Pakistan's Western Borders Need More Than Military Vigilance

The recent wave of terrorist attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan is a sobering reminder that Pakistan's western frontier remains one of the country's most complex and persistent security challenges. Every attack claims precious lives, weakens investors’ confidence, disrupts trade, and raises fresh concerns about regional stability. Yet the real question is not merely who carried out these attacks, but why they continue despite years of counterterrorism operations.

Pakistan shares long and difficult borders with Afghanistan and Iran. Rugged terrain, cross-border tribal linkages, and extensive movement of people and goods make these frontiers among the hardest to secure. Border security is not solely a military responsibility; it also demands effective diplomacy, sound governance, and close regional cooperation.

Pakistani authorities have repeatedly expressed concerns that militant groups exploit territory across the western border to launch attacks inside Pakistan. However, an important distinction must be made. The existence of terrorist sanctuaries does not automatically imply state sponsorship. In many border regions, weak administrative control, porous frontiers, criminal networks, and ungoverned spaces can provide militants with opportunities to operate without necessarily reflecting official government policy. Recognizing this distinction is essential for objective analysis and effective policymaking.

At the same time, neighboring countries also bear an important responsibility. Under international law, every state is expected to ensure that its territory is not used for hostile activities against another country. Effective intelligence sharing, coordinated border management, and timely action against militant networks are therefore indispensable for regional peace and stability.

Another dimension deserves equal attention. Pakistan provides the shortest and most economical land route connecting Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea and has the potential to become a vital gateway for regional trade extending into Central Asia and beyond. Persistent instability along these corridors discourages investment, disrupts commerce, and undermines regional connectivity. It is therefore reasonable to ask who ultimately benefits from keeping Pakistan's western border unstable.

Pakistan's response extends beyond kinetic operations. Military action can eliminate terrorists, but lasting peace requires stronger border management, improved governance in border districts, sustained economic development, effective intelligence, and constructive engagement with both Kabul and Tehran. Pakistan's long-term success will depend not only on eliminating terrorists but also on dismantling the political, financial, logistical, and ideological ecosystem that allows them to recruit, regroup, and strike again.

Time for Riyadh to Reassess Its Security Doctrine

For decades, Arab states have been persuaded that Iran poses the greatest threat to their security. Yet the region is arguably less secure today than at any time in recent history. This paradox deserves serious reflection, particularly in Riyadh.

The "Iran threat" narrative has shaped the Middle East's security architecture for more than four decades. Whether entirely justified or deliberately amplified, it has undeniably served several strategic objectives. It reinforced Arab-Iranian hostility, justified a sustained American military presence across the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), generated hundreds of billions of dollars in arms sales, and strengthened Washington's political leverage in the region. It also created an environment that facilitated the Abraham Accords, while discussions on US support for Saudi Arabia's civilian nuclear program have, at various stages, been linked to broader regional political considerations, including normalization with Israel.

Despite these arrangements, the Gulf today faces growing uncertainty. The Gaza war, the prolonged confrontation involving Iran and Israel, recurring tensions in the Strait of Hormuz, and instability around the Red Sea have exposed the vulnerability of the region's energy infrastructure and maritime trade routes. Some regional observers argue that these developments risk undermining the Gulf's position as the world's most dependable energy supplier, regardless of who initiates each crisis.

These realities call for a strategic reassessment. Security partnerships should ultimately be judged not by their longevity, but by their ability to deliver peace, stability and economic security.

The China-brokered rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Iran demonstrated that diplomacy remains a credible alternative to perpetual confrontation. While the agreement did not eliminate longstanding differences, it showed that dialogue can reduce tensions more effectively than escalating military rivalry. Rather than relying exclusively on traditional security partners, Riyadh could broaden its strategic options by deepening cooperation with Beijing, including in the peaceful development of civilian nuclear technology. Given China's substantial economic interests in Gulf stability and its constructive relations with both Saudi Arabia and Iran, Beijing is well placed to facilitate confidence-building measures and encourage regional de-escalation.

Equally important, GCC states should gradually reduce excessive dependence on external military protection and work toward a regional security framework based on dialogue, mutual respect and shared responsibility. Foreign military partnerships may continue to play an important role, but they should complement—not define—the region's long-term security strategy.

History suggests that lasting peace cannot be achieved through military superiority alone. Sustainable security is built on diplomacy, balanced partnerships and regional ownership of regional challenges. For Saudi Arabia, the question is no longer whether its traditional security doctrine has served the Kingdom well. The more important question is whether that doctrine remains the best guarantee of peace and prosperity in an increasingly multipolar Middle East.

PSX benchmark index declines 2.7%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained under pressure during the week ended on July 24, 2026. The benchmark index declined by 4,782 points or 2.7%WoW to close at 171,021 points. The average daily trading volume also declined by 3.2%WoW to slightly more than 881 million shares.  

As reported my Western media, Yemen's Houthis declared a naval blockade on Saudi Arabia and claimed strikes on two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea, putting Bab el-Mandeb flows at risk alongside the existing disruption at the Strait of Hormuz. The US carried out strikes on Iranian military targets on twelfth consecutive night.

Brent peaked above US$101/ bbl before easing to US$97, keeping energy import and inflation concerns at the forefront.

Sentiment found some support from S&P Global upgrade of Pakistan's long-term sovereign credit rating to 'B' with a stable outlook, citing stability and reform implementation.

On the macroeconomic front, yields during the T-Bills auction rose across all tenors.

Banking sector deposits increased 15.2%YoY to PKR40.9 trillion in June 2026.

Urea offtakes rose 2%YoY to 592,000 tons, driven by improving farm economics and availability of subsidies and cheaper financing. As against this, DAP sales declined 58%YoY on higher pricing.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan sought a US$10 billion bilateral exchange stabilization facility from the United States, 2) GoP proposed changes to the Brown field Refining Policy, 3) Pakistan purchased a spot LNG cargo at US$21.88/ mmbtu, the highest since March this year, 4) US unveiled new tariffs on 60 trade partners ranging 10-12% including Pakistan, and 5) OGRA decided to set petroleum prices on daily basis under new pricing mechanism.

Top performing sectors were: Refinery, Insurance, and Textile Spinning, while the lagged included: Jute, Sugar & Allied Industries, and Close-end Mutual Fund.

Major selling was recorded by Mutual Funds and Banks of US$31.0 million, while major buyers were Individuals and Foreigners aggregating to US2$2.5 million.

Company-wise, top performers were: YOUW, CNERYGY, PGLC, ATRL, and NESTLE, while laggards included: SSGC, SNGP, KTML, MLCF, and KOHC.

According to AKD Securities, the US-Iran conflict and international oil prices, along with monetary policy announcement would remain the key focus.

Additionally, favorable financial results for the period ended June 30, 2026 would drive the market sentiments in the near term.

Market continues to trade at attractive valuations.

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

US-Saudi Nuclear Deal Built on Contradictions

The proposed US-Saudi nuclear deal is being portrayed as a landmark initiative capable of reshaping the Middle East. In reality, it appears to be a proposal burdened with so many political and strategic conditions that its chances of implementation remain slim. It promises much, yet delivers little that Saudi Arabia has sought for years.

The first obstacle is Washington itself. Any agreement of this magnitude must pass the US Senate, where Middle East policy has historically been heavily influenced by pro-Israel interests. It is difficult to envisage congressional approval for any arrangement that Israel believes could narrow its long-standing strategic and technological superiority in the region. Political resistance in Washington, therefore, remains the biggest hurdle.

Even if the agreement survives Congress, its strategic value for Riyadh is questionable. Saudi Arabia has consistently maintained that any civilian nuclear program must eventually include the right to enrich uranium. If enrichment is prohibited, the Kingdom would remain dependent on foreign suppliers for nuclear fuel. Such an arrangement falls well short of the strategic autonomy Riyadh has long pursued.

The proposal becomes even more complicated if it is linked to Saudi recognition of Israel through the Abraham Accords. The Kingdom faces strong domestic, Arab and wider Islamic pressure not to normalize relations with Israel in the absence of a credible and irreversible path toward Palestinian statehood. Without meaningful progress on that front, normalization carries significant political costs for Riyadh.

There is also an economic dimension. Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in the United States over several decades, yet many in Riyadh question whether Washington has fulfilled the security commitments expected from a strategic ally. The muted American response to attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure and its shifting regional priorities have inevitably weakened Saudi confidence in US security guarantees.

Above all, Saudi leaders understand that American policy in the Middle East is inseparable from its commitment to Israel. Whether justified or not, a growing perception across the Arab world is that Israeli security considerations increasingly shape Washington's regional decisions. That perception inevitably influences Saudi strategic calculations.

For these reasons, the proposed US-Saudi nuclear deal looks less like a transformative agreement and more like a diplomatic bargaining chip. It expects Saudi Arabia to make strategic, political and financial concessions while offering neither an independent nuclear capability nor security assurances that Riyadh considers fully credible. Until these fundamental contradictions are addressed, the deal is unlikely to move beyond diplomatic headlines.

Washington Is Not Changing Course - It Is Buying Time

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's recent statement that Washington remains willing to negotiate with Iran and that "the possibility for diplomacy remains alive" has raised more questions than answers. After nearly two weeks of sustained military operations, the renewed emphasis on diplomacy appears less like a change of policy and more like an attempt to buy time.

Since the ceasefire memorandum signed in April, President Donald Trump's objectives have appeared to shift repeatedly. At different stages, Washington has spoken of containing Iran's nuclear program, weakening its regional influence, pressuring its leadership and demanding broader concessions. These shifting objectives have reinforced the perception that the ultimate goal is Iran's unconditional surrender—an ambition that has proved far more difficult than many in Washington may have anticipated.

Ironically, the prolonged confrontation appears to have strengthened the very adversary it sought to weaken. Rather than triggering internal divisions or regime change, sustained external pressure seems to have fostered greater national unity inside Iran. Many regional analysts now argue that the conflict has elevated Tehran's strategic importance instead of diminishing it, making Iran an even more influential regional actor.

Military history shows that major powers often pause not because they have secured victory, but because they need time to reassess. Reports suggesting heavy expenditure of advanced munitions, the failure to achieve the anticipated regime change, and growing debate among some Gulf Arab states over long-term reliance on US security guarantees all point to an increasingly complex strategic landscape. Against this backdrop, a diplomatic initiative may offer Washington an opportunity to regroup, replenish resources, reassess its options and preserve strategic flexibility without appearing to retreat.

The battle is also being fought in the information domain. Narratives portraying the Houthis as targeting Saudi oil tankers have been questioned by many regional observers, who argue that their operations have primarily focused on vessels linked to Israel. Regardless of which narrative ultimately proves more accurate, the contest to shape international opinion has become almost as important as developments on the battlefield itself.

Whether Washington's latest diplomatic outreach leads to meaningful negotiations or merely marks a tactical pause remains to be seen. What is becoming increasingly evident that military superiority alone has not delivered the political outcome the United States and Israel sought. If diplomacy has returned to center stage, it may not be because Washington has changed course—it may simply be because, in modern conflict, time itself is a strategic weapon.

The Shifting Battle: From Oil to Shipping Corridors

For much of the twentieth century, oil was regarded as the world's most powerful geopolitical weapon. In the twenty-first century, however, control over global shipping corridors may prove equally—if not more—consequential. Whoever can influence the world's maritime chokepoints can shape not only energy supplies but also international trade, supply chains, and economic stability. Against this backdrop, the Red Sea appears to be emerging as the next major strategic battleground.

Following months of disruption around the Strait of Hormuz, growing concerns are now centered on the security of commercial shipping through the Red Sea. Together, the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and the Suez Canal constitute one of the world's most vital maritime corridors, carrying a substantial share of global trade, including oil, liquefied natural gas, manufactured goods, agricultural commodities, and containerized cargo. Any prolonged disruption would ripple across continents through higher freight costs, supply-chain bottlenecks, inflationary pressures, and increased energy prices.

The immediate question is not simply who is attacking commercial vessels, but who stands to gain from sustained instability in these strategic waterways.

Western governments and much of the international media have attributed recent attacks to Yemen's Houthi movement, arguing that the group continues to target maritime traffic as part of its confrontation with Israel and its Western allies. Given the Houthis' own public statements and previous operations, this explanation cannot be dismissed.

Yet geopolitics is rarely straightforward.

Military confrontations are increasingly accompanied by information warfare, where competing narratives emerge almost as rapidly as military events themselves. Some analysts caution against assigning responsibility before credible, independent investigations establish the facts. Premature conclusions can become powerful geopolitical tools, shaping public opinion and diplomatic responses long before evidence is fully examined.

Another line of analysis raises a different possibility. It suggests that if vessels linked to Saudi Arabia increasingly become targets, the objective may extend beyond disrupting commercial shipping. Such incidents could undermine the fragile rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran, reviving regional rivalries that had begun to ease after years of confrontation. Those who favour a polarized Middle East would clearly benefit from renewed distrust between the region's two most influential powers.

There is also the Israeli dimension. Since the outbreak of the Gaza conflict, the Houthis have repeatedly declared that their maritime campaign is intended to pressure Israel by disrupting shipping linked to Israeli interests. If commercial traffic through the Red Sea becomes increasingly constrained, Israel's trade routes could face significant economic and logistical challenges. However, if the pattern of attacks shifts from Israeli-linked shipping toward Saudi-linked vessels, analysts will inevitably ask whether the conflict is being redirected by actors pursuing broader geopolitical objectives.

History suggests that great powers compete not only for natural resources but also for the routes that transport them. The struggle is no longer confined to controlling oil fields. Increasingly, the ability to influence strategic maritime corridors has become a source of geopolitical leverage. Disrupting a major shipping route can impose economic costs on multiple countries simultaneously without direct military confrontation.

Whether the current tensions represent an extension of the Israel-Houthi conflict, an attempt to derail Saudi-Iranian reconciliation, or a broader contest for influence over global shipping corridors remains an open question. What appears increasingly clear is that in today's interconnected world, strategic power lies not only beneath the ground in oil reserves but also on the sea lanes that connect continents.

The nation—or coalition—that can influence these maritime arteries possesses a powerful instrument of geopolitical leverage. In the twenty-first century, control of shipping corridors may prove even more valuable than control of the cargo itself.

Oil Is No Longer a Weapon

For decades, a major military conflict involving Iran would almost certainly have sent global oil prices soaring. Conventional wisdom held that any disruption in the Persian Gulf would trigger an energy crisis, fuel inflation, and push the world economy toward recession. Yet, nearly five months into the US-Iran war, oil prices have remained relatively stable. This apparent contradiction deserves closer examination.

The foremost reason is that the conflict has not significantly disrupted physical oil supplies. Energy markets react less to military headlines than to actual interruptions in production and transportation. Despite intense hostilities, oil has continued to flow.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly one-fifth of the world's seaborne oil trade passes, remains open. Although shipping costs and insurance premiums have risen, oil tankers continue to transit the waterway. A prolonged blockade would almost certainly have triggered a dramatic spike in crude prices.

Iran has also continued exporting crude oil, primarily to China and, through indirect channels, to other Asian buyers. At the same time, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Gulf producers have maintained production, while exports through the Red Sea have largely continued despite heightened security risks.

The global energy landscape has changed fundamentally over the past decade. The United States has emerged as one of the world's largest producers of both crude oil and natural gas, reducing dependence on Middle Eastern supplies. Meanwhile, despite Western sanctions, Russian oil continues to reach international markets through alternative buyers and trading routes, preventing a significant supply shortfall.

Demand-side factors have also played a role. Slower economic growth in China and subdued industrial activity in several major economies have moderated global oil consumption, offsetting much of the upward pressure created by geopolitical tensions.

Perhaps the most important factor is market confidence that none of the principal actors wants to ignite a full-scale energy crisis by destroying vital oil infrastructure or permanently blocking key shipping lanes. Investors have increasingly distinguished between a military conflict and an energy war.

The lesson is unmistakable. The Middle East remains indispensable to global energy security, but today's oil market is more diversified, resilient and interconnected than ever before. As long as production continues, shipping lanes remain open and alternative suppliers keep the market well supplied, oil will struggle to serve as an effective geopolitical weapon. The era when a Middle East conflict automatically plunged the world into an oil crisis may well be coming to an end.