Why Is Iran Reluctant to Attack Israel Directly?

Every time hostilities flare in the Middle East, a familiar pattern emerges. Israel strikes Iranian targets, and Iran often retaliates by targeting US military installations or interests in the region rather than launching a sustained direct attack on Israel. This recurring pattern raises an intriguing question, if Israel is Iran's declared adversary, why does Tehran so often avoid direct military confrontation?

The answer lies not in fear alone but in strategic calculation.

Iran understands that a large-scale attack on Israel would almost certainly trigger an overwhelming response. Israel possesses formidable military capabilities and enjoys unwavering political, diplomatic, and military backing from the United States. A direct war could inflict severe damage on Iran's military infrastructure, economy, and internal stability. No responsible government willingly enters a conflict where the costs are likely to far outweigh the gains.

Military realities reinforce this caution. Israel has developed one of the world's most sophisticated, multi-layered missile defense systems. While these defenses cannot intercept every missile or drone, they substantially reduce the effectiveness of mass attacks. Iran must therefore consider whether expending expensive missiles would achieve meaningful military objectives or merely expose the limitations of its own arsenal.

Geography further complicates the equation. Iran and Israel do not share a common border. Any missile or drone attack must cross or approach the airspace of several regional states. Countries such as Jordan have, on occasion, intercepted projectiles traversing their airspace to protect their own national security. These operational challenges make sustained direct attacks considerably more difficult.

Instead, Iran has adopted what appears to be a strategy of calibrated retaliation. Rather than seeking decisive military victory, it aims to impose costs while preventing the conflict from escalating into a regional war. This explains Tehran's preference for targeting US military bases, conducting cyber operations, disrupting maritime traffic, and relying on allied armed groups to project influence.

From Iran's perspective, the United States is not merely Israel's ally but its principal strategic enabler. Washington provides military assistance, intelligence, advanced weaponry, and consistent diplomatic support. Consequently, Tehran may calculate that increasing pressure on American military assets sends a message to both Washington and Tel Aviv without immediately crossing the threshold of an all-out war.

This does not mean Iran lacks the capability or the willingness to strike Israel directly. It has done so under exceptional circumstances. However, those attacks have generally been carefully measured, suggesting that deterrence and escalation management remain at the heart of Iranian strategy.

The Middle East is often viewed through the lens of ideology and rhetoric, yet military decisions are usually driven by hard strategic calculations. Iran's conduct reflects this reality. Rather than pursuing an unrestricted war with Israel, Tehran appears to be balancing retaliation with restraint, seeking to preserve its deterrent capability while avoiding a conflict that could threaten the survival of the Iranian state.

Understanding this distinction is essential. In geopolitics, actions are rarely dictated by slogans alone. More often, they are shaped by the cold arithmetic of power, capability, and consequence.

Why Are We Scared of Telling the Truth?

The first casualty of war is often the truth. Yet an equally disturbing reality is that many of us become unwilling participants in this process. We repeat official narratives, avoid uncomfortable questions, and hesitate to challenge the assumptions promoted by powerful states. Whether out of fear, political convenience, or media influence, we often stop asking whether there is another side to the story.

The present conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran offers a striking example. Much of the international discourse has focused on Iran's actions, while comparatively less attention has been given to the timing of the US-Israel military campaign, which began while diplomatic engagement over Iran's nuclear program was still underway. For many observers, this raises legitimate questions about the sincerity of negotiations and the priority given to diplomacy.

Another issue that receives limited discussion is the strategic importance of Iran in the regional balance of power. Many analysts argue that Washington and Tel Aviv view Iran as the principal obstacle to establishing a security order aligned with their interests in the Middle East. Whether one agrees with this assessment or not, it deserves open debate rather than dismissal.

Similarly, public discussion often frames Iran as the principal source of instability in the region, while criticism of Israel's policies receives comparatively less prominence. Across much of the Muslim world, perceptions differ significantly from those commonly reflected in Western political discourse. Ignoring these perspectives does little to promote mutual understanding.

The same applies to the role of the United States. Its military presence across the Arabian Peninsula is generally explained as necessary for regional security. Critics, however, argue that this presence also serves broader strategic objectives, including controlling energy routes and preserving American influence over one of the world's most important oil-producing regions. These competing interpretations should be examined rather than silenced.

Likewise, incidents involving attacks on US military installations in Gulf countries are frequently portrayed as attacks on the host nations themselves. Others contend that these bases are part of a broader geopolitical confrontation between Washington and Tehran. The distinction is important because it shapes how audiences understand the conflict and assign responsibility.

Healthy democracies are built not on unquestioning acceptance of official narratives but on the courage to ask difficult questions. Truth is rarely served by silence, selective reporting, or fear of challenging powerful interests. If meaningful peace is ever to prevail in the Middle East, the international community must be willing to examine every narrative critically, apply consistent standards to all parties, and encourage honest debate rather than suppress uncomfortable questions. Only by overcoming our fear of speaking openly can we hope to move closer to a more balanced understanding of one of the world's most consequential conflicts.

Beyond Hormuz: Is Yemen the New Diversion?

The attempt by an Iranian aircraft to land in Houthi-controlled Yemen, and the swift response by Saudi-backed Yemeni forces to prevent it, should not be viewed as an isolated aviation incident. It may represent another chapter in the wider geopolitical contest unfolding across the Middle East. More importantly, it raises a strategic question: Is the focus on Yemen intended to shift international attention away from the Strait of Hormuz?

For decades, the Strait of Hormuz has remained the world's most critical maritime energy corridor. Roughly one-fifth of global oil and a significant share of liquefied natural gas exports pass through this narrow waterway. Any instability there has immediate consequences for energy prices, inflation, global trade and financial markets. It is also the one strategic chokepoint where Iran possesses considerable geographic leverage.

Against this backdrop, renewed attention to Yemen is unlikely to be accidental. By reigniting tensions around Sanaa, the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb, Washington and its regional partners can compel Iran to divide its strategic focus. Instead of concentrating on Hormuz, Tehran must also devote diplomatic, military and logistical resources to protecting its interests in Yemen.

For Saudi Arabia, preventing Iranian flights from landing in Houthi-held territory serves immediate security objectives. For the United States, the broader strategic benefit lies in expanding the theatre of competition. A conflict confined to Hormuz leaves Iran operating in its strongest geographic position. A conflict stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea forces Tehran to manage multiple fronts simultaneously, thereby diluting its leverage.

Whether this reflects a carefully coordinated strategy or the convergence of regional interests remains open to debate. Yet the cumulative effect is unmistakable: international attention shifts from Hormuz to Yemen, from energy security to aviation disputes, and from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea.

The Middle East has long demonstrated that perception is as important as military capability. In modern geopolitics, shaping the narrative often shapes policy. The latest confrontation in Yemen may therefore be less about one aircraft than about redirecting the world's strategic gaze. While headlines focus on Sanaa, the Strait of Hormuz—the true center of the region's geopolitical gravity—risks fading into the background. That, in itself, may be the most significant development.

Shanghai overtakes London in shipping hub rankings

According to Seatrade Maritime News Shanghai has taken second place in the 2026 Xinhua Baltic International Shipping Centre Development Index (ISCDI), breaking London’s six-year streak as runner in the ranking of global shipping hubs.

Singapore earned the top spot, a position it has held for all 13 years of the report’s history. With London slipping the third place, Hong Kong and Dubai rounded out the index’s top five cities.

Ningbo-Zhoushan overtook Rotterdam to become the sixth-highest-ranked shipping centre, while New York and New Jersey jumped up two places to eighth, overtaking Athens and Hamburg. There were no new entrants to the top 20.

Analyzing Shanghai’s ascendancy in the rankings, the report noted the city stood in seventh place in 2014 and has risen steadily since. Shanghai is home to the world’s busiest container port, which recorded strong growth in 2025, including at the world’s largest automated container terminal.

The opening of Maersk’s flagship logistics centre in Shanghai’s Lin-gang Special Area further strengthened the clusters’ case, as did the launch of The North Bund International Legal Service Port, a new international ship inspection operations team from China Classification Society, and the arrival of representative offices for both the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and London P&I Club.

The Index judges shipping centres based on three main weighted criteria: port inputs account for 20% of the total, business services 50%, and general environment inputs — which covers government transparency, customs tariffs, logistics performance, and the extent of e-government and administration — making up the remaining 30% of the score.

The report said Singapore’s grip on the top spot showed no signs of loosening, as container volume growth at its port outpaced Shanghai’s to remain the world’s second-busiest container port. Singapore’s bunkering industry also broke records in 2025 to remain the world’s largest bunkering destination crown with sales of 56.77 million tons. The report noted an increase in LNG deliveries and the issuing of bunkering licenses for methanol and groundwork for future ammonia developments.

Tonnage under the Singapore Registry of Ships rose 27% on-year to 137.46m gt and some 35 companies opened or expanded operations in the city in 2025.

“Singapore’s challenge heading into the latter part of the decade is less about defending its position as a leading shipping hub but about continuing to distinguish itself from other leading maritime cities across Asia. On the evidence of 2025, it is doing exactly that,” said the report.

The only shipping centre to gain two places this year was New York & New Jersey, which the report noted as home of private equity, law firms, brokerage firms, financial institutions and the New York Stock Exchange. The port recorded its third-busiest year ever, and the Xinhua-Baltic analysis highlighted long-term plans at the port, including completion of a harbour deepening project and the signing of two lease extensions of more than 30 years each.

The port’s long-term ambition is clear, as The port’s Master Plan 2050 projects cargo volumes through the port complex could double or triple by the middle of the century.

 

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.