US may use mother of all bombs on Iran

According to a CNN report, the US military has developed strike plans ​that could include using ‌the so-called "mother of ​all bombs" to target Iranian energy ⁠infrastructure and nuclear sites ​should President Donald Trump ​order renewed combat operations.

The potential deployment of the GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast Bomb, the largest ‌non-nuclear ⁠bomb in the US arsenal, would mark a significant escalation in the ​conflict, ​although ⁠officials familiar with military planning discussions ​told CNN questions remain ​over ⁠its effectiveness in achieving Washington's strategic objectives.

Trump is facing pressure to bring an end to the deeply unpopular war, as Republicans brace for potential political backlash from voters in the upcoming midterm elections and there is little indication the two countries are close to a negotiated resolution after more than six months of US bombing.

While the US military continues to provide Trump with options for potential strikes against outstanding Iranian targets, some officials continue to privately question whether the White House has a strategy that incorporates those plans in a way that could actually end the war.

For months, Trump and his advisers have discussed options that could act as a “definitive” end to the war, aware of how unpopular the conflict has become among Americans.

While some administration figures have characterized the war as essentially won, Trump has been more guarded in recent remarks, stopping short of declaring victory and saying the US still has unfinished business in the country.

Behind the scenes, Trump has also cast doubt on some outside allies who have encouraged him to simply bring US troops home and move on. Doing so, Trump has argued, would look like defeat.

Over the course of the last several weeks, White House advisers have held meetings to discuss various options for Iran. While Trump announced publicly that he would not take new actions before the midterms, several advisers said privately they didn’t know whether that statement was definitive or could change before election day.

Trump has ordered the military to develop additional strike packages against Iranian targets that include “a lot of energy infrastructure” and the potential use of a MOAB, one of the sources told CNN.

The phrasing used was that this attack would come “prior to US retrograde in CENTCOM AOR (area of responsibility),” indicating the administration could launch the additional strikes, attempt to declare victory and quickly pull everyone out.

A second source said military plans for striking Iranian nuclear sites, including Pickaxe Mountain, also explicitly call for using the MOAB. In recent months, Trump has repeatedly threatened to strike Pickaxe, where the US and Israel believe Tehran has stored components of its nuclear program, even after pausing full combat operations earlier this year, and Trump continues to emphasize that his goal is to ensure Iran never obtains a nuclear weapon.

Another US official noted that when the military plans, it develops a menu of options for policymakers that range from the high-end to low-end. Higher-end targets, including those that are located deep underground, require bigger bombs, and the MOAB is the biggest.

But there are questions around whether the MOAB would be an effective munition to use against Iran’s nuclear facilities and other sites that are located deep underground. While the GPS-guided bomb is capable of destroying an area equivalent to nine city blocks, it likely lacks the capability to penetrate deep enough under the surface to destroy the suspected nuclear facilities at Pickaxe, which is believed to be fortified by layers of granite, and other remaining Iranian nuclear sites.

Many within the administration as well as outside analysts agree that the only way to decisively defeat Iran would be through a major operation involving ground troops, a commitment that could potentially cost thousands of American lives. The Pentagon considers all scenarios, so those plans exist, but as of now no one in the administration is arguing for such drastic action.

Trump has indicated he has little interest in putting US boots on the ground in Iran but his desire to end the conflict as soon as possible presents a political dilemma for a president who is keenly aware of how unpopular the war has become yet has been unable to secure a diplomatic agreement that would bring it to a close.

Top Trump administration officials and military planners have been focused, for weeks, on finding an off-ramp that gives Trump a “symbolic” win — at minimum — he can try to sell to the American people without preventing a potential diplomatic breakthrough, starting with an agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, CNN has reported.

A fourth source familiar with the Pentagon’s recent planning discussions on Iran told CNN that military officials had developed some options that would amount to a “fireworks show,” with the goal of providing Trump an off-ramp from the conflict even if those strikes fail to accomplish his stated goals for starting the war in the first place.

And despite Trump’s recent pledge to hold off on launching additional strikes before the midterms, the US military already appears to be preparing for potential Iranian retaliation should the president give the go-ahead.

The next turnover of US troops deployed to CENTCOM is also expected to take place within the next few weeks, a US official who acknowledged it is possible some of the personnel who rotate out of the region, may not be replaced by fresh service members.

 

PSX benchmark index closes almost flat WoW, despite volatility

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) witnessed volatility during the week ended on October 16, 2026, due to political uncertainty and persistent geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. The Index declined by 670 points to close at 166,420, down 0.4%WoW.

Brent crude price remained elevated amid continued disruptions to energy supplies through the Strait of Hormuz and renewed attacks on Saudi energy infrastructure.

On the macroeconomic front, Pakistan recorded a current account deficit (CAD) of US$356 million in September 2026, as compared to a surplus of US$123 million during the same period last year, reflecting some added pressure on the external account.

Remittances by overseas Pakistanis rose 13%YoY in September 2026 to US$3.6 billion.

The GoP raised PKR660 billion through the latest T-Bills auction, with yields remaining broadly stable following the sharp repricing in the previous auction.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased to US$21.47 billion as of October 09, 2026.

Passenger car sales declined by 9.8%YoY to 10,939 units in September 2026.

Textile exports grew by 5.2%YoY during 1QFY27, led by growth in ready-made garments, knitwear and cotton yarn.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) FBR collection exceeded Q1 collection target, 2) IMF projected Pakistan’s GDP growth at 3.5% for FY27, while forecasting inflation at 9.9%, 3) Pakistan received first LNG cargo of October, 4) Refineries produced 92,482 tons of LPG in July-August, and 5) RDA attracted US$251 millio in September.

Leasing companies, Woolen, and Jute remained top performing sectors, while laggards included:  Apparel, Technology & Communication, and Transport.

Major selling was recorded by Mutual Funds amounting to US$10.7 million. On the contrary, major net buyers were Banks (US$8.3 million) and Companies with US$6.7 million.

Top performing scrips were: BNWM, AGP, IMAGE, BML, and JDWS, while laggards included: POL, PTC, APL, CPHL, and THCCL.

AKD Securities expects the market to improve on the back of strengthening economic indicators. Additionally, easing inflationary pressures would reduce probability of monetary tightening. 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.

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

American Superpower Image Is Being Tarnished

The image of the United States as the world's undisputed superpower is facing an unprecedented test. A succession of strategic setbacks, policy reversals and strained alliances is raising a fundamental question, can Washington still translate its overwhelming military and economic strength into lasting geopolitical gains?

The latest agreement allowing Russian diesel supplies to global markets, accompanied by temporary sanctions relief, offers a telling example. After years of seeking to constrain Moscow over its war in Ukraine, Washington has turned to Russia to ease fuel-market pressures exacerbated by the Middle East conflict. The move highlights the limits of economic sanctions when geopolitical ambitions collide with domestic necessities.

The US-Israel war on Iran presents an even greater strategic challenge. Despite months of intensive bombing and the reported killing of Iran's supreme leader, Washington has not secured a decisive outcome. Iran's continued resistance and its ability to disrupt regional energy infrastructure demonstrate that superior firepower does not automatically translate into political submission.

The withdrawal of US forces from Iraq after more than two decades further complicates Washington's regional legacy. Although, the departure follows an earlier agreement and can be presented as a change in military strategy, Iran and its allies have celebrated it as a victory. Concerns about Tehran's expanding influence underline the difficulty Washington has faced in shaping Iraq's political and security landscape.

Saudi Arabia's experience raises equally uncomfortable questions. Despite its longstanding security partnership with Washington, the kingdom has suffered attacks on critical infrastructure, including Riyadh's airport and major energy facilities. Washington's reluctance to provide the direct military intervention Riyadh sought has fuelled doubts about the practical limits of American security guarantees.

Meanwhile, China and Russia are exploiting the shifting strategic environment to expand their influence. Their growing engagement with regional governments does not mean that either can replace America's entire security role, but it gives Middle Eastern states greater room to diversify their partnerships.

The central issue is no longer whether America possesses formidable power; it clearly does. The question is whether that power can deliver the political outcomes Washington seeks. A superpower's standing depends not only on its capacity to wage war, but also on its ability to achieve objectives, protect partners and sustain international confidence. If these shortcomings persist, America's global leadership will face an increasingly difficult test.

China to support Bangladesh in achieving energy security

The United States and China have signalled support for Bangladesh’s economic recovery and energy security, Beijing expressing interest in expanding investment in the country’s power and energy sectors and Washington offering cooperation on debt management.

The assurances came during separate meetings between Bangladesh’s delegation and officials from the US Treasury Department and the Export-Import Bank of China (China Exim Bank) on the sidelines of the IMF-World Bank annual meetings in Bangkok, Thailand.

A member of the Bangladesh delegation said China Exim Bank had expressed interest in increasing investment in Bangladesh’s energy and power sectors.

The bank also informed the delegation that its chairman would visit Dhaka next week, raising the prospect of further engagement on investment.

The US Treasury Department, meanwhile, assured Bangladesh of cooperation in several areas, including debt management and bilateral relations.

Washington’s support is seen particularly important to Bangladesh’s efforts to secure financing from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), given the United States’ veto power over the institution’s decisions.

After meeting US Treasury officials, Finance Minister Amir Khosru Mahmud Chowdhury said Bangladesh had received less support from the United States than it had expected in the past, but hoped closer bilateral ties would lead to greater assistance.

The discussions covered debt management, bilateral relations and other issues, he said, adding that the improvement in relations had raised the government’s expectations of further US support.

Pointing to Bangladesh’s purchases of aircraft from the US and imports of goods including soybeans, the finance minister said the country should receive greater American support in advancing its development and economic interests.

Prime Minister’s Economic Adviser Dr Rashed Al Mahmud Titumir said the IMF, World Bank and US Treasury Department, among others, had acknowledged that the current government had inherited economic difficulties and high inflation.

The conflict in the Middle East had added to the pressure on the economy, he said.

They also said the current government was working sincerely to resolve the problems. As a result, the World Bank, IMF, US Treasury Department and other organizations have assured Bangladesh of their support.

According to Titumir, international financial institutions and US officials recognized the government’s sincere efforts to address these challenges. As a result, the World Bank, IMF, US Treasury Department and other organizations had assured Bangladesh of their support, he said.

The government expects confirmation of the assistance within the next two to three months, he added.

Saudi Security Vulnerabilities or Lapses

Saudi Arabia’s decision to stop issuing public warnings of imminent missile and drone attacks shortly before deadly strikes hit Riyadh airport raises serious questions about the kingdom’s security preparedness and crisis management. According to Reuters, the attacks killed at least 18 people and wounded more than 300, exposing the challenges Riyadh faces in protecting its population and maintaining an image of stability amid an escalating regional conflict.

The central question is whether the attacks exposed inherent vulnerabilities in Saudi Arabia’s security arrangements or lapses in managing an emerging threat. The distinction matters because the remedies are different - structural weaknesses require stronger defensive capabilities, while operational failures demand better coordination, timely communication and accountability.

Riyadh appears to have faced competing priorities: acknowledging the growing threat while avoiding public anxiety and disruption to economic activity. However, withholding warnings cannot eliminate danger; it can leave residents and visitors less prepared to respond.

Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia’s early-warning system had remained silent despite mounting Houthi attacks. Officials reportedly told a Western ally that alerts were disruptive and that some citizens had complained about being awakened at night. If accurate, this explanation raises concerns about how public safety was weighed against convenience. An early warning cannot prevent every casualty, but it can give people precious time to seek shelter.

The contrast with Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait is instructive. Their use of mobile alerts and sirens demonstrates the importance of communicating potential threats, even when warnings disrupt daily routines. Public information should be treated as an essential component of national defence rather than an obstacle to normal economic activity.

Saudi Arabia also faces a formidable structural challenge. Its vast territory contains airports, oil installations, pipelines and other strategic assets that cannot all be protected simultaneously. Limited interceptor supplies and air-defence capacity complicate the task. Strengthening early-warning systems, improving defensive coordination and prioritizing critical infrastructure must therefore go hand in hand.

The economic stakes are substantial. Saudi Arabia’s investment and diversification ambitions depend partly on investor confidence and perceptions of stability. The reported withdrawal of senior oil executives from a major energy conference in Riyadh illustrates how security concerns can disrupt international engagements despite official assurances that economic plans remain on track.

Ultimately, Saudi Arabia must demonstrate that its pursuit of normalcy does not come at the expense of public safety. Whether the problem lies in structural vulnerabilities, operational lapses or both, restoring confidence requires credible warnings, stronger defensive capabilities and effective crisis management. In an era of expanding missile and drone warfare, projecting stability is no substitute for delivering security.

US Foreign Policy Is Becoming Morally Bankrupt

Over the years, many analysts, including myself, have questioned whether the United States consistently adheres to the ethical principles it expects other nations to respect. Under Donald Trump, the contradiction between Washington’s rhetoric and its actions has become increasingly difficult to ignore. Democracy, sovereignty and a rules-based international order are presented as universal principles, yet their application often appears conditional on American strategic and economic interests.

The war against Iran, the killing of its Supreme Leader and Washington’s pursuit of regional objectives raise serious questions about the limits of American power. Similarly, the arrest of Venezuela’s president and the drive to control the country’s energy resources have reinforced concerns that national sovereignty becomes negotiable when a government challenges Washington’s interests.

In South Asia, allegations of American involvement in political changes in Pakistan and Bangladesh have fuelled suspicions that Washington’s commitment to democracy is selective. Such allegations require scrutiny, and domestic political dynamics cannot be ignored. Nevertheless, the perception that external powers can influence political outcomes undermines the credibility of the principles they claim to defend.

The latest Russian diesel arrangement offers another revealing example of Washington’s shifting priorities. The reported purchase of 300,000 tons of Russian diesel, despite American efforts to restrict Moscow’s energy revenues over its war against Ukraine, raises questions about the consistency of US policy. When energy security and domestic economic pressures become pressing, previously declared strategic principles appear open to adjustment.

The implications extend beyond energy markets. Ukraine, under President Volodymyr Zelensky, has depended heavily on American military and financial support to resist Russia’s invasion. Yet Trump’s reported suggestion that Ukraine needed new leadership following disagreements over policy raises a fundamental question, is American support grounded in a consistent commitment to sovereignty, or is it conditional on political compliance?

Here lies the contradiction. Washington has supported Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression, yet its own interests can lead it towards arrangements that potentially benefit Moscow. The immediate priorities of American consumers and voters may take precedence over the strategic concerns of an ally fighting for its territorial integrity.

The issue is not whether America has the right to pursue its national interests. Every sovereign state does. The question is whether Washington can claim moral leadership while applying one standard to its adversaries and another to itself.

Military supremacy can compel compliance, economic power can impose costs, and political pressure can influence governments. None, however, guarantees moral authority. When principles become negotiable and national interests override proclaimed values, the result is a crisis of credibility.

A superpower may impose its will through military and economic strength, but it cannot command moral authority. American foreign policy risks losing precisely what Washington claims to defend - the moral legitimacy of its leadership.

The Iran War: Is the Real Target Saudi Arabia?

The US-Israel war on Iran has exposed a harsh reality: American military dominance does not necessarily translate into political acceptance in the Middle East. More importantly, the conflict has raised a fundamental question about whose security Washington is really protecting.

For decades, the United States has justified its military bases across Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries as essential to protecting Arab monarchies against external threats, particularly Iran. Yet the use of these bases during the war has reinforced a perception that American military power serves Israeli security interests, potentially at the expense of the host countries. Instead of providing an unquestionable security umbrella, these arrangements risk exposing Arab states to retaliation.

China’s mediation of the 2023 Saudi-Iran rapprochement had already challenged Washington’s longstanding narrative that Iran posed a greater threat to Arab interests than Israel. Riyadh’s decision to restore diplomatic relations with Tehran demonstrated that regional security could be pursued through engagement rather than permanent confrontation.

The prolonged disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, attacks on oil tankers and energy infrastructure, and mounting pressure on Gulf economies have further exposed the vulnerabilities of Arab oil producers. These developments raise a critical question, are GCC states merely collateral victims of the war, or are they also facing strategic pressure to reconsider their regional alignments?

President Donald Trump’s reported request for Russia to supply 300,000 tons of diesel highlights the conflict’s wider energy repercussions. Although this does not establish a hidden agenda, it illustrates how the consequences extend far beyond Iran.

The larger strategic question is whether the conflict is also being used to advance Israel’s regional integration through the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabia’s recognition of Israel and establishment of diplomatic relations would represent a major diplomatic victory for Benjamin Netanyahu and strengthen Israel’s regional position.

My interpretation is that the war may be evolving into a pressure campaign against GCC monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia, compelling them to succumb to American pressure: recognize Israel, establish diplomatic relations and accept its regional supremacy.

This remains a strategic hypothesis, not a proven war objective. Nevertheless, it deserves serious scrutiny. The ultimate irony would be that a war ostensibly directed against Iran ends up pressuring Arab monarchies to accept a regional order shaped around Israeli supremacy—while simultaneously weakening confidence in American protection.