China and Russia reject European move to restore sanctions on Iran

UN Security Council permanent members China and Russia backed Iran on Monday in rejecting a move by European countries to reimpose UN sanctions on Tehran loosened a decade ago under a nuclear agreement, reports Reuters.

A letter signed by the Chinese, Russian and Iranian foreign ministers said a move by Britain, France and Germany to automatically restore the sanctions under a so-called "snapback mechanism" was "legally and procedurally flawed".

China and Russia were signatories to Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, along with the three European countries, known as the E3. President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement in his first term in 2018.

The Europeans launched the "snapback mechanism" last week, accusing Iran of violating the deal, which had provided relief from international financial sanctions in return for curbs to Iran's nuclear program.

The letter published by Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in a post on X on Monday said that the course taken by Britain, France, and Germany "abuses the authority and functions of the UN Security Council".

Iran has long since broken through the limits on uranium production set under the 2015 deal, arguing that it is justified in doing so as a consequence of Washington having pulled out of the agreement. The deal expires in October this year, and the snapback mechanism would allow sanctions that were lifted under it to take effect again.

Iran and the E3 held talks aimed at a new nuclear agreement after Israel and the US bombed Iran's nuclear installations in mid-June. But the E3 deemed that talks in Geneva last week did not yield sufficient signals of readiness for a new deal from Iran.

"Our joint letter with my colleagues, the foreign ministers of China and Russia, signed in Tianjin, reflects the firm position that the European attempt to invoke snapback is legally baseless and politically destructive", Iran's foreign minister said in his post on X.

 

 

Gaza likely to become another state of the US

With the passage of time it is becoming that initially United States, with the help of Israel, will take physical and administrative control of Gaza. Officially, it is being said that the US is not taking control of Gaza, most rich in fossil oil and gas. 

It is also being propagated that people are talking about a proposal circulating among Trump-aligned officials, not an actual policy in effect.

A Controversial Proposal Circulating

A plan called the Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration, and Transformation (GREAT) Trust is being floated. It envisions the US administering Gaza under a 10-year trusteeship, temporarily relocating Gazans with financial incentives, and rebuilding the region into high-tech smart cities and resorts.

This proposal is not officially approved or implemented, it remains under discussion and highly controversial, especially regarding legality and humanitarian implications.

Trump’s Remarks on “Taking Over” Gaza

In February 2025, Donald Trump made headlines by stating that the US would “take over” Gaza and possibly deploy troops, framing it as redevelopment.

His comments triggered widespread international condemnation, with UN experts calling the proposal a violation of international law and likening it to ethnic cleansing.

Some analysts stress it is unlikely ever to be executed—constituting extreme rhetoric or a negotiating ploy rather than a concrete, actionable policy.

Current Ground Reality

At present, Gaza is under Israeli military control, not US administration. Israel controls Gaza’s borders, airspace, and sea access, and the international community recognizes Gaza as part of the occupied Palestinian territories.

US involvement is limited to supporting Israel diplomatically and militarily—not on-the-ground governance or administration of Gaza.

 

 

While provocative plans and statements have surfaced suggesting US control over Gaza, no such control has been put into action. The status quo remains unchanged - Gaza is not under US administration, and these proposals are speculative and deeply contested.

Houthis threat to kill Netanyahu

The Houthis (Ansar Allah) are primarily a Yemeni movement with their base of power in northern part of the country. More recently, its main conflict has been with the United States and its allies, particularly because of Red Sea shipping disruptions.

After the killing of the prime minister of Yemen's Houthi-run government and several other ministers, Houthis have expressed their intentions to kill Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Can this be taken as a real threat to the life of Netanyahu?

In all the probability, the Houthis do not have the capability to directly target Netanyahu inside Israel. Their missile and drone reach has extended toward Israel during the Gaza war (some were intercepted by Israel, US, and allied forces), but striking the Israeli Prime Minister personally is far beyond their operational reach.

However, they can increase pressure on Israel by: 1) targeting Israeli linked ships and shipping lanes in the Red Sea, 2) launching long-range missiles or drones toward Israeli territory, and 3) deepening Israel’s regional isolation by linking the Gaza conflict with Yemen.

In reality, Netanyahu faces greater personal risk from inside Israel (domestic unrest, Palestinian militant groups) or from major regional actors (Hezbollah or Iran) rather than from the Houthis themselves.

While, it may be concluded that the Houthis are not a direct threat to Netanyahu, but they contribute to the overall regional security pressure on Israel that indirectly undermines his political standing and safety.

External threats to Netanyahu

Let us examine the structured hierarchy of external threats to Netanyahu’s life and political survival, ranked from most serious to least:

Hezbollah – Highest Direct Threat

The group has the capability, being the largest, most experienced armed group on Israel’s borders. It has tens of thousands of rockets, advanced drones, precision missiles. Its biggest advantage is proximity, right on Israel’s northern border. It may be said that the threat level to Netanyahu is very high – Hezbollah could, in theory, target Israeli leadership.

Iran – Indirect Threat

Iran enjoys capability, being the regional power with ballistic missiles, drones, cyber operations. While Iran may not directly target Netanyahu, it can facilitate proxies (Hezbollah, militias in Iraq/ Syria, and Houthis).

Palestinian Militants

Hamas, PIJ, and West Bank groups have the capability, having short-to-medium range rockets, cross-border raids, suicide missions. On top of all they enjoy proximity. Most of the resistance group consider Netanyahu directly responsible for Gaza destruction. Analysts believe it is difficult for them to reach him personally due to Israel’s heavy security.

Houthis (Yemen)

Houthis enjoy certain advantages like long-range drones and ballistic missiles, some have reached Israel’s southern airspace, others intercepted. Houthis position themselves as part of “Axis of Resistance” with Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Target Israel-linked shipping and occasionally Israel itself. Their threat level is low, as they cannot realistically strike Netanyahu personally, but can harass Israel economically and militarily.

Other Regional Militias

Groups based in Iraq and Syria enjoy certain capabilities, rockets and drones, but usually confined to US or Israeli targets in Syria/ Iraq. Therefore, the real threat level to Netanyahu’s life may be low to moderate, but nuisance attacks are possible, though unlikely to reach Israeli leadership.

Mahmoud Abbas Becomes Redundant

The Trump administration announced Friday it would deny and revoke visas for about 80 senior Palestinian officials, including President Mahmoud Abbas, ahead of the UN General Assembly in New York in September. The move, unprecedented in scope, would bar most of the Palestinian delegation from one of their few global platforms.

The State Department justified the measure by citing the Palestinian Authority’s appeals to international courts, its alleged refusal to condemn the October 07 attacks, and its pursuit of unilateral recognition. Yet the decision violates the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement, which obliges Washington, as host state, to admit all delegations. International law, like diplomacy, is treated in Washington as a tool bent to Israel’s interests.

Contrary to US assertions that Abbas has not condemned the Hamas October 07 operation, in a letter sent in early June 2025 to French President Emmanuel Macron — and also to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — Abbas wrote that what Hamas did, “in killing and taking civilians hostage, is unacceptable and condemnable.” He further called for the immediate release of all hostages, the dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities, and its removal from power in Gaza.

The ban is striking because the Palestinian Authority has long served as a subcontractor for Israel’s occupation. Rather than a liberation movement, Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah became administrators of an imposed status quo.

The so-called PA “security forces” have worked closely with Israel to suppress resistance—arresting fighters, dispersing protests, and keeping order while settlements expanded. The Authority collected taxes, ran services, and projected a façade of sovereignty as Israel tightened control.

Again and again, Abbas bent to US and Israeli demands: endless “peace talks” without peace, restraining international campaigns against Israel, and managing a bureaucracy designed more to pacify than to resist.

His rhetoric echoed Washington’s ostensible preference for negotiations over confrontation. Yet the moment he pursued even mild accountability—seeking prosecutions in The Hague, he and his entourage were punished like enemies.

The lesson is clear. Compliance has not protected Abbas. Obedience has not earned favor. By banning the delegation, Washington has shown that subservience guarantees nothing. The PA’s decades of compromise have delivered only humiliation, proving that trading resistance for hollow promises is a bargain with no reward.

Washington claims its decision safeguards peace, but hypocrisy is obvious. In 1988, it denied Yasser Arafat a visa, forcing the UN to relocate to Geneva so he could speak.

In 2013, it barred Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir over his ICC indictment. Yet Benjamin Netanyahu—himself wanted by the ICC for Gaza crimes—will address the Assembly without issue. Law is wielded selectively; principle turned into a cudgel.

Timing also reveals intent. France, the UK, and Canada are preparing to recognize Palestine, joining nearly 150 countries that already do. Washington fears Abbas might use the UN podium to press for independence, and so silences him preemptively. This is not diplomacy but sabotage—an effort to erase Palestinians from the global conversation just as momentum builds for recognition.

Even so, Europe’s recognition drive is riddled with contradictions. Recognition without sovereignty is little more than a flag on paper. A Palestinian “state” lacking borders, airspace, water, and an economy would be a phantom. The Western vision is one of management, not liberation: Abbas — or a hand-picked successor in his mold — presiding over fractured enclaves while Israel sets the terms.

Yet even this empty gesture alarms Washington and Tel Aviv, who move to crush it before it gathers force. The visa ban is more than bureaucracy—it is an assault on Palestinian representation itself. Once again, the US proves not a mediator but Israel’s enforcer, binding its credibility to permanent occupation.

For those who believed collaboration would yield liberation, the lesson could not be sharper. Decades of compliance, of abandoning armed struggle for negotiations and coordinating security with an occupier, have yielded nothing but betrayal.

The moment Abbas sought accountability, he was discarded like a tool no longer useful. You cannot compromise your way to freedom; bargaining with those determined to erase you leads only to erasure.

In silencing Abbas, Washington has not just humiliated a pliant Authority. It has broadcast contempt for international law, the UN system, and Palestinian voices.

The US poses as the champion of democracy and human rights, but this is the behavior of an authoritarian bully afraid of losing control. And though the Palestinian delegation may be barred from September’s Assembly, their absence will speak louder than any speech—reminding the world that a people erased from the chamber are not erased from history.

 

Iran arrests suspects having links with Mossad

Iran's Revolutionary Guards said on Saturday they had arrested eight people suspected of trying to transmit the coordinates of sensitive sites and details about senior military figures to Israel's Mossad, reports Iranian state media.

They are accused of having provided the information to the Mossad spy agency during Israel's air war on Iran in June, when it attacked Iranian nuclear facilities and killed top military commanders as well as civilians in the worst blow to the Islamic Republic since the 1980s war with Iraq.

Iran retaliated with barrages of missiles on Israeli military sites, infrastructure and cities. The United States entered the war on June 22 with strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

A Guard’s statement alleged that the suspects had received specialized training from Mossad via online platforms. It said they were apprehended in northeastern Iran before carrying out their plans, and that materials for making launchers, bombs, explosives and booby traps had been seized.

State media reported earlier this month that Iranian police had arrested as many as 21,000 "suspects" during the 12-day war with Israel, though they did not say what these people had been suspected of doing.

Security forces conducted a campaign of widespread arrests and also stepped up their street presence during the brief war that ended in a US-brokered ceasefire.

Iran has executed at least eight people in recent months, including nuclear scientist Rouzbeh Vadi, hanged on August 9 for passing information to Israel about another scientist killed in Israeli airstrikes.

Human rights groups say Iran uses espionage charges and fast tracked executions as tools for broader political repression.

 

Duality of standards for Iran and Israel

Many readers like me are unable to understand why the United States, Britain, France and Germany are adamant at imposing sanction on Iran, but are not asking Israel to stop bombarding Gaza?

The apparent contradiction reflects how strategic interests, alliances, and global optics intersect in United States and Britain, France and Germany foreign policy. Let me break it down:

Iran Nuclear Program

The United States, Britain France and Germany have long opposed Iran’s uranium enrichment, seeing it as a path to nuclear weapons. Sanctions are their primary leverage tool.

Regional Rivalries

Iran’s support for Hezbollah, Houthis, and other groups hostile to Israel and the West makes it a “destabilizer” in their eyes.

Alliance Pressures

Many Gulf Arab states are partners of Israel, US, Britain, France and Germany and they view Iran as a strategic threat, pushing Western powers to maintain maximum pressure.

Domestic Politics

In Washington and Europe, appearing “soft on Iran” is politically costly. Sanctions serve as a signal of toughness.

Israeli attacks on Gaza

Israel’s strikes in Gaza have caused massive civilian deaths. Western governments face pressure from international institutions (UN, ICC), NGOs, and their own publics.

The US, Britain France and Germany consider themselves defenders of international law. Unchecked Israeli bombing undermines their stance on Ukraine, human rights, and global order.

Escalation in Gaza risks dragging in Lebanon, Syria, and potentially Iran—threatening oil supplies and broader Middle East stability, which Europe especially fears.

In the US and Europe, large pro-Palestinian movements, especially among younger voters and immigrant communities are creating political pressure to rein in Israel.

Core Contradiction

On Iran, the West uses sanctions as a pressure tool because Iran is seen as an adversary.

On Israel, despite being an ally, the West uses diplomatic urging rather than sanctions—because Israel is a strategic partner, but its Gaza actions are politically damaging to the West’s global image.

In essence, Iran is a strategic opponent and super powers use sanctions as pressure

They consider Israel a strategic ally and want to save it from any external pressure, the statements are rhetoric only.

This double standard is being viewed in non-Western capitals (Beijing, Moscow, Global and South) as dual standard and Western stance weakens their credibility globally.

The non-Western world views this double standard of sanctions on Iran but “restraint pleas” for Israel.

China points out that the US, Britain, France and Germany are punishing Iran harshly for alleged destabilizing actions, but shield Israel diplomatically despite Gaza bombings.

By calling for ceasefires and humanitarian aid, China portrays itself as a “responsible global mediator,” contrasting with the West’s selective morality.

Iran is a vital energy partner for China under its Belt and Road Initiative. Sanctions make Tehran more dependent on Beijing, strengthening Chinese influence.

Russia

Russia terms the West’s “rules-based order” biased. They argue: “If bombing cities in Ukraine is a war crime, why not Gaza?”

Iran is often accused of supplying drones and partnering with Russia under sanctions, so Moscow benefits from Tehran’s isolation.

Russia frames itself as standing with the oppressed (Palestinians) against Western-backed aggression, resonating in Arab and African states.

Colonial Echoes

Many see the West’s defense of Israel and punishment of Iran as a continuation of imperial “divide and rule.”

Western claims about human rights and international law are viewed as selective—undermining their authority when they criticize others (African leaders, Asian governments).

Countries like Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa amplify calls for accountability against Israel, while trading more with Iran outside the dollar system.

Strategic Impact

The West’s inconsistency weakens its moral standing globally.

Non-Western powers gain diplomatic and economic space by filling the “justice gap.”

Iran, despite sanctions, finds sympathy in many Global South societies as a victim of Western double standards—while Israel risks becoming diplomatically isolated outside the Western bloc.

Moral of the story

The contradictory stances of US, Britain France and Germany may preserve short-term alliances, but they’re eroding their credibility in the long run, especially in the Global South.

 

PSX benchmark index declines 0.59%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during the week due to recent flooding in KPK and Punjab, coupled with heightened political noise. As a result, the benchmark index lost 870 points, down 0.59%WoW, to close at 148,617 points. Nonetheless, a partial recovery was seen in Friday’s session, with the index rebounding by 1,274 points on the back of robust corporate earnings, particularly from the cement sector.

Market participation improved, with average daily traded volume increasing by 13.7%WoW to 899 million shares, up from 790 million shares a week ago.

Net foreign exchange interventions by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) was reported at US$7.2 billion during 11MFY25.

SBP’s profit during FY25 fell by 27%YoY to PKR2.5 trillion given decline in interest rates. However, dividend payout to federal government surged to PKR2.7 trillion during the period.

SBP’s held gold reserves increased to US$6.8 billion, up 41%YoY in FY25.

SBP held foreign exchange reserves increased by US$18 million, closing the week at US$14.3 billion as of August 22, 2025.

PKR appreciated by 0.05%WoW against the greenback during the week, closing the week at PKR281.77/US$.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan gets 19% tariff after US drives a hard bargain, 2) SBP enhances housing finance limit for microfinance borrowers to PKR5 million, 3) ExxonMobil likely to come back for offshore venture, 4) Pakistan set to initiate dialogue with Qatar on LNG supplies, and 5) Budget deficit drops to 5.4% in FY25 from 6.8% for the same period last year.

Jute, Property, Cement, Cable & Electrical Goods, and Glass & Ceramics were amongst the top performers, while Woollen, Leather & Tanneries, Textile Spinning, Insurance, and Pharmaceuticals were amongst the laggards.

Major selling was recorded by Foreigners and Banks/DFIs with a net sell of US$23.4 million. Mutual Funds and Companies absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$27.8 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: PIBTL , SAZEW, DGKC, UPFL, and PAEL, while laggards included: AGP, BAHL, FABL, SRVI, and AIRLINK.

According to AKD Securities, PSX is expected to remain positive in the coming weeks, with further developments over circular debt expected to drive the market along with upcoming corporate results remaining in the limelight.

The benchmark is anticipated to sustain its upward trajectory, with a target of 165,215 points by end December 2025, primarily driven by strong earnings in Fertilizers, sustained ROEs in Banks, and improving cash flows of E&Ps and OMCs, benefiting from falling interest rates and economic stability.

The top picks of the brokerage house include: OGDC, PPL, PSO, FFC, ENGROH, MCB, INDU, and SYS.

E3 launch sanctions process against Iran

According to Reuters, Britain, France and Germany on Thursday launched a 30-day process to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran over its disputed nuclear program, a step likely to stoke tensions two months after Israel and the United States bombed Iran.

A senior Iranian official quickly accused the three European powers of harming diplomacy and vowed that Tehran would not bow to pressure over the move by the E3 to launch the so-called "snapback mechanism".

The three powers feared they would otherwise lose the prerogative in mid-October to restore sanctions on Tehran that were lifted under a 2015 nuclear accord with world powers.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot said the decision did not signal the end of diplomacy. His German counterpart Johann Wadephul urged Iran to now fully cooperate with the UN nuclear watchdog agency and commit to direct talks with the United States over the next month.

A senior Iranian official told Reuters the decision was "illegal and regrettable" but left the door open for engagement.

"The move is an action against diplomacy, not a chance for it. Diplomacy with Europe will continue," the official said, adding: "Iran will not concede under pressure."

The UN Security Council is due to meet behind closed doors on Friday at the request of the E3 to discuss the snapback move against the Islamic Republic, diplomats said.

Iran and the E3 have held several rounds of talks since Israel and the US bombed its nuclear installations in mid-June, aiming to agree to defer the snapback mechanism. But the E3 deemed that talks in Geneva on Tuesday did not yield sufficient signals of readiness for a new deal from Iran.

The E3 acted on Thursday over accusations that Iran has violated the 2015 deal that aimed to prevent it developing a nuclear weapons capability in return for a lifting of international sanctions. The E3, along with Russia, China and the United States, were party to that accord.

US President Donald Trump pulled Washington out of that accord in 2018 during his first term, calling the deal one-sided in Iran's favour, and it unravelled in ensuing years as Iran abandoned limits set on its enrichment of uranium.

Trump's second administration held fruitless indirect negotiations earlier this year with Tehran.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio welcomed the E3 move and said Washington remained available for direct engagement with Iran "in furtherance of a peaceful, enduring resolution to the Iran nuclear issue".

An Iranian source said Tehran would do so only "if Washington guarantees there will be no (military) strikes during the talks".

The E3 said they hoped Iran would engage by the end of September to allay concerns about its nuclear agenda sufficiently for them to defer concrete action.

"The E3 are committed to using every diplomatic tool available to ensure Iran never develops a nuclear weapon," including the snapback mechanism, they said in a letter sent to the UN Security Council.

 

Goldman Sachs forecasts decline in oil prices

Goldman Sachs expects the price of Brent crude futures contracts to decline to the low US$50s a barrel by late 2026 due to an increase in the surplus of oil next year, reports Reuters.

"We expect the oil surplus to widen and average 1.8 million barrels per day in fourth quarter 2025 through fourth quarter 2026, resulting in a nearly 800 million barrel rise in global stocks by end 2026," the US investment bank said in a client note on Tuesday.

It estimated that stored oil in member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation (OPEC) and Development will account for a third of total global stock or 270 million barrels in 2026. Coupled with reduced demand in OECD countries, it said this will lower Brent's fair value from the current mid-US$70s.

Goldman said Brent prices are likely to remain near those of forward contracts during the rest of 2025 but fall below those contracts next year as the increase in OECD stock accelerates.

However, it said potential acceleration in the growth of Chinese stock to 0.8 million barrels a day from 0.4 million barrels a day in the year to date would raise the 2026 Brent average by US$6 a barrel versus the bank's baseline to US$62.

Brent crude futures contracts were trading around US$67 a barrel in early Asian trade on Wednesday. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures contracts were trading at US$63.

Fury Over Murder of Journalists by Israel

Israel is drawing harsh criticism after it launched a pair of strikes at Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza on Monday that left at least 20 people dead, including journalists and healthcare workers.

As reported by CNN, Israel launched "back-to-back strikes on the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis" that were "separated by only a matter of minutes." The second strike killed some emergency crew members who had rushed to the scene in the wake of the first strike.

The strikes drew immediate condemnation from press freedom groups who accused Israel of intentionally attacking reporters in Gaza and dismissed claims by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the strikes were a "tragic mishap."

Thibaut Bruttin, the director general of Reporters Without Borders, said Israel attacked the journalists in an attempt to prevent them from delivering news about the famine in Gaza.

"How far will the Israeli armed forces go in their gradual effort to eliminate information coming from Gaza?" he asked. "How long will they continue to defy international humanitarian law? The protection of journalists is guaranteed by international law, yet more than 200 of them have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza over the past two years."

He then called upon the United Nations Security Council to set an emergency meeting to enact "concrete measures... to end impunity for crimes against journalists, protect Palestinian journalists, and open access to the Gaza Strip to all reporters."

Sara Qudah, regional director at the Committee to Protect Journalists, called out the international community for letting Israel get away with launching military strikes against reporters.

"Israel's broadcasted killing of journalists in Gaza continues while the world watches and fails to act firmly on the most horrific attacks the press has ever faced in recent history," she said. "These murders must end now. The perpetrators must no longer be allowed to act with impunity."

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) accused Israel of "silencing the last remaining voices reporting about children dying silently amid famine" in Gaza, while charging the international community with reacting with "indifference and inaction."

"This cannot be our future new norm," said UNRWA. "Compassion must prevail. Let us undo this man-made famine by opening the gates without restrictions and ⁠protecting journalists, humanitarian and health workers. Time for political will. Not tomorrow, now."

Former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan said that her fellow journalists needed to hold the Israeli government to account for its actions.

"Journalists everywhere need to stand in solidarity on this killing spree and resulting news blackout," she wrote on Bluesky.

And Drop Site News' Ryan Grim ripped into Netanyahu's claim that his government "deeply regrets the tragic mishap" that occurred at the hospital.

"Israel deeply regrets the tragic mishap of striking a hospital and then waiting 17 minutes until rescue workers gathered and striking it again," Grim commented sarcastically on X.

Israel has previously claimed that attacks on so-called "safe zones" and on aid workers were mistakes.

 

India alerts Pakistan about possible flood

Despite strained relations following the May 2025 standoff, India has formally alerted Pakistan about a potential flood in the River Tawi at Jammu that could affect the Pakistani territory.

According to a senior official, the Indian High Commission in Islamabad contacted the Foreign Office at 10am on Sunday, cautioning about a “significant flood situation.”

This marks the first major communication between the two countries since the May conflict, when bilateral ties deteriorated sharply.

Officials emphasized that the exchange was in line with the Indus Waters Treaty, which obliges both sides to share data on river flows and flood forecasts during the monsoon season.

Following the alert, the Government of Pakistan issued warnings to all relevant federal and provincial departments, including the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), irrigation departments and military engineering units.

The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty requires India and Pakistan to share flood-related data to help protect downstream communities and minimize damage from natural disasters.

While tensions remain high, officials described India’s latest move as a “positive gesture” under the treaty framework. The spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was unavailable for comment.

 

Will the story of the seven sisters be repeated in Pakistan

The United States is likely to commence oil exploration in Pakistan. It may be too early to talk about the likely outcome of US entry in Pakistan’s oil and gas exploration. However, it will be very insightful to explore, will the story of the seven sisters be repeated in Pakistan?

The “Seven Sisters” refers to the seven major Western oil companies (Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Gulf Oil, Texaco, BP, Shell) that dominated global oil production and pricing from the 1940s through the 1970s. They exercised near-monopolistic control over oil reserves in the Middle East, Latin America, and beyond—often exploiting weaker producer states, dictating terms of exploration and pricing, and sidelining local sovereignty. Their dominance was only broken after the rise of OPEC in the 1970s, when producing countries nationalized oil resources and asserted ownership.

Similarities to the Seven Sisters Era

Strategic Dependence

If Pakistan allows foreign companies (especially US majors) to explore and control its oil blocks without strong regulatory oversight, it risks repeating a dependency cycle where foreign firms repatriate profits, leaving limited benefit for the host economy.

Geopolitical Influence

Just as the Seven Sisters shaped Middle Eastern politics, US energy companies could wield geopolitical leverage over Pakistan’s foreign policy, especially given its precarious IMF dependence and ties with Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran.

Asymmetry in Bargaining Power

Pakistan’s economic weakness may force it to accept lopsided contracts (production-sharing agreements, tax holidays, profit guarantees) in favor of US firms.

Key Differences Today

Rise of National Oil Companies

Unlike in the 1950s, today Saudi Aramco, ADNOC, Petronas, CNPC and even OGDCL and PPL exist in Pakistan. They country has more leverage to create joint ventures instead of full foreign control.

OPEC Plus and Energy Nationalism

Oil producing states are much more aware of resource sovereignty. Pakistan could align itself with models used by Middle Eastern producers (service contracts, technology partnerships, revenue-sharing).

Multipolar World

Unlike the US and British dominated oil order of the Seven Sisters, today Russia, China, Gulf states, and even renewable energy competition provide alternatives. Pakistan is not locked into only US companies.

Domestic Politics & Public Awareness

Civil society, media, and political opposition in Pakistan can challenge exploitative deals, unlike in the early Seven Sisters era when secrecy prevailed.

Possible Scenarios for Pakistan

Repetition of Seven Sisters

If Pakistan grants excessive concessions, lacks regulatory oversight, and allows oil companies to dictate terms, then yes, it risks becoming a neo-colonial oil frontier.

Balanced Partnership

If Pakistan uses joint ventures, ensures technology transfer, and negotiates fair production-sharing agreements, it can benefit without ceding sovereignty.

Strategic Competition

The US entry may trigger Saudi, Chinese, and Russian counteroffers, giving Pakistan leverage but also complicating its geopolitics.

Moral of the story

The Seven Sisters story will only repeat in Pakistan if policymakers repeat the mistakes of weak bargaining and short-term concessions. If Pakistan plays smart—diversifying partners, prioritizing sovereignty, and aligning exploration with long-term energy security—it can avoid becoming a pawn like many Middle Eastern states were in the mid-20th century.

Riviera of Middle East to Trump economic zone

In a report on August 21, Axios revealed part of the US President Donald Trump’s ambition in South Lebanon according to which the region will be transformed into an investment zone. The plan, called “Trump economic zone”, would be part of a greater project extending from Gaza and the West Bank, through Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and the Persian Gulf.

The “Trump economic zone” was revealed after Axios, quoting two informed sources, said in its report headlined “US asks Israel to scale down Lebanon strikes after decision to disarm Hezbollah”.

According to Axios, the Lebanese cabinet's unprecedented decision to prepare to disarm Hezbollah by the end of 2025 came at the urging of the US, but many in the region doubt the government will be able to carry it out.

Trump’s vision for South Lebanon is a practical application of his “economic realism” with which he approaches West Asian issues.

Obviously, the controversial US President believes that the conflict with the Israeli occupation entity can be simplified and resolved through investments.

However, the “Trump economic zone” is nothing but dreams and illusions.

Trump believes that the Lebanese strip adjacent to the border with the occupied Palestine will automatically put an end to the resistance. He is deluded that peace and prosperity will prevail once the project is implemented.

This delusion is similar to his dream of turning Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East,” which would drown the Gazans in a supposed prosperity, making them forget their resistance to the Israeli occupation!

Trump and those around him delude themselves that the popular base of the Resistance is unaware of the seriousness of what is being plotted against them.

Economic temptation may be an effective tool to confront the resistance project, but previous experiences and the occupation regime’s false peace projects no longer fool anyone.

Despite their small number and modest capabilities, resistance, for the people of Lebanon and Palestine, is not merely a tactical option but rather the foundation of their sacred ideological identity, which cannot be abandoned, no matter the sacrifices and costs.

It is clear that the American empire has never ceased to treat other peoples as cheap tools for its factories. Our people believe that any Western economic initiative is nothing more than an attempt to buy people’s loyalty and turn them into slaves and mercenaries.

Last December, Israel Hayom reported that dozens of members of Ori Tzafon, also known as the Movement for Settlement in South Lebanon, had invaded the skirts of Maroun al-Ras to lay the foundation stone for a settlement called Mei Marom.

“Maroun al-Ras was an ancient Hebrew land where priests lived. We will return to all the places where Jews lived in Lebanon,” they claimed.

The Lebanese government, of course, remained silent, just as it did when Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir toured occupied Lebanese territory two weeks ago, threatening that his occupying entity “will not go back and will not allow threats to grow again.”

The government also remained silent as an Israeli prisoner in Lebanon was released unconditionally.

Meanwhile, US deputy envoy Morgan Ortagus is expected to return to Beirut early next week along with a congressional delegation that comprises hardline Zionist Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.

The visit will take place as Iranian National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani made a notable statement. He affirmed Iran’s continued support for Hezbollah, which he described as “Lebanon’s strategic capital.”

 

Trump-Putin meeting and implications for East Asian allies

Nikkei Asia claims it focuses on writing about Asia from an Asian perspective. Even when writing about the current occupant of the White House, it tries to look at what his rhetoric and policies mean for this region.

Much of the world's media focused on the direct implications for Europe stemming from US President Donald Trump's summit last weekend with Vladimir Putin and his subsequent meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and a group of European leaders.

James D.J. Brown looked at the implications for East Asia stemming from these diplomatic gatherings.

Brown writes that the US president's pandering to the Russian dictator and failure to support Ukraine bodes ill, not just for Europe, but for US allies in East Asia.

He makes three key points:

1- In rolling out the red carpet for Putin, a man subject to an arrest warrant for war crimes from the International Criminal Court, Trump is flaunting his disregard for a rules-based international order. This matters enormously to countries in East Asia, including Japan, whose security and prosperity is based on the principle that larger states cannot seize territory from weaker neighbors through military force.

2- The concern is that, having dealt with Putin over the heads of the Ukrainians, Trump could do the same with China, and make 'a big, beautiful' deal with Xi Jinping regarding Taiwan.

3- US allies in the region will be concerned about Trump's increasing unreliability and impressionability as shown by his flip-flopping on Russia policy.

Also on the American leader, William Pesek argues that Xi must be loving how Trump is remaking the US in China's image.

He writes, "Trump's Chinafication project can be seen in his effort to morph the Federal Reserve into the People's Bank of China, obscure economic data, defang the courts, take government stakes in major companies like Intel and demand a 15% cut of Nvidia's chip sales to China. The White House getting a 'golden share' stake free of charge in Nippon Steel's deal for US Steel pulsates with Politburo energy.”

"The circus atmosphere pervading Trump 2.0 means time is on China's side. Optimism that Xi will be the one making an offer Trump cannot refuse has Shanghai traders ready to pop the champagne corks. And, who knows, they may be right," Pesek adds.

Outside of the Trump-sphere, Vivian Toh explains why Huawei's HarmonyOS has struggled to adopt smaller apps, while Ben Cordier and Eve Yang make the case for Asian job markets being able to weather global economic uncertainty.

 

Venezuela: US attempt to change regime

The White House's announcement Wednesday that it had deployed three warships to the coast of Venezuela has raised fears among antiwar and human rights advocates of the US becoming embroiled in another potential "regime change" quagmire.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has accused Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of being one of the world's largest traffickers of illegal narcotics and of leading the cocaine trafficking gang Cartel de los Soles.

In 2020, Maduro was charged with narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine into the US, with the first Trump administration promising a US$15 million reward for his arrest. The Biden administration increased that bounty to US$25 million before Trump, earlier this month, doubled it to US$50 million.

Trump also expanded the litany of accusations against Maduro, alleging that he is the kingpin of Mexico's Sinaloa cartel, an allegation that Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum says there is no evidence to support.

Even before Maduro's indictment, however, Trump had long sought to oust him from power. During his first term, he repeatedly suggested that the US should invade Venezuela to take Maduro out—an idea that his top aides rebuffed.

Trump instead dramatically escalated sanctions on Venezuela, which many studies have shown contributed to the nation's historic economic crisis. His former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo explicitly acknowledged that the goal of these sanctions was to push the Venezuelan people to topple Maduro.

In 2023, following his first presidency, Trump lamented at a rally that the US had to purchase oil from Venezuela, saying that if he were in charge, "We would have taken [Venezuela] over; we would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door."

The exact objective of Trump's destroyers, which are expected to arrive on the Venezuelan coast as soon as Sunday, remains unclear.

But the Venezuelan government and others in the region have perceived Trump's threats as a serious provocation.

On Monday, Maduro said he would mobilize 4.5 million militia members following what he called "the renewal of extravagant, bizarre, and outlandish threats" from Trump. After the announcement of approaching warships, those militias began to be deployed throughout the country.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro issued a harsh warning to Trump following the news. "The gringos are mad if they think invading Venezuela will solve their problem," he said. "They are dragging Venezuela into a Syria-like situation, with the problem that they are dragging Colombia too."

The American antiwar group CodePink condemned the deployment of ships as a "reckless escalation" that "dangerously militarizes the Caribbean and brings our region closer to war."

The group argues that Venezuela's role in drug trafficking is being overblown to justify an invasion. They note that the US's own internal assessments of global drug trafficking have not identified Venezuela as a primary transit country. They also cite the UN's latest World Drug Report, which did not find Venezuela to be a central node of the drug trade.

The Washington Office on Latin America, a DC-based human rights group, has warned that a regime change war would likely be a catastrophe on par with the invasion of Iraq two decades prior.

"The 'victorious' US military would likely find itself governing an impoverished country with broken institutions, trying to hand over power to an opposition weakened by repression and exile, and probably facing an insurgency made up of regime diehards, criminal groups, and even Colombian guerrillas," they said. "There is no evidence that this approach would lead to a democratic transition in Venezuela."

"These aggressive policies seek to extend US dominance in Latin America, no matter the human cost," CodePink said. "The people of Venezuela, like the people of the United States, deserve peace, dignity, and sovereignty, not threats, blockades, and warships."

Courtesy: Common Dreams 

Trump Era: A Retribution Presidency

Back in the days when George W. Bush was president, the appointment of John Bolton as US ambassador the United Nations triggered an uproar among Democrats and even a few Republicans who viewed him as a less-than-diplomatic hawk and loose cannon. He resurfaced a decade later in the first Trump administration as a national security adviser, but soon ran into trouble over disagreements with his new boss.

Then he wrote a book about it. In it, he excoriated Trump as an alleged conspiracy theorist with little understanding of foreign policy or government. More recently, Bolton has said the 79-year-old president’s renewed interest in a Russia-Ukraine peace deal is because he wants the Nobel Peace Prize.

For years, Trump has slammed the book and Bolton, alleging the book revealed classified information despite Bolton’s contention it had been cleared by the government.

On Friday, it all escalated. Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation under director Kash Patel—a Trump loyalist who has alluded to retaliation against political opponents—searched Bolton’s home and office, a raid said to be tied to classified documents. 

In the early days of his second term, Trump pulled the security details protecting Bolton and several other former officials. Bolton had been targeted by Iran for his role in the 2020 American assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Qassem Soleimani, a strike ordered by Trump.

In a recent interview with ABC News, Bolton was asked if he feared Trump might go after him. Bolton said he had already done so. “He’s already come after me and several others in withdrawing the protection that we had,” Bolton said. He called Trump’s leadership “a retribution presidency.”

 

PSX benchmark index up 2.0%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) was supported by strong corporate earnings and Moody’s upgrade of deposit ratings for Pakistani banks, while demonstrating weakness later on in the week due to political noise. The benchmark index touched an all-time high of 151,262 points, but closed the week at 149,493 points, up 2.0%WoW.

Market participation rose 31%WoW to 790 million shares, from 606 million shares a week ago.

On the macroeconomic front, Pakistan posted a current account deficit of US$254 million as compared to a deficit of US$348 million during the same period last year.

IT exports for July 2025 increased by 24%YoY to US$354 million, from US$286 million during the same period last year.

LSM index witnessed an increase of 4.1%YoY in June 2025, resulting in FY25 declining by 0.7%YoY.

As regards sectoral developments, urea fertilizer offtakes moderated by 1%YoY during July 2025, mainly due to weak farm economics and higher phosphate prices.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$13 million to US$14.3 billion as of August 15, 2025. As a result, PKR appreciated for the 5th consecutive week against the greenback.

Other major news inflows during the week included: 1) ADB to promises to provide US$410 million package for Reko Diq copper and gold mines, 2) Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi arrives in Islamabad on three-day visit, 3) July 2025 FDI rises 7%YoY to US$208 million, 4) Tehran agrees raising trade with Pakistan to US$10 billion, and 5) GoP slashes high-speed diesel while leaving petrol price unchanged.

REITs, Leather & Tanneries, and Transport were amongst the top performing sectors, while Vanaspati & allied industries, Close-end Mutual funds, and Chemical sectors among the laggards.

Major selling was recorded by Foreigners and Banks/DFIs with a net sell of US$21.6 million. Mutual Funds and Companies absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$24.7 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: KOHC, SEARL, BAHL, THALL, and MUGHAL, while the laggards included: PGLC, PKGP, HUMNL, YOUW, and NESTLE.

According to Pakistan’s leading brokerage house, PSX is expected to remain positive in the coming weeks, with further developments over circular debt expected to drive the market along with upcoming corporate results remaining in the limelight.

The benchmark index is anticipated to sustain its upward trajectory, with a target of 165,215 points by end December 2025, primarily driven by strong earnings in Fertilizers, sustained ROEs in Banks, and improving cash flows of E&Ps and OMCs, benefiting from falling interest rates and economic stability.

Top picks of the brokerage house include: OGDC, PPL, PSO, FFC, ENGROH, MCB, FCCL, INDU, and SYS.

US issues sanctions on entities from China, Hong Kong and UAE

Reuters reports that the Trump administration on Thursday issued more Iran-related sanctions, targeting 13 entities based in Hong Kong, China, the United Arab Emirates and the Marshall Islands, as well as eight vessels, the US Treasury Department said.

The measures cover Greek national Antonios Margaritis and his network of companies and vessels that Treasury said was involved in transporting Iranian oil exports in violation of sanctions.

Treasury also designated Ares Shipping in Hong Kong, Comford Management in the Marshall Islands and Hong Kong Hangshun Shipping in Hong Kong.

Designated crude oil tankers include Panama-flagged vessels Adeline G and Kongm, and Lafit under the flag of Sao Tome and Principe.

The State Department separately said it imposed sanctions on two China-based operators of oil-related terminals and storage. It said they handled imports of Iranian oil aboard tankers previously targeted by US sanctions.

The firms were identified as Qingdao Port Haiye Dongjiakou Oil Products Co. in Shandong province and Yangshan Shengang International Petroleum Storage and Transportation Co in Zhejiang province.

Golden Ocean-CMB.Tech merger

Golden Ocean’s shareholders approved an all-stock merger with CMB.Tech at a meeting on August 19 with the green light from Golden Ocean’s shareholders the merger was expected to close on August 20, reports Seatrade Maritime News.

Under the terms of the merger all common shares in Golden Ocean will be cancelled an exchanged for 0.95 shares in the newly enlarged CMB.Tech.

CMB.Tech shareholders will own around 70% of the merged company, and Golden Ocean shareholders will have a roughly 30% stake.

The deal will see Golden Ocean’s fleet of 90 bulk carriers, comprising 59 Capesizes and 31 Panamaxes, with a capacity of 13.7 million tons, join CMB.Tech’s diversified fleet of 160 vessels. CMB.Tech operates a range of crude oil tankers, dry bulk vessels, container ships, chemical tankers, offshore wind vessels and workboats.

The merged company will have a combined fleet of 250 vessels estimated to be worth US$11 billion.

The merger will see Golden Ocean delisted from the NASDAQ and Euronext Oslo Børs, while CMB.Tech adds a secondary listing on Euronext Oslo Børs in addition to its NYSE and Euronext Brussels listings.

The merger followed CMB.Tech acquiring John Fredriksen’s Hemen Holdings 40.8% stake in Golden Ocean for US$1.18 billion in March this year. It was a move that was to see Fredriksen selling most of his dry bulk shipping assets.

Antwerp-headquartered CMB.Tech is controlled by the Savery’s family. The listed-company formerly known as Euronav acquired 106 vessels from the Savery’s owned CMB in 2024.

The move was part of a strategy to diversify the business of the former Euronav from tankers into dry bulk, container ships and offshore wind, with a focus on green ships and renewable energy.

 

Geopolitical stunts are created to maneuver oil prices

It may not be wrong to say that geopolitical stunts (or deliberate political maneuvers) are often used to influence oil prices. The time proves that oil is one of the most geopolitically sensitive commodities, and even the perception of instability can trigger price movements. Here are some ways this happens:

Military Conflicts and Threats

Tensions in oil-producing regions (Middle East, Russia, and Ukraine) raise fears of supply disruptions. Even without actual disruption, rhetoric, military drills, or strikes can cause speculative buying, lifting prices.

Sanctions and Embargoes

Sanctions on major producers (Iran, Venezuela, and Russia) reduce their exports, tightening supply. Announcements of new sanctions, even before implementation, often drive markets up.

OPEC Plus Announcements

OPEC and allies strategically announce production cuts or increases to move prices. Sometimes the timing is politically motivated — for example, cuts ahead of US elections or global summits.

Diplomatic Stunts

Leaders may signal alliances, threats, or peace talks to calm or unsettle oil markets. For instance, US–Saudi or US–Iran engagements often coincide with volatility in oil futures.

Domestic Politics

Countries that depend heavily on oil revenues (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela) may trigger or amplify tensions abroad to keep oil prices high. Conversely, big consumers (United States, China, and European Union) may release strategic oil reserves to cool prices.

Media Amplification

Headlines about “possible war,” “pipeline sabotage,” or “shipping lane blockades” often move markets more than the actual underlying event. Traders react to expectations and fear, not just physical supply-demand.

Therefore, it could be concluded that oil markets are not purely economic — they are political battlegrounds, and states often use geopolitical stunts as levers to maneuver prices in their favor.

Here are three recent real world examples (2025) where geopolitical maneuvers clearly influenced oil prices—either via threat driven surges or optimism amid shifting sanctions and diplomacy.

Threat to Close the Strait of Hormuz

In June 2025, escalating attacks between Israel and Iran triggered a spike in oil prices—Brent crude climbed to US$70 per barrel amid concerns over supply disruptions and potential threats to the vital Strait of Hormuz.

On June 14, 2025, Iran explicitly threatened to close the Strait, which handles nearly 20% of global oil traffic. Analysts warned this could push prices even higher—possibly into the US$100 to US$150 per barrel range.

While a full closure didn’t materialize, the mere threat created a sharp short-term price shock, echoing how geopolitical risk can rapidly alter market sentiment.

Russia Ukraine Peace Talks

In August 2025, oil markets closely tracked developments—or lack thereof—in high-profile diplomatic efforts involving Russia, the United States, and Ukraine.

When President Trump proposed a trilateral summit (Putin–Zelenskiy–himself), Brent crude briefly climbed—markets anticipated that a ceasefire could eventually ease sanctions and boost supply.

Conversely, when the Trump–Putin summit yielded no binding oil or policy changes, markets cooled; analysts noted the event lacked the "magic lever" to relieve supply constraints.

Ongoing sanctions and inventory draws in the US—especially amid strong demand—continued to support prices amid supply uncertainty.

OPEC Plus Production Moves

In June 2025, OPEC Plus surprised markets by announcing a modest output increase of around 411,000 barrels per day, despite prevailing worries of oversupply. This unexpected move served as a geopolitical reminder of OPEC Plus ability to tweak supply—and kept oil prices elevated.

This came at a time when global crude production was running high, yet the announcement shaped expectations that geopolitical coordination could still swing the market.

Geopolitical Stunts Still Matter

Perception matters:

Markets often react more sharply to the fear of disruption—like threats to chokepoints—than to actual events.

Short-term risk channel:

As historical analyses show, geopolitical shocks typically drive short-term price spikes via risk premiums, though long-term economic slowdown may offset these gains.

Strategic signaling:

Diplomatic posturing—summits, threats, tariffs—can sway trader sentiment and pricing, even without concrete policy shifts.

Israel's plan to erase idea of Palestinian state

According to Reuters, a widely condemned Israeli settlement plan that would cut across land that the Palestinians seek for a state received final approval on Wednesday, according to a statement from Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

The approval of the E1 project, which would bisect the occupied West Bank and cut it off from East Jerusalem, was announced last week by Smotrich and received the final go-ahead from a Defence Ministry planning commission on Wednesday.

"With E1, we are delivering finally on what has been promised for years," Smotrich, an ultra-nationalist in the ruling right-wing coalition, said in a statement.

"The Palestinian state is being erased from the table, not with slogans but with actions."

Restarting the project could further isolate Israel, which has watched some Western allies frustrated by its continuation and planned escalation of the Gaza war announce they may recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

"We condemn the decision taken today on expanding this particular settlement, which ... will drive a stake through the heart of the two-state solution," said UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric. "We call on the government of Israel to halt all settlement activity."

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry also condemned the announcement, saying the E1 settlement would isolate Palestinian communities living in the area and undermine the possibility of a two-state solution.

British Foreign Minister David Lammy said on X: "If implemented, it would divide a Palestinian state in two, mark a flagrant breach of international law and critically undermine the two-state solution."

A German government spokesperson commenting on the announcement told reporters that settlement construction violates international law and "hinders a negotiated two-state solution and an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not commented on the E1 announcement.

On Sunday, during a visit to Ofra, another West Bank settlement established a quarter of a century ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made broader comments, saying, "I said 25 years ago that we will do everything to secure our grip on the Land of Israel, to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, to prevent the attempts to uproot us from here. Thank God, what I promised, we have delivered."

 

Israel takes steps for military operation in Gaza City

According to Reuters, Israeli military has taken the first steps of a planned operation to take over Gaza City, Israeli military spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin said on Wednesday.

Following a clash with Hamas south of Khan Younis in the strip on Wednesday, he said, "We will deepen the attack on Hamas in Gaza City, a stronghold of governmental and military terror for the terrorist organization."

Defrin said troops had already begun circling the outskirts of Gaza City and Hamas was now a "battered and bruised" guerrilla force.

"We have begun the preliminary operations and the first stages of the attack on Gaza City, and already now IDF forces are holding the outskirts of Gaza City," he said.

Israel's military called up tens of thousands of reservists on Wednesday in preparation for the expected assault on Gaza City, as the Israeli government considered a new proposal for a ceasefire after nearly two years of war.

The call-up signals Israel is pressing ahead with its plan to seize Gaza's biggest urban centre despite international criticism of an operation likely to force the displacement of many more Palestinians.

But a military official briefing reporters said reserve soldiers would not report for duty until September, an interval that gives mediators some time to bridge gaps between Palestinian militant group Hamas and Israel over truce terms.

Israeli troops clashed on Wednesday with more than 15 Hamas militants who emerged from tunnel shafts and attacked with gunfire and anti-tank missiles near Khan Younis, south of Gaza City, severely wounding one soldier and lightly wounding two others, an Israeli military official said.

In a statement, Hamas' Al-Qassam Brigades confirmed carrying out a raid on Israeli troops southeast of Khan Younis and engaging Israeli troops at point-blank range. It said one fighter blew himself up among the soldiers, causing casualties, during an attack that lasted several hours.

Can there be an end to India-China animosity?

Relations between China and India are on a “positive trend” towards cooperation, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Indian counterpart in New Delhi.

The world’s two most populous nations are intense rivals competing for influence across South Asia, and fought a deadly border clash in 2020.

India is also part of the Quad security alliance with the United States, Australia and Japan, which is seen as a counter to China.

Caught in global trade and geopolitical turbulence triggered by US President Donald Trump’s tariff war, the countries have moved to mend ties.

During talks on Monday with Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India’s foreign minister, Wang said the two countries should “view each other as partners and opportunities, rather than adversaries or threats”.

He pointed to the resumption of “dialogue at all levels” and “maintenance of peace and tranquility in border areas” as evidence that bilateral ties were on a “positive trend of returning to the main path of cooperation”.

Wang is also expected to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his three-day visit.

According to Indian media, Modi might visit China this month, which would be his first trip since 2018.

Relations have improved since October, when Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping met for the first time in five years in Russia.

Chinese and Indian officials have said in recent weeks that the two countries were discussing the resumption of border trade, which has been halted since 2020.

Its resumption would be symbolically significant, and follows discussions to resume direct flights and issue tourist visas.

At this juncture it is necessary to examine the factors responsible for the confrontation between China and India.

Point blank it could be said that the omnipresent confrontation is rooted in a mix of historical, geopolitical, economic, and strategic factors.

While both the countries are major Asian powers and share a long border, their relations have been tense for decades. The reasons include:

Border Disputes

The 3,488 kilometers (2,167 miles) boundary between China and India is not formally demarcated. Two main disputed Areas are: 1) Aksai Chin (controlled by China, claimed by India) and 2) Arunachal Pradesh (controlled by India, claimed by China as “South Tibet”). Repeated standoffs (Doklam 2017, Galwan 2020) occur due to patrol overlaps and differing perceptions of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Historical Legacy

The 1962 Sino-Indian War left a deep scar. China defeated India and occupied Aksai Chin. India still feels betrayed, as relations before 1962 were publicly friendly under “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai” (India-China brotherhood).

Strategic Rivalry in Asia

Both nations see themselves as dominant Asian powers. China views India’s rise and its closeness with the US, Japan, and Australia (Quad alliance) as a counterbalance to Beijing.

Similarly, India sees China’s moves in the Indian Ocean (ports in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Myanmar) as strategic encirclement, often called the “String of Pearls.”

China–Pakistan Nexus

China is Pakistan’s closest ally, providing military, economic, and diplomatic support. The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passes through Gilgit-Baltistan, a territory claimed by India. This deepens India’s suspicion that China aims to strategically contain it.

Tibet and the Dalai Lama

India hosts the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharamshala. China sees this as interference in its internal affairs and a threat to its sovereignty over Tibet.

Economic Competition

India sees Chinese dominance in trade and technology as a threat. After the 2020 border clashes, India banned over 200 Chinese apps and tightened FDI rules from China.

Both China and India compete for influence in South Asia, Africa, and global institutions.

Military Build-up

Both nations are rapidly modernizing and militarizing their borders. China has built extensive infrastructure (roads, rail, and airstrips) along the LAC. India is catching up with new highways, forward bases, and troop deployments.

Nationalism and Domestic Politics

In both countries, leaders use nationalist rhetoric to project strength. In India, strong responses to China are politically popular. In China, the Communist Party portrays territorial claims as non-negotiable to maintain legitimacy.

Geopolitics

China is wary of India’s growing ties with the US (Indo-Pacific strategy, defense pacts). India distrusts China’s closeness with Russia and Pakistan. Both are competing in international organizations (UN, BRICS, SCO, and G20).