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.

Who Governs Yemen?

The emergency meeting of Yemen's Presidential Leadership Council in Riyadh over Iran's direct flight to Sanaa raises a fundamental question, who actually governs Yemen today?

The Council described the flight as a violation of Yemen's sovereignty and international law. Yet the very fact that the country's internationally recognized leadership convened outside Yemen inevitably invites scrutiny.

Governments derive legitimacy not only from international recognition but also from their ability to exercise effective authority over their own territory. In practical terms, the Houthis control Sanaa and much of northern Yemen, while the Presidential Leadership Council continues to rely heavily on external political and security support.

This reality reflects the uncomfortable truth that Yemen has evolved into a battleground where competing regional and global powers pursue strategic interests through local actors. Iran openly backs the Houthis, while the internationally recognized government enjoys diplomatic and military support from a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and backed by the United States.

The strategic significance of Yemen extends far beyond its internal politics. Sitting at the entrance to the Red Sea through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, Yemen occupies one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints. Whoever influences this corridor can affect international trade, energy supplies, and naval movements linking Europe and Asia.

It is therefore unsurprising that many analysts believe the broader contest in Yemen is less about restoring democratic governance and more about securing geopolitical influence over one of the world's busiest shipping routes. In this interpretation, Washington's overriding objective is to maintain strategic leverage over the Red Sea, while regional allies inevitably become participants in a much larger geopolitical competition.

Saudi Arabia is frequently portrayed as the principal architect of Yemen's prolonged conflict. Such a characterization, however, overlooks the wider strategic calculations of global powers. Riyadh has undoubtedly made decisions that attract criticism, but reducing the conflict to a Saudi-Iran rivalry ignores the interests of larger actors whose strategic priorities extend well beyond Yemen itself.

The tragedy is that while external powers compete for influence over a vital maritime corridor, the Yemeni people continue to pay the highest price. The real battle may not simply be for Yemen, but for control of one of the world's most strategically important waterways.

Trump and Netanyahu Have Made Iran a Regional Superpower

The greatest irony of the US-Israel military campaign against Iran is that it appears to have produced results opposite to those publicly declared by Washington and Tel Aviv. While Iran has undoubtedly suffered significant human, economic and infrastructure losses, the conflict has also demonstrated an uncomfortable reality - overwhelming military superiority does not always translate into strategic success.

The campaign, which began on February 28, 2026, was widely seen as an effort to weaken Iran's military capabilities, curtail its regional influence and force political concessions. Yet Iran has neither capitulated nor abandoned its strategic objectives. Instead, it has displayed remarkable resilience despite living under US sanctions for nearly half a century. History shows that nations subjected to prolonged external pressure often emerge more self-reliant, strategically patient and politically determined.

Perhaps the most significant consequence of the conflict has been the transformation of regional perceptions. Iran is increasingly viewed not merely as a country capable of surviving sustained military pressure, but as a state able to impose meaningful costs on two of the world's most powerful military forces. Whether one agrees with Tehran's policies or not, that perception alone strengthens its deterrence and elevates its regional standing.

The conflict has also prompted difficult questions about the United States' role in the Middle East. For decades, several regional governments relied on Washington as the ultimate guarantor of their security. Today, many are reassessing the costs and risks of that dependence. If confrontation with Iran places neighbouring states directly in harm's way, outsourcing national security no longer appears as reassuring as it once did.

Arab capitals also face an unavoidable geographical reality. Iran may lack the capability to strike the US mainland directly, but it possesses the means to target American military installations and strategic assets across the Gulf. Even without launching such attacks, the possibility alone has heightened concerns among governments hosting US forces and critical energy infrastructure.

Adding another layer of complexity are reports that Israel has offered to accommodate additional US military deployments on its territory. Whether viewed as strategic cooperation or military consolidation, such developments reinforce the perception that the regional security architecture is becoming increasingly polarized. Some Arab policymakers may also fear that refusing to align with initiatives such as the Abraham Accords could expose them to greater political and military pressure.

The broader geopolitical implications may prove even more consequential. If the United States gradually reduces its military footprint in the Arabian Peninsula, the resulting strategic vacuum is unlikely to remain unfilled. China and Russia have steadily expanded their diplomatic, economic and security engagement across the region and would be well positioned to deepen their influence as regional states diversify their strategic partnerships.

Ironically, a campaign intended to isolate and weaken Iran may instead be remembered for strengthening its regional position. Military conflicts often reshape perceptions more profoundly than they alter borders. In that respect, history may ultimately record that Trump and Netanyahu achieved the opposite of their declared objectives by helping transform Iran into a more influential and formidable regional power.

Hormuz Security: Responsibility and Compensation Must Go Together

The decision by Britain and France to lead a multinational military mission to secure navigation through the Strait of Hormuz deserves careful scrutiny. While the initiative is being presented as an effort to protect freedom of navigation, it raises a more fundamental question, why should extra-regional powers assume responsibility for a waterway that lies between Iran and Oman?

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most strategically important maritime passages. A substantial portion of global energy supplies and commercial cargo passes through it every day. Ensuring its safety is therefore essential, but geography cannot be ignored. Iran and Oman are the two littoral states that share the Strait. They have the greatest stake in maintaining peace, stability and uninterrupted maritime traffic.

Iran has consistently maintained that the security of the Strait should remain the responsibility of the countries bordering it. That position deserves serious consideration. History has shown that the involvement of outside military powers often complicates regional disputes instead of resolving them. The deployment of multinational naval forces may appear reassuring to some, but it can also intensify strategic competition and increase the risk of confrontation.

It is also difficult to believe that Britain and France are acting entirely on their own. Their initiative appears to reflect a broader Western security strategy in which the United States prefers to remain in the background while its closest allies take the lead. Whether this perception is accurate or not, it is one that many countries in the region are likely to share.

If Iran and Oman are expected to shoulder the responsibility of safeguarding one of the world's busiest maritime corridors, then responsibility and compensation should go hand in hand. Maintaining maritime surveillance, search-and-rescue services, navigation support and security infrastructure requires significant financial resources.

It is therefore reasonable to argue that Iran and Oman should be entitled to levy a regulated transit toll on commercial vessels using the Strait to recover the cost of providing this essential international service.

The Strait of Hormuz belongs to its geography before it belongs to global geopolitics. Lasting maritime security will be achieved not through the presence of foreign warships, but by recognizing the primary responsibility—and the corresponding rights—of Iran and Oman.

The United States at 250: A Taxpayer's Unasked Question

The United States is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its independence. There will be fireworks, parades and speeches praising democracy, liberty and the Constitution. Political leaders will applaud the resilience of American institutions, while corporations will showcase their contributions to innovation, philanthropy and corporate social responsibility.

These celebrations are well deserved. The United States has given the world remarkable scientific discoveries, technological breakthroughs and an economic model that continues to inspire millions.

Yet amid the celebrations, one question is unlikely to be asked.

How closely do the taxpayers examine the way their tax dollars are spent beyond their own borders?

The United States devotes an extraordinary share of public resources to defence and national security. Every military deployment, overseas base, weapons package and security commitment begins with a tax dollar earned by a US worker or business. Governments justify such spending as essential to protecting national interests and maintaining international stability.

Critics argue that some foreign interventions and prolonged military engagements have instead contributed to instability and imposed heavy human and financial costs.

Reasonable people may disagree over these competing views. What should not be disputed, however, is the taxpayer's right to ask questions.

In every democracy, taxpayers are more than a source of government revenue; they are stakeholders in national policy. They have every right to demand transparency, accountability and measurable outcomes whenever vast sums of public money are committed abroad.

If corporations are expected to explain how they spend shareholders' money, governments should be equally prepared to explain how they spend taxpayers' money.

The strength of the United States has never rested solely on its military power. It has also rested on the confidence of its citizens that public institutions remain accountable to the people they serve.

As the United States enters its next quarter millennium, perhaps the most meaningful expression of patriotism is not louder celebration, but deeper scrutiny. Democracies flourish not when citizens applaud every decision of their governments, but when they ask whether every tax dollar reflects the values, priorities and aspirations of the people who earned it.

PSX benchmark index up 3.2%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) witnessed positive momentum during the week ended on July 03, 2026. The improved outlook led to a strong rally in Banks. During the week the benchmark index gained 5,801 points and closed the week at 185,372 points, up 3.2%WoW. Despite a positive week, market participation measured by average daily traded volume declined by 32.5%WoW to 1.0 billion shares.

Market witnessed positive momentum, driven by lower-than expected inflation of 11.07%YoY in June 2026, as full year CPI remained in single digits at 7.05%YoY in FY26. This fueled sentiment around a potential policy rate cut later in the year as expectations for FY27 inflation remain subdued.

The aforementioned inflation also led to a decline in yields for 2, 3, 5, and 10-year tenors in Thursday’s PIB auction.

Positive talks in Doha between the US and Iran led to improved traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, though still below pre-war levels, bringing Brent near US$70/ bbl, further supporting investor confidence.

On the macroeconomic front, trade deficit rose to US$39.5 billion for FY26, up 22%YoY, as higher oil prices weighed on imports.

Foreign exchange reserves held by Pakistan at close of the fiscal year were reported at US$18.4 billion, marking a record high year-end level.

OMC sales declined marginally by 1%YoY in FY26 to 16,190,000 tons, led by higher oil prices.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan debt upgraded to ‘overweight’ by Barclays, 2) FBR achieved the revised tax collection target of PKR12,957 billion for FY26, 3) Middle East producers push on with oil/ LNG loadings despite ship attacks, 4) Pakistan eyes formal energy trade with Tehran, and 5) Pakistan and US discussed maritime cooperation.

Top performing sectors were: Jute, Sugar & Allied Industries, and Synthetic & Rayon, while laggards included: Textile Spinning, Leather & Tanneries, and Exchange Traded Funds.

Major buying was recorded by Mutual Funds and Companies of US$23.5 million and US$6.6 million, respectively. Major sellers were Insurance US$20.9 million and Individuals US$4.8 million.

Top performing scrips were: IBFL, TPLRF1, PTC, UBL, and JVDC, while laggards included: KEL, SRVI, MEHT, PABC, and SNGP.

According to AKD Securities, progress on US-Iran deal, 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.

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.