE of 7.3x and Dividend Yield of 6.4%.

Investors’ sentiments are also expected to improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

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

Trump’s Iran Gambit: A Region on the Brink

The United States appears to be preparing military action against Iran. Reports of rapid troop movements and mobilization of advanced hardware suggest that a strike could be imminent. Yet, in this moment of peril, the world—and notably Muslim leaders—remains largely silent. Their silence, whether intentional or out of fear, risks turning a dangerous plan into an uncontrollable catastrophe.

My deepest concern is that some regional powers may inadvertently facilitate these strikes. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE could become staging grounds or provide logistical support, directly exposing themselves to Iranian retaliation. Tehran’s drone and missile capabilities are not hypothetical: even a “surgical” US strike could provoke swift counterattacks, endangering civilian populations and critical infrastructure across the Gulf.

The most alarming possibility is the elimination of Iran’s top leadership. While some may view this as a tactical objective, it would almost certainly trigger a full-scale regional war. We have seen in past conflicts how targeted killings escalate rather than contain violence, unleashing cycles of retaliation that spiral beyond anyone’s control. The economic consequences would be immediate and global: energy markets would surge, trade routes could be disrupted, and refugee flows would strain neighboring countries. Extremist groups could exploit chaos, further destabilizing the region.

The silence of Muslim-majority nations is deafening. By failing to speak against this looming confrontation, they risk becoming complicit in a war with no winners. The international community—Washington included—must recognize that diplomacy and restraint are far more powerful than pre-emptive strikes. Averted conflict today is exponentially less costly than a conflagration tomorrow.

We stand at a dangerous crossroads. Leadership demands foresight, courage, and moral clarity; recklessness promises death, destruction, and chaos. The world must act now to prevent a spark that could ignite a fire engulfing an entire region. If we do not, history will judge us for failing to speak while war loomed on the horizon.

Congress Must Draw the Line on Iran

As Washington again drifts toward confrontation with Iran, Congress faces a constitutional test it has postponed for far too long. Reports of rapid US military mobilization in the Middle East, coupled with warnings from seasoned observers, suggest that the momentum toward conflict may already be outrunning diplomacy. If so, lawmakers cannot remain spectators.

The bipartisan War Powers Resolution introduced by Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie is not a procedural nuisance; it is a reaffirmation of the separation of powers. The Constitution vests the authority to declare war in Congress precisely to prevent unilateral military adventures driven by miscalculation, political impulse, or external pressure. Requiring explicit authorization before striking Iran is the minimum safeguard, not an obstacle to national security.

Recent commentary paints a troubling picture: ultimatums that touch Iran’s declared red lines, paired with skepticism that genuine negotiations are underway. Whether one accepts that assessment or not, prudence demands congressional oversight. Wars have begun on thinner evidence and with greater confidence than hindsight could justify. Iraq remains the cautionary tale of intelligence failures, inflated expectations, and consequences that lasted decades.

The risks today are neither abstract nor distant. Iranian officials have hinted that a broader US strike would trigger severe retaliation. Even limited exchanges could endanger American troops, destabilize energy markets, and ignite a regional escalation that engulfs allies and civilians alike. Military action is easy to start, notoriously hard to contain.

Civil society groups—from Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) and CodePink—are urging Congress to act. Their arguments vary, but converge on a central point: another Middle East war would be devastating and avoidable. Lawmakers should heed that warning without surrendering to alarmism. The question is not whether Iran poses challenges; it is whether bypassing Congress improves outcomes.

This is a moment for institutional responsibility. Debate the intelligence. Scrutinize the objectives. Weigh the costs. Then vote. If military action is truly necessary, the administration should be able to make its case to the people’s representatives. If it cannot, that itself is an answer.

Congress must draw the line—clearly, constitutionally, and now.

Trump War Mania Crossing All Red Lines

The drumbeat of war rhetoric from Donald Trump toward Iran is no longer just political posturing — it is a test of America’s constitutional integrity. Wars are not reality shows. These are irreversible acts that consume lives, destabilize regions, and stain legacies.

Reporting by Axios, citing journalist Barak Ravid, warns that the United States may be closer to a “massive,” weeks-long conflict than most Americans understand. That phrase should trigger national debate. Instead, Congress is on recess and public discourse remains oddly subdued. Silence, in moments like this, is not neutrality — it is complicity.

America’s strength has never rested solely on military power but on process: consultation with allies, engagement with the United Nations, coordination within NATO, and authorization by the United States Congress. The War Powers Act exists to prevent unilateral escalations driven by impulse or political calculus.

Yet critics observe a troubling vacuum. Democratic leaders such as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have raised procedural objections, but where is the forceful challenge to the logic, risks, and consequences of war itself? Procedural caution without substantive resistance is an inadequate defense against catastrophe.

Columnist David French captured the absurdity: the nation edges toward possible conflict while Congress appears disengaged and the public largely unaware. Meanwhile, Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft warns of familiar patterns — media narratives that amplify hawkish voices while sidelining restraint.

Public opinion tells a clearer story. A YouGov survey shows significantly more Americans opposing military action against Iran than supporting it. After Iraq and Afghanistan, skepticism is not isolationism — it is wisdom earned at staggering cost.

President Trump, a war with Iran would not be surgical, swift, or contained. It would ignite regional volatility, shock global markets, and risk drawing America into another open-ended quagmire. History rarely forgives leaders who confuse bravado with strategy.

Congress must act — not later, not symbolically, but now. Debate openly. Assert authority. Because once the first strike is ordered, red lines stop being diplomatic language, but become graves.