Pezeshkian vows no surrender in war with US

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has accused President Donald Trump of a "bullying ​mentality", saying Iran would not surrender in the war with the United States, but remained open to diplomacy to end the conflict.

In a wartime address to the 193-member UN General Assembly on Wednesday, Pezeshkian said threats would only harden Iran's resolve, rejecting Trump's warning that he could annihilate Iran if no deal were reached.

"The resistance of the Iranian people will only increase in the face of sanctions, increased pressure, increased bullying," Pezeshkian said, responding to Trump's threat to "annihilate" the Islamic Republic if a deal is not reached soon.

There was no immediate comment from the US, whose delegation walked out of the chamber at the start of Pezeshkian's address.

"The US president described us as terrorists. We have been the victims of terrorism," Iran's president told the UN General Assembly.

He then held up a photo of the country's late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in a strike on his residence when the US and Israel launched a joint attack in late February.

He also presented pictures of some of the more than 175 civilians, two-thirds of them children, who Iranian authorities say were killed in missile strikes on a primary school in Minab and a sports complex in Lamerd that day. "Our innocent people have been the targets of cowardly attacks and aggressions imposed on our country. And we defended ourselves with utmost strength," Pezeshkian said.

In his address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump said he faced a "big decision" - either negotiate a deal that would allow Iranians to rebuild their country, or "annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly".

Pezeshkian said the threat was "a sign of a bullying mentality".

"[Trump] must know that the resistance of the Iranian people will only increase in the face of sanctions, increased pressure, increased bullying. We will never bow our head or bend the knee," he said.

But he added, "We are ready for dialogue and diplomacy and negotiations without accepting the language of force."

Pezeshkian made clear that the US blockade would have to end as part of any deal.

"It cannot be the case that everyone benefits from the Strait of Hormuz while we are denied access to shipping through this waterway," he said.

He also reiterated that Iran would not give up its right to have a civilian nuclear program and that it would not seek to develop nuclear weapons.

"We say it clearly: no nuclear weapons and no limitations on peaceful nuclear technology."

Trump argued in his speech that the war had prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb and demanded that its leaders "relinquish their nuclear ambitions".

On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US envoy Steve Witkoff held indirect talks brokered by Qatari mediators on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Witkoff said he hoped the discussions – the first since June – would "prove constructive and promising", adding that the mediators would continue their work.

But Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baqai said the talks were "not anything new" and that Araghchi had maintained Iran's conditions, including the end of the US blockade and the release of frozen Iranian assets.

In June, the US and Iran reached a preliminary agreement to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but it collapsed within weeks after the Iranian attacks on shipping resumed and the US reinstated its blockade.

 

Other GCC Members Must Listen to Qatar

Qatar’s call for a regional security framework bringing the Gulf states and Iran together deserves serious attention from all GCC members. Speaking at the Qatar Economic Forum on the sidelines of the 81st UN General Assembly in New York, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani described the recent regional war as a “wake-up call” for the region.

His argument is straightforward; Iran is a geographical reality and a permanent neighbour of the Gulf states. Sustainable security, therefore, cannot depend exclusively on military alliances or arrangements that leave one or more regional states permanently exposed to insecurity. Doha is advocating a framework based on sovereignty, non-aggression, confidence-building and dialogue.

This does not require the GCC to overlook Iran’s actions or security concerns. Rather, it recognizes that deterrence and diplomacy have different but complementary roles. Military preparedness may deter aggression, but it cannot by itself eliminate the sources of recurring confrontation.

Recent developments have demonstrated how quickly a regional conflict can affect energy supplies, shipping routes, investment, trade and global markets.

Sheikh Mohammed described the economic consequences of the US-Israel war on Iran as an “earthquake” whose shock waves extended far beyond the Middle East.

The Gulf states have strong reasons to coordinate their security policies. But coordination among GCC members alone cannot address every source of regional tension. Geography makes coexistence with Iran unavoidable, while economic interdependence makes prolonged instability increasingly costly.

Qatar has also emphasized mediation, maintaining communication channels and working with regional and international partners to reduce tensions. Such efforts may not resolve fundamental differences, but they can create mechanisms for managing them.

The real question is therefore not whether the GCC should abandon deterrence or its external security partnerships. It is whether these arrangements should be complemented by a regional security architecture in which Gulf states and Iran can address threats, build confidence and prevent crises from escalating into wider conflicts.

Other GCC members may indeed have much to consider in Qatar’s proposal. A durable Gulf security system will ultimately require regional ownership, mutual confidence and sustained communication—including with Iran.

Is the US Gulping Middle Eastern Oil?

More than one billion barrels of crude oil have transited the Strait of Hormuz in recent months under a US military blockade, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said Saturday.

“CENTCOM forces have supported more than 1 billion barrels of crude oil leaving the Gulf,” Adm. Brad Cooper said in remarks released by the command.

US forces have also assisted more than 2,000 commercial vessel transits through the strategic waterway by providing coordinated protection. The strait’s primary transit lanes had been cleared of mines, allowing thousands of ships to pass through the waterway.

At the same time, Cooper said Iran had exported “zero barrels” of oil, attributing the halt to what he described as the US “ironclad blockade.”

The volume of crude oil, cargo and liquefied natural gas moving through the strait over the past two weeks was higher than at any point during the previous six months.

US has been working with Gulf Cooperation Council countries, insurers and shipping companies to further increasing traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s key energy transit routes.

 

Multinational Maritime Coalition: But Where Is the Real Problem?

The latest meeting of the Multinational Maritime Defense Coalition raises a basic question: what exactly is this coalition being created to achieve? The question becomes even more pertinent when representatives of 41 countries, including 154 naval commanders, planners, ambassadors and European Union officials, gather in Jeddah to prepare for operational deployment. The coalition now has 28 liaison officers and has reached Initial Operational Capability.

Its declared objective is straightforward - protect freedom of navigation, maritime routes and strategic straits through a coordinated multinational defensive framework.

But here lies the paradox. If freedom of navigation is the objective, why is the Strait of Hormuz not at the center of the discussion?

I do not subscribe to the narrative that Iran alone is responsible for the disruption of navigation through Hormuz. The present crisis followed the US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28, while negotiations were reportedly underway. Since then, a cycle of military action and retaliation has continued, with attacks on strategic assets and shipping followed by Iranian responses.

The consequences extend well beyond Iran. The disruption is also hurting the oil-producing Arab economies of the Gulf, whose exports depend heavily on secure maritime routes. Hundreds of ships and thousands of seafarers have reportedly remained unable to sail safely through the strait for months.

This creates an uncomfortable contradiction. A coalition established in the name of maritime freedom cannot effectively address the problem by treating only one side of the conflict as responsible.

The immediate requirement is therefore not another layer of military coordination. It is de-escalation and restoration of freedom of navigation.

The United States should remove restrictions affecting Iranian shipping and work with all relevant parties to restore safe and unhindered passage through the Strait of Hormuz, including for Iranian-owned and Iranian-operated vessels.

Freedom of navigation cannot be selective. If it is genuinely a shared international interest, it must apply to everyone—or the principle itself is undermined.

PSX benchmark index closes almost flat

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during the week ended on September 18, 2026. The benchmark Index gained 372 points or 0.22%WoW during the week to close at 170,885 points.

Yemeni Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia's East-West Pipeline forced the closure of a key export route, pushing Brent crude to a 4-month high of US$109.7/ bbl.

Oil prices eased during the final two days, with the index recovering as fading concerns over immediate Saudi supply disruptions ultimately outweighed fears of a broader Middle East conflict.

The GoP reintroduced austerity measures in an effort to conserve fuel.

Pakistan’s central bank kept the policy rate unchanged at 11.50% on Monday, in line with broad market consensus.

Current account deficit narrowed sharply by 70%YoY to US$98 million in August 2026.

Foreign exchange reserves held by SBP forex hit a record high of US$21.4 billion, pushing the country's import cover past three months for the first time in 5-Years.

Yields on 3 and 6 month T-bills declined to 11.38% and 11.70%, respectively, in the latest auction.

FDI increased by 80%YoY to US$316 million during August 2026.

Auto industry sales increased by 11%YoY to 17,485 units in August 2026, while IT exports rose 17%YoY to US$394 million.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) GoP presents IMF plan to retire PKR3.6 trillion gas-sector circular debt, 2) Pakistan eyes to seek an expansion of its 30 billions yuan swap line with China, 3) Pakistan cotton arrivals rose by 19%YoY to 2.4 million bales as of September this year, 4) Auto financing in August 2026 reached record high of PKR393 billion, and 5) GoP approves PKR75 billion subsidy for fuel relief scheme.

Leading sectors were: Synthetic and Rayon, Leasing Companies, and Real Estate Investment Trust.

while the lagged included: Textile Weaving, Paper & Board, and Leathers & Tanneries.

Major buyers were Individuals (US$11.0 million) and Banks (US$2.6 million). Major selling was recorded by Mutual Funds (US$12.7 million) and Foreigners (US$3.4 million).

Top performing scrips of the week were: PSEL, IBFL, and CPHL, while the laggards included: GHNI, GAL, and NBP.

AKD Securities expects the market to improve on the back of strengthening economic indicators, with the upcoming IMF review in the next week to remain a key near-term catalyst.

A potential US-Iran deal could moderate international oil prices from current elevated levels, the market continues to trade at attractive valuations.

The brokerage house forecasts the 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.

Hormuz Shuttle Tankers: An Evolving Trend Amid the US-Israel war on Iran

According to a report by Seatrade Maritime News, the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is creating a new pattern in the regional oil trade - shuttle tankers are increasingly moving crude from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, where cargoes are transferred ship-to-ship (STS) for onward delivery.

The trend is illustrated by the Hong Kong-flagged VLCC Cospearl Lake, which recently reached Dalian, China, carrying about two million barrels of crude loaded through an STS transfer in the Gulf of Oman rather than directly from a Persian Gulf terminal. Such operations allow exporters and buyers to keep oil moving while reducing exposure to the increasingly risky and costly Hormuz transit.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has emerged as a key player in this shuttle trade. Regional exporters are using tankers to transport crude through the Strait and transfer it to waiting vessels outside the Gulf. This complements conventional voyages by tankers that continue directly to their destinations.

The Mombasa B provides an important example. The VLCC, chartered by UAE's ADNOC from Sinokor Maritime, entered the Persian Gulf in April and subsequently began shuttling between Gulf loading terminals and the Gulf of Oman. Since June, many of its voyages through Hormuz have been conducted as “dark transits,” with AIS signals switched off.

The risks, however, remain substantial. On July 13, Iranian forces targeted the Mombasa B with cruise missiles while it was transiting the waterway. One Indian crew member was killed and eight others injured. Although the tanker suffered material damage, it remained operational and subsequently resumed Hormuz crossings. The vessel has since been placed on Iran's list of “non-compliant” ships.

The UAE is nevertheless expanding its capacity. In August, ADNOC Logistics & Services announced the acquisition of six additional VLCCs. Other regional exporters, including Kuwait, are also using tankers in shuttle operations. Some ADNOC vessels have reportedly carried Iraqi Basrah crude, indicating that the system is evolving into a wider regional network rather than serving only UAE exports.

Kpler data shows that Persian Gulf crude and condensate loadings reached about 5.8 million barrels per day in August, including Gulf of Oman STS transfers, and have risen toward 8 million bpd in September. Iraq has also reportedly offered buyers the option of collecting crude through STS transfers outside Hormuz.

Yet shuttle tankers remain a wartime workaround rather than a replacement for normal trade routes. They require additional vessels, increase costs and operational complexity, and remain vulnerable to attack. With Iranian oil exports reportedly falling sharply and tensions continuing around the Omani corridor, Tehran may have greater incentive to disrupt these alternative supply chains.

The emerging shuttle trade therefore demonstrates the adaptability of the global oil market—but also highlights how deeply the Iran war has altered the economics, logistics and security of energy transportation through the Gulf.

Will Another Media Narrative Push the Muslim World Towards War?

The Western media, which played a major role in building the narrative that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, appears to be following a familiar script in the Middle East. This time, Iran is being projected not merely as an adversary of the United States and Israel, but increasingly as a threat to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Since the US and Israel jointly attacked Iran on February 28, the narrative surrounding Iran has intensified. For decades, Western policymakers and media outlets have repeatedly presented Iran as a greater threat to the region than Israel. The question is whether this narrative is now being expanded to create a direct confrontation between Iran and the Arab Gulf states.

There is another important distinction that deserves attention. The United States maintains military facilities and assets in several GCC countries. When Iran retaliates against American military targets, reports can easily create the impression that Iran is attacking the territory of the Gulf state hosting those facilities. The distinction between an attack on a US military asset and an attack on the host country should not be lost.

When attempts to pressure or destabilize Iran failed to produce the expected outcome, the familiar sectarian card also appeared. Reports involving the alleged killing of a Sunni cleric were circulated with the potential to inflame Shia-Sunni tensions, although subsequent developments did not substantiate the dramatic interpretation initially suggested.

Now comes an even more sensitive issue, reports that the Houthis targeted Mecca.

Saudi authorities say a Houthi drone was intercepted south of Mecca, while the Houthis deny targeting the holy city. Such a serious allegation demands independent verification, not sensational headlines.

The danger is obvious. Mecca and Medina are not Saudi-Iranian, Shia-Sunni or Arab-Persian issues. They belong to the entire Muslim Ummah.

The Iraq WMD narrative demonstrated how devastating a questionable intelligence narrative can become when it is converted into political justification for war. The consequences were measured not merely in headlines but in human lives and regional instability.

Muslims should therefore reject attempts to exploit the sanctity of the holy cities for geopolitical or sectarian purposes. If the Houthis actually targeted Mecca or Medina, the evidence should be established transparently. If they did not, the allegation must not be allowed to become the spark for a much larger conflict.

The Muslim world cannot afford another war manufactured through narratives, rumours and sectarian emotions. The first responsibility should be to verify—not to mobilize.