Trump Must Be Condemned for Appointing Miller

President Donald Trump’s decision to appoint Stephen Miller as his new White House Chief of Staff deserves condemnation on several grounds. To begin with, it raises serious questions about the standards expected of someone occupying such an influential position in the US administration. Miller’s biggest disqualification, in the eyes of his critics, is his reputation for xenophobic and racist views and his uncompromising approach to immigration.

His appointment is particularly difficult to understand following the Republicans’ humiliating setback in the November 2026 midterm elections. Instead of acknowledging voters’ concerns and preparing to work with the incoming Democratic majorities, Trump has chosen someone widely regarded as a hardliner who prefers confrontation to compromise.

Someone sarcastically remarked that Miller is a gift to those who dared to vote Trump’s political opponents. There may be considerable truth in this observation. His elevation could provide Democrats with precisely the political ammunition they need to consolidate their position and challenge the administration’s policies.

Miller’s appointment also sends an unmistakable message that Trump intends to rely increasingly on executive authority, executive orders and regulations rather than building bridges with Congress. Even former Trump administration officials have expressed reservations, warning that this decision could take Washington towards two years of political confrontation.

However, the consequences may extend beyond partisan politics. Both chambers of Congress will face the responsibility of repairing the damage to America’s institutional credibility and international image. The appointment of a controversial hardliner at such a critical juncture hardly helps that effort.

Some analysts have already warned that if Trump continues to undermine American institutions and tarnish the country’s image, Congress may eventually have little choice but to consider impeachment. Whether such a move can secure the necessary political support remains another question.

Trump appears to have mistaken electoral defeat for an invitation to become more confrontational. By elevating Miller, he has strengthened his hardline camp, but he has also made life considerably easier for his political opponents. Sometimes, the greatest gift to an opponent is a decision made by one’s own leadership.

Eisenkot’s Entry, Netanyahu’s Exit: A Test for Peace

Israel’s President Isaac Herzog faces a defining moment on Sunday. His decision on whom to nominate to form the next government must be clear, decisive and guided by the long-term interests of the country rather than political expediency.

According to media reports, 67 lawmakers in the 120-member Knesset have recommended opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot, against 46 supporting Benjamin Netanyahu. Although the numbers appear decisive, mutual vetoes among political blocs have complicated the formation of a governing coalition.

Herzog must look beyond parliamentary arithmetic. His choice should reflect the urgent need to end the confrontation, to be precise, the war. Israelis have remained under a war-like situation since October 7, 2023. Continuing this cycle of hostility cannot be presented as a sustainable national strategy.

Eisenkot, despite receiving a majority of recommendations, faces a formidable challenge. Critics argue that he and Netanyahu represent two sides of the same coin. If he wishes to disprove this perception, he must demonstrate that his leadership can deliver a fundamentally different political and regional direction.

The most difficult, yet necessary, step would be to bring Arab parties into a governing alliance. Both Netanyahu and Eisenkot have reportedly ruled out such an arrangement, despite Arab lawmakers recommending Eisenkot. This contradiction exposes the limitations of Israel’s political inclusion.

Under the principle of “Mutual Coexistence,” Arab citizens must be treated as legitimate political stakeholders rather than convenient supporters whose votes are welcomed but whose participation is rejected.

Making Arab parties part of a governing coalition may prove to be one of the most difficult political tasks. However, if Israel genuinely seeks sustainable peace, this bitter pill has to be swallowed.

The peaceful transfer of power is a fundamental requirement of democracy. Netanyahu’s allegations of election irregularities, despite the Election Committee’s assurance that the integrity of the election was not compromised, should not be allowed to undermine public confidence.

Herzog must therefore nominate the candidate who offers the best opportunity to establish a government committed to reconciliation, inclusion and regional stability.

Eisenkot’s entry and Netanyahu’s exit could mark a turning point. However, changing the prime minister without changing the political mindset will merely reproduce the existing confrontation.

The real test is not who occupies the prime minister’s office, but who is prepared to end the war and build peace.

PSX benchmark index up 4.5%WoW

The Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) extended its gains during the outgoing week amid ongoing diplomatic efforts to end the Middle East conflict, including Qatar-mediated US-Iran talks, and a decline in international oil prices. The benchmark gained 7,477 points, up 4.5%WoW, to close at 173,887 on Friday, November 06, 2026, with average trading volume recorded at 1,021 million shares, but still down 7%WoW.

The US midterm elections were held on Tuesday, with Democrats winning control of both houses of Congress, leading to hopes of reduced geopolitical tensions and eased interest rates.

Brent crude eased by 15.9%WoW to US$98.8/ bbl as of Friday.

On the macroeconomic front, CPI inflation eased to 9.6%YoY in October 26, 2026 translating into 4MFY27 average inflation of 10.1%YoY as compared to 4.7% in the same period last year.

The Government of Pakistan (GoP) raised PkR393 billion through the latest PIB auction against the target of PKR350 billion, while cut-off yields declined by 11bps/10bps for the 3/5-year tenors and remained unchanged for the 2/10-year tenors.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased to US$21.6 billion as of October 30, 2026.

Petrol and HSD prices were reduced by PKR25.3/ltr and PKR18.4/ltr to PKR352.6/ltr and PKR382.3/ltr, respectively.

Cement offtakes increased 0.4%YoY to 4.8 million tons in October 2026, with local sales supported by recovering construction activity while exports declined amid the continued Afghan border closure.

OMC offtakes rose 4%YoY to 1.6 million tons, led by higher RFO sales as RLNG supply disruptions shifted power generation to RFO.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) IMF Executive Board meeting is expected next month, which could unlock around US$1.2 billion for Pakistan, 2) Pakistan LNG Limited issued tenders for two spot LNG cargoes, 3) GoP proposes LPG market reforms, 4) CPPA-G sought an increase of about 8% in the average power purchase price to PKR27.309/ kWh for CY27, and 5) Discos seek positive QTA adjustment of PKR1.34/kWh.

Top performing sectors were: Leasing, Modaraba, and Synthetic, while sectors that lagged the most were: Paper, Refinery, and Jute.

Major net buyers were Mutual Funds (US$27.8 million) and Companies (US$7.9 million). On the contrary, major selling was recorded by Banks (US$10.0 million) and Individuals (US$6.9 million).

Top performing scrips were: PSEL, PIOC, DGKC, GAL, and FCCL. On the other side, laggards included: CNERGY, ATRL, IMAGE, BWCL, and THCCL.

AKD Securities expects the market to improve on the back of strengthening economic indicators. Moreover, any positive development on Middle East conflict could moderate international oil prices and serve as a key trigger for market as it paves the way for monetary easing.

The market continues to trade at attractive valuations, with forward P/E of 6.3x. Our t

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

Pete Hegseth: Finally a Scapegoat Found

The November 4 midterm elections have created an unexpected political challenge for the Trump administration. The Democrats’ sweeping victory has intensified scrutiny of the US-Israel war on Iran, raising questions about its objectives, consequences, and the absence of a credible exit strategy.

In my November 4 blog, “America’s Tarnished Image: The Syndicate Must Find a Way Out,” I argued that The Syndicate might have to find a scapegoat to recast a negotiated settlement as strategic correction rather than an admission of defeat. The emerging controversy surrounding Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth appears to offer precisely such an opportunity.

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky has threatened to reintroduce eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth unless he resigns. The allegations include extrajudicial killings, conducting wars without congressional authorization, and other abuses of power. Meanwhile, reports suggest that Republican lawmakers are increasingly blaming Hegseth for persuading President Donald Trump to attack Iran without a viable exit strategy.

The political irony is striking. Hegseth, one of the administration’s most enthusiastic advocates of military action, could eventually become its most convenient casualty. Vice President JD Vance has reportedly described the Iran war as a mistake, while congressional opposition to Hegseth is gaining momentum. Even the possibility of replacing him has reportedly entered White House discussions.

However, the question is whether sacrificing Hegseth would genuinely address the strategic failure or merely provide a temporary political cushion for the administration.

Trump has publicly defended his Defense Secretary, praising his performance and insisting that he has no immediate plans to remove him. Yet political loyalty can become expendable when electoral consequences threaten the administration’s survival. Hegseth’s removal could allow Trump to distance himself from the war’s disastrous consequences while shifting responsibility to one of its most vocal advocates.

The Syndicate may find it increasingly difficult to maintain a united front. A military campaign that promised strategic gains has instead exposed the limits of American power, intensified domestic political divisions, and damaged Washington’s international credibility.

Hegseth’s departure, whether through resignation, impeachment, or dismissal, could provide Trump with an opportunity to reposition himself. But replacing the architect of a failed strategy does not automatically produce a successful one.

The ultimate test will be whether The Syndicate chooses genuine strategic correction or simply searches for another scapegoat. America’s tarnished image cannot be restored by sacrificing one official while those responsible for the strategic miscalculation escape accountability.

What is more important, saving Netanyahu or Israel?

The political ground beneath Benjamin Netanyahu is shifting. Israel’s October 27 election delivered Likud the largest number of seats, but failed to preserve the parliamentary majority of his nationalist-religious coalition. Netanyahu’s political survival now appears increasingly uncertain. The election has exposed a deeper question: should Israel’s establishment protect one leader, or put the country’s interests above his ambitions?

Netanyahu’s longstanding allies are beginning to distance themselves. United Torah Judaism, a traditional coalition partner, declined to recommend any candidate to form the next government. Meanwhile, two Arab-led parties endorsed Gadi Eisenkot, Netanyahu’s rival, strengthening Eisenkot’s position in the presidential consultations.

The numbers remain complicated. Likud won 27 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while Netanyahu’s bloc secured 53—short of the 61 required for a majority. Eisenkot’s alliance of Jewish-led parties won 48 seats, with Arab parties holding 19. Whether Eisenkot can assemble 61 lawmakers remains uncertain. The momentum appears to be moving away from Netanyahu.

President Isaac Herzog faces a consequential decision. His responsibility is not to rescue a political heavyweight, but to identify the candidate most capable of forming a stable government. Israel’s security and diplomatic challenges, alongside its internal divisions, demand leadership that can restore public confidence.

Netanyahu has questioned the election’s integrity, alleging vote tampering and accusing Arab-led parties of stealing the vote. However, the Central Election Committee said the election was not compromised. Casting doubt on a legitimate result risks weakening the democratic institutions Israel claims to defend. The peaceful transfer of power is not a procedural inconvenience; it is a democratic foundation.

Since the US-Israel attack on Iran on February 28, I have argued that Washington appears to act as an Israeli proxy. Yet the rapid erosion of support for Netanyahu and Donald Trump suggests costs may be mounting.

If Eisenkot secures 61 seats and forms a government, Netanyahu’s political career could end—and legal accountability may follow, subject to due process and the presumption of innocence.

Israel must decide whether to save Netanyahu, or save its democracy, credibility and future. The country should come first.

Eisenkot’s Entry, Netanyahu’s Exit: Can They Bring Peace to the Region?

Benjamin Netanyahu enjoys the distinction of being Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. Over the years, he has pursued a policy of eliminating Israel’s perceived enemies, particularly Iran. The devastation in Gaza, where nearly 80,000 people have reportedly been killed, mostly women and children, has earned him widespread condemnation and allegations of war crimes. His decision to wage war on Iran in collaboration with the United States has further turned his perceived achievements into liabilities. The conflict has also exacted a political price in Washington, with the Iran war being cited as a major factor behind Donald Trump’s defeat in the midterm elections.

Removing Netanyahu from the political scene, at least temporarily, may be a prudent approach to prevent Israel from earning further condemnation. Having initiated the confrontation with Iran, Netanyahu is hardly the most credible figure to pursue meaningful negotiations. He should hand over the task of “washing the dirty linen” to someone capable of changing course.

Management teaches the importance of succession planning. Netanyahu, however, positioned himself as the indispensable “savior of Israel,” leaving little room for alternative leadership.

Gadi Eisenkot offers a potential alternative. Israel needs political courage to break the existing deadlock. Eisenkot should explore an arrangement with Arab parties to form a coalition government. Such cooperation would demonstrate that Israel’s political future need not depend on excluding its Arab citizens.

Eisenkot could then stand tall—not as another architect of an endless war, but as a leader willing to end it. His mandate should be to facilitate diplomacy, regional coexistence and a negotiated settlement, rather than perpetuate military escalation.

Israelis need peace and a congenial environment in their neighborhood. This requires abandoning the policy of keeping Palestinians subjugated and giving the two-state solution a genuine chance. Without addressing the Palestinian question, regional stability will remain elusive.

The war is approaching its ninth month. Netanyahu’s departure and Eisenkot’s emergence may not guarantee peace, but they could open a political and diplomatic door that remains firmly shut under the incumbent.

Eisenkot’s entry and Netanyahu’s exit could provide the political reset necessary to end the US-Israel war on Iran and begin rebuilding regional stability.

America’s Tarnished Image: The Syndicate Must Find a Way Out

Losing its majority in both houses of Congress may constrain Donald Trump, but it does not strip him of executive authority. The president retains veto power and can take certain actions without prior Senate approval, subject to constitutional and statutory limits. Apparently, little has changed in Washington’s political arithmetic.

Let us examine the continuity of US policy through two priorities: favouring Israel and maintaining an uncompromising posture toward Iran. I tend to believe that business will continue as usual, with Trump still enjoying the blessing of what I call “The Syndicate”—powerful interests sustaining this strategic orientation.

The two failed attempts to impeach Trump also invite scrutiny. In my view, they have not succeeded without The Syndicate’s tacit blessing. Another attempt may emerge, but the probability of success remains low. Congressional opposition alone may prove insufficient to reverse the administration’s course.

One possible source of pressure is the diaspora, which could take the lead in mobilizing domestic constituencies in the name of protecting the “have-nots.” Such mobilization could compel Washington to reconsider the resources and political capital being expended on overseas conflicts.

Yet the biggest challenge is restoring the tarnished image of the United States as a superpower. Ending the US-Israel war on Iran is not an easy task. It requires accepting the reality that Washington has not succeeded in bringing Tehran to its knees. An overt retreat would be portrayed as defeat; an outcome the administration would be reluctant to acknowledge.

Here lies a possible way out: The Syndicate has to find a scapegoat. A senior official, military adviser, or policy architect could be held responsible for misjudgment, flawed intelligence, or unrealistic war objectives. This would provide the administration with a political mechanism to recast a negotiated settlement as strategic correction rather than an admission of defeat.

However, scapegoating alone cannot end the conflict. A mediated ceasefire, reciprocal security assurances, and phased de-escalation, with Iran’s sovereignty respected, must form the foundation of a durable settlement.

Washington could claim that its strategic objectives had been achieved, while Tehran would avoid the humiliation of capitulation.

Ultimately, the challenge is not merely to end the war, but to create a narrative that allows the United States to retreat without appearing defeated. Can The Syndicate engineer such an exit, or will America’s quest for strategic dominance further tarnish its global image?