US Lust for Oil Reserves of Venezuela and Iran

Venezuela and Iran possess the largest and third-largest energy reserves in the world, respectively. Both nations have long faced persistent pressure from United States in the form of sanctions, political isolation, and attempts at regime change. While access to vast hydrocarbon wealth is an obvious factor, the issue goes beyond mere economics. Control over global energy flows remains central to sustaining geopolitical dominance, a principle reflected in Washington’s long-standing strategic doctrines emphasizing “energy dominance” and global power projection.

The contest surrounding Venezuela and Iran reflects a broader struggle between great-power dominance and national sovereignty. While temporary accommodations may emerge, the geopolitical rivalry over energy resources, political independence, and global influence is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

For both Venezuela and Iran, sovereign control over their hydrocarbon resources is essential for maintaining even a limited degree of political independence. Historically, both countries challenged Western dominance of their energy sectors. In Iran, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry in 1951, triggering a CIA-backed coup that removed him from power. Venezuela followed a similar path when it consolidated its oil industry under the state company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., a process later reinforced during the presidency of Hugo Chávez. As founding members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), both countries sought to strengthen collective leverage against Western oil dominance.

Their resistance to the US-led international order also shaped their broader foreign policies. Iran emerged as a central actor in regional resistance movements and a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights. Venezuela similarly backed Palestinian self-determination and severed diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009, while maintaining strong relations with Cuba and other governments critical of US foreign policy.

Washington’s response has largely taken the form of sanctions and political pressure. In 2015, US President Barack Obama declared Venezuela an “extraordinary threat” to US national security, opening the door for unilateral coercive measures. These pressures were intensified under Donald Trump, whose administration pursued “maximum pressure” campaigns against both Caracas and Tehran. Targeted killings, including that of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, further demonstrated Washington’s willingness to employ force to advance its strategic objectives.

Energy markets also play a role in shaping geopolitical timing. Escalation with Iran has frequently coincided with concerns about global oil supply, particularly the vulnerability of shipments passing through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. In such circumstances, Venezuela’s vast oil reserves are often viewed as a potential buffer capable of stabilizing global supply if disruptions occur in the Middle East.

Despite years of sanctions and pressure, Venezuela has demonstrated notable political resilience. Even amid attempts to isolate the government of President Nicolás Maduro, leadership continuity under Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has helped maintain state authority. Diplomatic engagement between Washington and Caracas has intermittently resumed, reflecting the reality that even adversaries must sometimes negotiate.

Toxic Black Rain in Tehran

In the wake of infernos unleashed across portions of Tehran the night before, the people of Iran’s capital woke up Sunday to the hideous sight of ominous gray clouds above, choking-levels of smoke, and black raindrops full of toxic oil falling across the city.

History will not forgive Reza Pahlavi, Masih Alinejad, Nazanin Boniadi, and all other leaders who tricked Iranians into thinking this war would set them free.

Critics described “Scenes of Armageddon” and characterized the bombings and the destruction they triggered as the latest crimes committed by the US and Israel since they launched their unprovoked and illegal assault on the Middle East nation last week.

Iranian officials urged residents to stay in doors to avoid the health impacts of the air quality following Israel’s intentional bombing of several oil storage and processing facilities in the city on Saturday.

“On top of everything else, Israel and the US have unleashed an environmental disaster in Tehran,” said Assal Rad, a fellow at the Arab Center in Washington, DC. “How many ways can they show you they have no regard for human life?”

Iran’s Red Crescent Society warned that the toxic rainfall in Tehran, home to approximately 10 million people, could be “highly dangerous and acidic” and issued exposure guidelines for residents.

Esmaeil Baqaei, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, condemned the attacks and resulting damage in stark terms.

“The US-Israeli criminal war against the Iranian nation has entered a dangerous new phase with deliberate strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure,” said Bagaei in an online statement. “These attacks on fuel storage facilities amount to nothing less than intentional chemical warfare against the Iranian citizens.”

“By targeting fuel depots, the aggressors are releasing hazardous materials and toxic substances into the air, poisoning civilians, devastating the environment, and endangering lives on a massive scale,” he continued. “The consequences of this environmental and humanitarian catastrophe will not be confined within Iran’s borders. These strikes constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide—all at once.”

In a Sunday morning video, CNN correspondent Frederik Pleitgen showed the view from central Tehran, including the black water gathering on every surface:

Pleitgen also traveled to the Shahran oil depot, among the facilities bombed Saturday, where dark gray smoke continued to billow into the air and he described the amount of damage as “immense”.

“Though it is day, the sun cannot be seen in Tehran today because of all the smoke following the US and Israel bombing Tehran’s oil refineries,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president for the Quincy Institute, a US-based foreign policy think tank. “People on the ground describe it as Armageddon.”

Parsi, who is of Iranian descent, also took aim at members of the Iranian diaspora who for weeks and months have pushed for the US and Israeli governments to attack their own country.

Courtesy: Common Dreams

 

 

Six Uncomfortable Questions the World Avoids Answering

It is often alleged that Western media is dishonest, it tows foreign policy agenda of United States. A term Embedded Journalists is used. As the US-Iran war continues, I tried to find replies to pertinent/ select questions through AI. These questions may not have simple answers, but asking them is essential. In international politics, narratives are often shaped by power, alliances, and media influence. An informed public must therefore examine facts carefully and remain willing to question prevailing assumptions.

Who is the aggressor — the United States or Iran?
From Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has carried out military interventions across several continents. Iran’s actions, though controversial, have largely remained confined to the Middle East.

Who is the terrorist — Israel or Iran?
Washington labels Iran a state sponsor of terrorism for supporting armed groups. Critics argue Israel’s military actions in Palestinian territories resemble state terrorism.

Who has killed the most people — the United States, Israel, or Iran?
The wars involving the United States have resulted in far greater casualties than those linked to conflicts involving Israel or Iran.

Who is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and maintains nuclear ambiguity. Iran, however, is a signatory and legally bound by the treaty.

Who is fooling Arabs the most — Israel or Iran?
Some analysts argue Israel benefits from divisions within the Arab world. Others believe Iran uses the Palestinian cause to expand its regional influence.

Why are U.S. military bases located in GCC countries?
Officially they exist to defend Gulf states and secure energy routes. Strategically, they also reinforce a regional security structure that indirectly protects Israel.

Five-Things One Must Know About US-Iran War

Whatever criticisms one may have of Iran’s government, the Trump administration is the aggressor in this illegal war.

The Trump administration has joined Israel in launching large-scale attacks across Iran. The strikes mark the beginning of ​“major combat operations,” according to President Trump, and in response Tehran has reportedly launched retaliatory attacks in Middle Eastern countries that host US military bases.

With the death toll mounting and the war threatening to spiral out of control, here are five-things Americans need to know.

1: Trump says he’s trying to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But it’s the United States and its allies that are the greatest nuclear threat

The United States, not Iran, is the country setting the worst example in promoting nuclear weapons in the world today.

It was Trump who pulled out of the US-Iran nuclear deal during his first term — even though the UN certified that Iran was in compliance — and resumed harsh sanctions, deployed more troops to the region, and even assassinated an Iranian general.

Trump’s hostility despite Iran’s earlier compliance only bolsters the claim of Iranian leaders who believe the country needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against aggression.

Meanwhile, Trump just let the last existing nuclear agreement between the US and Russia, the two countries with the most warheads, expire. Trump is also giving unconditional backing to Israel — the only country in the Middle East that actually has nuclear weapons — and is now supporting the launch of a nuclear program in Saudi Arabia.

2: Trump is contributing to the suffering of ordinary Iranians, not rescuing them

The Iranian government recently carried out a brutal crackdown on protesters and critics. Trump has claimed that the US is ​“coming to the rescue” of Iranians who’ve challenged their government.

But in reality, his actions have put countless Iranians in harm’s way. Over 1,000 civilians have already been killed in the strikes so far — including 165 in an appalling strike on a girl’s school.

Even before the latest violence, US sanctions had devastated Iran’s population — especially women, children, the sick, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable people — leading to countless preventable deaths.

3: The United States is an unreliable negotiator

How could Iran — or any country — now take the US seriously at the negotiating table after Trump blew up the Iran nuclear deal?

Even if they did, US demands keep changing. In recent negotiations, the US kept moving the goal posts, going from the demand that Iran not develop nuclear weapons to saying that the country’s civilian nuclear program, its treatment of dissidents, its relationship with regional allies, and its ballistic missile arsenal would all be on the negotiating table.

As Trump put it bizarrely on FOX News, the deal he wants should have ​“no nuclear weapons, no missiles, no this, no that, all the different things that you want.”

4: The United States has been threatening Iran, not the other way around

Even before the war, US military bases across the region surrounded Iran with troops and weapons. But there are no Iranian troops or military assets anywhere near the United States.

There is also no question that the most aggressive Middle Eastern power at the moment is Washington’s ally Israel — which continues its genocide in Gaza and attacked six other countries in the last year alone — all enabled through military assistance, arms transfers, and political protection by the United States.

5: Trump’s war with Iran — and his aggressive foreign policy generally — are unpopular with Americans

The majority of Americans — 61 percent — disapprove of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy in general. And in a recent Reuters poll, just one quarter said they approved of Trump’s decision to strike Iran — and that was before the announcement that US servicemembers had been killed.

Attacking Iran is not popular, and Trump does not have a mandate to do it. Whatever criticisms one may have of Iran’s government, they do not justify this illegal war.

PSX benchmark index declines 6.3%WoW

At Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) sentiments remained subdued during the week, due to the escalation of war threats, alongside tensions on the Pak–Afghan border. Consequently, the index declined by 10,566 points or 6.3%WoW during the week, closing at 157,496 points on Friday, March 06, 2026.

Market participation slowed during the week, with average daily traded volumes decreasing by 24%WoW to 791 million shares, compared to 1.0 billion shares in the prior week.

Monday witnessed the second-largest single-day drop in the index’s history, plunging by 16,089 points or 9.6%. The sharp fall appeared to be an overreaction, followed by a partial recovery in the subsequent sessions.

Meanwhile, the Middle East conflict resulted in the closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz, triggering a 16.3%WoW surge in the price of the Oil benchmark Arab Light to US$83.1/ bbl. This development raises concerns over energy security, inflationary pressures, and the external account, weighing on overall market sentiment despite Pakistan’s ability to manage the situation.

On the macro front, inflation rose to a 16-month high of 7% in February 2026 amid heightened volatility.

On the external front, trade deficit widened 5%YoY to US$3.0 billion in February 2026.

Cement offtakes recorded a 13%YoY increase in February 2026.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) GoP raises PKR555 billion through T-Bills auction; yields move up, 2) Pakistan refinery secures crude via Fujairah, Red Sea amid Hormuz closure, 3) SBP governor confident about GDP growth and inflation, 4) OGDC strikes major oil, gas discovery in Kohat of daily 3,800 bpd oil and 11.2mmcfd gas, and 5) foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) rose by US$87 million to US$16.3 billion as of February 27, 2026.

While Refinery remained the sole top performer, laggards included Vanspati & Allied

Major selling was recorded by Mutual Funds and Foreigners with a net sell of US$56.0 million and US$22.1 million. Banks and Companies absorbed most of the selling with an aggregate net buy of US$49.5 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: ATRL (up 4.8%WoW), 2) MARI (up 2.0%WoW), 3) KEL (up 2.0%WoW), 4) DHPL (up 1.7%WoW), and 5) HUMNL (up 1.1%WoW), while laggards included: JVDC, KTML, AKBL, SSOM, and PAEL.

According to AKD Securities, market sentiments are likely to be dictated by developments in the ongoing Middle East conflict. Meanwhile, GoP’s ongoing efforts to address energy conservation, the ongoing IMF review, and SBP’s commentary in upcoming MPC meeting on Monday would also remain key areas of investor focus.

In the medium term, any de-escalation of Middle East military conflict could trigger a significant market recovery, as the recent correction has made market valuations much more appealing.

The brokerage house anticipates 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.

Foreign Policy or Political Insanity?

In international relations, powerful nations often attempt to influence developments beyond their borders. Yet a fundamental principle of the global order remains the sovereignty of states. When foreign policy begins to challenge that principle too openly, it risks appearing less like strategy and more like political recklessness.

Recent remarks by Donald Trump have revived this debate. In an interview with Axios, Trump asserted that he must be personally involved in selecting Iran’s next Supreme Leader following the death of Ali Khamenei. Dismissing the potential succession of Mojtaba Khamenei as “unacceptable,” the US president suggested Washington should help determine Iran’s future leadership to ensure “harmony and peace.”

Such a proposition is extraordinary even in the hard realities of power politics. Leadership transitions are among the most sensitive internal matters of any nation. A foreign leader openly claiming a role in deciding another country’s highest authority inevitably raises questions about respect for sovereignty and the norms that underpin international diplomacy.

The statement also resonates strongly in historical context. Iran’s modern political memory already carries the imprint of external intervention, particularly the 1953 Iranian coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. That episode continues to shape Iranian perceptions of Western intentions.

Critics argue that Trump’s remarks reflect a broader pattern in his approach to global affairs. His presidency has witnessed sweeping punitive tariffs against trading partners, a reliance on executive orders to push policy objectives, and military intervention in Venezuela that led to the removal of Nicolás Maduro and the emergence of Delcy Rodríguez as the country’s leader.

Whether one views these actions as decisive leadership or excessive unilateralism, the implications are significant. Attempting to influence leadership outcomes in a country as politically and religiously complex as Iran risks inflaming nationalist sentiment and prolonging geopolitical tensions rather than resolving them.

Ultimately, the question confronting the international community is stark - when powerful states begin asserting the right to shape the leadership of other nations, does foreign policy remain diplomacy—or does it begin to resemble political insanity?

Has Israel Pushed US into War Against Iran?

The latest military confrontation involving the United States and Iran did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed Israeli escalation that Washington ultimately chose to join. The central question, therefore, is not whether America is now at war — it clearly is — but whether the pathway to war was shaped primarily in Tel Aviv rather than Washington.

For years, US policy has demonstrated near-automatic alignment with Israel’s security doctrine. Strong diplomatic cover and sustained military support during regional crises created a strategic environment in which Israeli planners could reasonably assume American backing in the event of wider confrontation. When Israeli strikes expanded toward Iran in mid-2025, that assumption appeared to hold. The United States did not restrain the escalation; it became a direct participant.

The recent Senate briefing by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and senior defense officials has done little to clarify the strategic endgame. Lawmakers from both parties emerged expressing uncertainty about objectives, timelines, and even the possibility of deploying ground troops. Concerns over drone defenses, casualties, and munitions stockpiles further suggest that the conflict may be broader and more prolonged than initially presented.

This pattern evokes uncomfortable historical parallels with the Iraq War — a campaign launched with confidence but sustained amid shifting justifications and unclear exit strategies. No two conflicts are identical, yet the strategic risks of escalation without defined political outcomes remain constant.

To be clear, Iran’s regional posture and missile capabilities are not trivial matters. Nor can Israel’s security anxieties be dismissed. However, the responsibility of a global power extends beyond alliance solidarity. It requires independent assessment of costs, consequences, and long-term regional stability.

If Israeli action triggered the sequence of escalation and the United States entered primarily to preserve alliance credibility, then Washington must ask whether it is shaping events — or being shaped by them. Strategic partnerships are assets, but they should not become conduits for unintended wars.

At stake is not merely battlefield success, but America’s claim to strategic autonomy. In geopolitics, perception often hardens into reality. The longer this war continues without clearly articulated objectives, the louder the question will grow: who truly set this course?