PSX benchmark index closes almost flat despite volatility

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) experienced volatility throughout the week amid border tensions with Afghanistan, declining initially before rebounding sharply by 4,900 points in the final session following positive news of a potential ceasefire. It ultimately closed at 161,632 points, down 1% during the week.

Average daily traded volumes contracted by 14.7%WoW to 1,564 million shares despite roll over week as investors remained cautious.

The key highlight was the decision by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) to maintain the policy rate at 11%, broadly in line with expectations.

Pakistan-Afghanistan negotiations in Istanbul concluded with a truce under certain conditions, easing geopolitical tensions.

Meanwhile, authorities assured the IMF of additional PKR200 billion in revenue measures if 1HFY26 tax targets fall short.

In the T-Bill auction, the SBP raised PPR1.0 trillion, with yields falling 11bps on 1-month paper but rising 10bps on 12-month tenor.

Foreign exchange reserves held by SBP declined by US$16 million to US$14.5 billion as of October 24, 2025.

AKD Securities foresees the momentum in the benchmark index to continue given successful staff-level agreement of the IMF’s second review, minimal flood impact and improved credit ratings by global agencies amid falling fixed income yields.

Investors’ sentiments are expected to further improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

This outlook is supported by the lack of alternative investment avenues and the attractive valuation of local equities.

Top picks of AKD Securities include MEBL, MCB, HBL, OGDC, PPL, PSO, FFC, ENGROH, LUCK, DGKC, FCCL, SYS and INDU.

 

Why Pak-Afghan Conflict Remains Unresolved?

The conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan remains unresolved because it is rooted in a mix of historical disputes, mutual mistrust, and competing security interests that have persisted for decades. Despite cultural, religious, and economic linkages, both nations continue to view each other with suspicion rather than cooperation.

At the heart of the problem lies the Durand Line, drawn by the British in 1893 and inherited by Pakistan after independence. Afghanistan has never formally recognized it as an international border, claiming it divides the Pashtun population. Pakistan, however, considers the frontier legally settled. This disagreement has become a symbol of deeper political and ethnic tensions.

The Pashtun question adds another layer of complexity. The tribes on both sides share linguistic and familial ties, but political narratives have often turned these affinities into instruments of rivalry. Pakistan fears Afghan nationalism could spill over its borders, while Kabul perceives Pakistan’s involvement as interference in its internal affairs.

Security concerns have long overshadowed diplomacy. Since the Soviet invasion of 1979, Pakistan has played a key role in Afghan affairs, hosting millions of refugees and supporting various political factions. Yet, both sides accuse each other of harboring hostile groups — Pakistan blames Afghanistan for sheltering the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), while Kabul accuses Islamabad of backing insurgents. This cycle of allegations has eroded trust.

The Taliban’s return to power in 2021 initially raised hopes for stability, but their refusal to recognize the Durand Line and restrain TTP activities has renewed friction. Meanwhile, regional players — including India, Iran, China, and the United States — continue to shape dynamics that complicate bilateral understanding.

For lasting peace, both countries must shift from blame to dialogue, strengthen border management, and build economic interdependence through trade and connectivity. The Pak-Afghan relationship should not remain hostage to history; instead, it should evolve into a partnership anchored in mutual respect and regional stability.

Only through sustained diplomacy, trust-building, and shared development goals can Pakistan and Afghanistan transform a troubled past into a cooperative future.

 

 

No One Is Talking About Gaza

The world seems to have forgotten Gaza. The much-trumpeted ceasefire was never peace—it was merely a pause, a calculated silence that allowed Israel to continue its assault under softer headlines. Killings, raids, and blockades persist, but the outrage has vanished. Western media, once overflowing with images of destruction, now devotes its front pages to Trump’s political theatrics and market gossip. This apathy is not accidental; it reflects selective morality and political convenience. When Ukraine suffers, it’s front-page news; when Gaza bleeds, it disappears. The ceasefire was not an end to violence but a rebranding of it—acceptable to Western capitals and ignored by global media. Gaza remains trapped between occupation and silence, its tragedy erased by those who claim to defend human rights.

When the so-called Gaza ceasefire was announced, the world sighed in relief. On October 16, 2026, I wrote “Gaza: Ceasefire Brings Pause, Not Peace.” Sadly, that assessment has proved accurate. What was projected as a humanitarian breakthrough has merely given Israel a quieter stage to continue its aggression—less visible, but equally lethal.

Killings, arrests, and systematic strangulation of Gaza’s population have not stopped. Reports by independent observers describe continued night raids, targeted assassinations, and a tightening blockade that deprives millions of food, medicine, and fuel. Yet, the international community acts as if peace has returned. It hasn’t. What returned is complacency—disguised as relief.

The Western media, once saturated with vivid images of destruction, has conveniently moved on. Its focus has shifted to Trump’s political drama, Wall Street turbulence, and AI-driven optimism. The suffering of Gaza has simply fallen off the editorial map. This silence is not a lapse; it is a choice. It reflects a hierarchy of human lives—a moral framework where victims matter only if their suffering fits Western narratives.

The tragedy is not only Israel’s continued impunity but also the media’s complicity in erasing it. The same outlets that once counted every missile strike now seem allergic to truth when it no longer serves their political comfort. When Ukraine bleeds, headlines multiply; when Gaza starves, the world looks away.

This selective blindness reveals a deeper sickness in global conscience. Human rights, it appears, are not universal—they are conditional, determined by who the victim is and who the perpetrator happens to be. Western capitals that preach democracy and humanitarian values have reduced Palestine to a talking point, not a principle.

Silence is not neutrality; it is endorsement. Every unreported killing, every censored image, every muted appeal strengthens the aggressor’s hand. Israel understands this perfectly. A quiet Gaza allows it to deepen occupation policies without scrutiny. And the world, addicted to short attention spans, gives it exactly that space.

International organizations remain trapped between bureaucratic inertia and political pressure. The so-called peace architects, who engineered the fragile ceasefire, have vanished from the scene. For them, “mission accomplished” meant restoring calm, not justice.

The truth is harsh: Gaza has been abandoned again—this time not under bombs, but under silence. Western media’s shift of focus from genocide to gossip exposes the moral decay of an information system guided by profit and politics, not by conscience.

Until the world admits that a ceasefire without accountability is merely an intermission between massacres, Gaza will remain a scar on the world’s conscience—a living reminder of how easily human suffering can be ignored when it is politically inconvenient.

 

 

 

 

Billionaires vs. Mamdani: Democracy for Sale

The billionaire class is spending millions to block Zohran Mamdani’s rise — not because he threatens New York City’s stability, but because he threatens their supremacy. Mamdani’s agenda of taxing the ultra-rich to fund housing, public transit, and child care strikes at the heart of a system that lets the few profit while the many struggle. His opponents — hedge-fund moguls, property tycoons, and Wall Street donors — are pouring unprecedented sums into super PACs to drown out a movement built on ordinary citizens.

This isn’t about protecting the economy; it’s about protecting privilege. The same billionaires who hoard wealth offshore suddenly claim to care about fiscal discipline. Their fear is ideological — that Mamdani’s victory will prove that grassroots politics can defeat corporate cash. They see democracy not as a marketplace of ideas, but as an asset they can buy, trade, and hedge against.

By weaponizing money to silence dissenting voices, they expose the fragility of American democracy. A candidate advocating fairness is branded a threat, while those funding inequality are hailed as “defenders of growth.” The irony is suffocating.

Mamdani’s campaign is more than a local contest — it’s a referendum on whether voters or billionaires rule America. Every dollar spent against him is a vote against equality, against the idea that power should serve the people, not purchase them. If billionaires succeed in crushing his candidacy, it will not be a victory for democracy — it will be its price tag.

China’s key role in development of Asia Pacific rim

Ahead of the 32nd APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting, set to be held in Gyeongju, South Korea, from October 31 to November 01, CGTN has published an article highlighting how China has continuously injected stability and fresh momentum to the development of the Asia-Pacific region over the years.

Just days after the fourth plenary session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) concluded in Beijing, Chinese President Xi Jinping is going to make his first overseas trip since the CPC plenum — to attend the 32nd APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting and to pay a state visit to South Korea from October 30 to November 01.

As the session reaffirmed China's long-term vision and steady commitment to sharing growth opportunities with the world, observers are watching closely to see how China's leadership will bring new energy to Asia-Pacific development and help guide the region through increasing geopolitical and economic challenges.

"There has never been a more critical time for APEC," said Eduardo Pedrosa, executive director of the APEC Secretariat, in a recent interview. He expressed his anticipation of President Xi's participation, emphasizing that China has long been a strong supporter and contributor to APEC.

Openness and connectivity for win-win cooperation

On the Pacific coast of Peru, the Chancay Port — South America's first smart and green port — will soon celebrate its first anniversary of operation. Described as a "New Inca Trail," the project has created new trade routes between Latin America and Asia, serving as a clear example of openness and connectivity in the Asia-Pacific.

When President Xi attended the 31st APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting in Lima in 2024, he watched the port's opening via video link. He has called for fully utilizing APEC's role as an "incubator of global economic and trade rules," promoting regional integration and connectivity, and removing barriers to the free flow of trade, investment, technology, and services.

For decades, China has been a positive force for openness in the Asia-Pacific. In the first three quarters of 2025, China's trade with other APEC economies increased by 2 percent year-over-year, reaching 19.41 trillion yuan (US$2.73 trillion), or 57.8 percent of its total trade. The ongoing growth of goods ranging from textiles to electronics and auto parts reflects the region's strong shared opportunities.

China's actions reflect its consistent stance against protectionism and unilateralism. From the high-quality implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) to proactive steps toward joining the CPTPP and Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (DEPA), Beijing has been contributing Chinese strength to building an open Asia-Pacific economy.

Driving innovation to share development opportunities

At the 2023 APEC CEO Summit, President Xi urged regional economies to "seize the opportunities of the new technological revolution" and to work together to promote digital, intelligent, and green transformation. He emphasized the importance of strengthening scientific and technological cooperation and creating an open, fair, and non-discriminatory environment for innovation.

This vision is gaining ground across the region. At the 22nd China-ASEAN Expo, 62 projects involving new energy, artificial intelligence, and advanced materials were signed — many focused on joint R&D rather than just trade. In Chile, Chinese-made double-decker electric buses played a key role in transporting people during the 19th Pan American Games in Santiago, providing clean energy for a continental sporting event and demonstrating China's sustainable technologies on a global scale.

Herman Tiu Laurel, president of the Asian Century Philippines Strategic Studies Institute, a Manila-based think tank, observed that China's high-tech innovation and green transition open new frontiers for supply chains and create fresh opportunities for Asia-Pacific economies.

Fostering inclusive growth for shared prosperity

In late September, a China-supported Juncao and upland rice demonstration center was opened in Goroka, the capital of Papua New Guinea's Eastern Highlands Province. The project, a new achievement in China-Papua New Guinea collaboration on poverty reduction, is helping local communities boost food security and build sustainable livelihoods. It provides a glimpse into how China's development approach is changing lives across the Asia-Pacific.

President Xi has reaffirmed that common development remains the main goal of Asia-Pacific cooperation. Following this vision, China has been actively taking action rather than just promoting the idea.

From advancing initiatives within APEC to increase household income and promote cluster-based growth among small and medium-sized enterprises, to inviting Asia-Pacific partners to join the Global Development Initiative (GDI), China has consistently strengthened collaboration in poverty reduction, food security, industrialization, and development financing with regional economies to maintain steady momentum in the region's pursuit of shared prosperity.

Asia Pacific leaders meeting in South Korea

Leaders from 21 Pacific Rim economies will gather this week in Gyeongju, South Korea, for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, or APEC, forum.

Meetings have begun on Monday and will run through Saturday. Talks are expected to be overshadowed by US President Donald Trump's sweeping global tariffs and high-stakes trade standoffs with China and other nations.

Trump will arrive on Wednesday but is scheduled to depart before the APEC leaders' summit itself. He is expected to see Chinese President Xi Jinping for their first in-person meeting of Trump's second term, as the two countries seek to dial down trade tensions.

The following are facts about the APEC meeting:

APEC, which was founded in 1989, has 21 members that represent more than 50% of global GDP and are home to some 2.7 billion people, or 40% of the world's population. China, Russia and the United States are three of the group's largest members. The APEC region generated 70% of the world's economic growth during its first 10 years of existence.

Leaders of the countries meet annually. The last gathering was in November 2024 in Peru, dominated by worries over the incoming Trump administration's vows to enact tariffs and reverse course on issues like climate change.

The economic club aims to encourage cooperation and reduce trade and investment barriers, though decisions made at meetings are non-binding and consensus has been increasingly difficult. South Korea says it wants to use this year's forum to discuss supply chains, the World Trade Organization's role in fostering a free and fair-trade environment, as well as advancing the Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific, an agreement designed to eventually include all APEC members.

The agenda also includes topics like adapting to digital change, harnessing artificial intelligence, sustainable energy, food supplies, responding to demographic shifts and increasing opportunities for women and people with disabilities.

South Korea is hosting Trump and Xi for state visits and it is hoping to make progress on a trade deal with the US President, Lee Jae Myung has suggested Trump use the visit to engage with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, but it is unclear whether a meeting will happen.

Dichotomy of Western Media

The Western media’s claim of being the custodian of truth and free expression has long lost its moral weight. What remains is a sophisticated machinery of selective storytelling that serves political convenience rather than journalistic integrity. The recent contrast between the “royal welcome” headlines of Donald Trump’s visit to Japan and the near-total blackout of mass demonstrations against him during the ASEAN summit speaks volumes about this duplicity.

When Trump landed in Tokyo, Western networks and newspapers competed to romanticize his reception — highlighting ceremonial gestures, lavish banquets, and supposed diplomatic warmth. Yet, when he visited Southeast Asia shortly after, facing widespread protests and public outrage, the same media either looked away or buried the story in a few inconspicuous lines. The silence was not accidental; it was calculated.

This pattern exposes the deep bias embedded in Western media — a bias not of ideology alone but of power. Stories that reinforce Western dominance are amplified, while narratives that challenge its legitimacy are suppressed. Such editorial selectivity does not merely distort facts; it shapes public consciousness and global opinion in favor of Western interests. It turns journalism from a public service into an instrument of geopolitical influence.

The hypocrisy is glaring. Western outlets spare no opportunity to lecture developing nations on press freedom and transparency, yet they themselves censor, filter, and manipulate when the truth threatens to unsettle their political comfort. They spotlight dissent in non-Western capitals but turn blind when protests erupt against their own leaders or allies.

In the age of digital information, this arrogance is being exposed. Independent media from Asia, Africa, and Latin America are challenging the monopoly of Western narratives, revealing what global audiences were never meant to see. The supposed guardians of democracy in media now stand accused of practicing the very propaganda they denounce elsewhere.

Until the Western media learns to report with honesty — not through the lens of self-interest — its sermons on “press freedom” will continue to sound hollow, and its credibility will keep eroding. The world no longer accepts selective truth as journalism.

SAARC: Awakening a Sleeping Might

Reviving the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) is not a romantic ideal; it is a strategic necessity. The global order is shifting toward regional blocs that consolidate economic and political influence — from ASEAN and the EU to the African Continental Free Trade Area. South Asia cannot afford to remain fragmented when its combined GDP already exceeds US$4 trillion and its population represents a quarter of the world. A dormant SAARC limits each member’s bargaining power, constrains trade diversification, and weakens collective resilience against climate and security threats.

The process of revival begins with institutional restructuring. SAARC’s Secretariat in Kathmandu must be transformed from a symbolic coordination office into an empowered regional policy hub. This requires financial autonomy, a merit-based staffing system, and authority to monitor and evaluate implementation.

Member states should establish a SAARC Development Fund, enabling cross-border infrastructure, health, and education projects independent of political disruptions. Regular ministerial meetings, even at sub-regional levels, can sustain policy momentum when summits stall.

Economic integration remains the most practical catalyst for reactivation. South Asia’s intra-regional trade potential is estimated at over US$100 billion, yet remains trapped below 6 percent of total commerce.

The complete operationalization of the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) must be prioritized, coupled with the removal of non-tariff barriers and the adoption of digital customs and payment systems.

A regional e-commerce and logistics framework could integrate small and medium enterprises across borders, reducing trade costs and increasing competitiveness.

Energy cooperation offers another powerful unifying platform. Hydropower trade among Nepal, Bhutan, and India, and gas pipeline connectivity involving Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan could underpin mutual interdependence.

A “SAARC Energy Corridor,” integrating electricity grids and renewable-energy investment, would not only enhance supply security but also establish climate-friendly growth foundations.

People-to-people diplomacy is equally critical. Academic partnerships, student mobility programs, media collaboration, and cultural exchanges can foster regional consciousness that transcends political disputes.

Civil-society engagement and private-sector participation should complement intergovernmental dialogue.

The long-term sustainability of SAARC lies not in bureaucratic communiqués but in public ownership of the regional project.

Pakistan’s role in this reawakening is pivotal. Geographically positioned at the crossroads of South, Central, and West Asia, Islamabad can act as a natural bridge for trade and energy corridors.

Reframing its regional engagement from security-centric to economic-centric diplomacy could reposition Pakistan as a constructive stakeholder in regional stability.

Advocating connectivity rather than confrontation would strengthen its diplomatic leverage and economic prospects simultaneously.

Ultimately, SAARC’s revival depends on political will — not from external actors but from within South Asia itself. The logic is simple: collective prosperity is indivisible.

Competing regional architectures cannot substitute for the historical, cultural, and economic interdependence that binds SAARC members.

By re-energizing this sleeping might, South Asia can finally transition from a region of unrealized potential to one of shared progress.

The moment calls for leadership that recognizes cooperation as power, not concession. SAARC’s awakening will not occur overnight, but without the first deliberate steps, South Asia risks remaining a fragmented geography rather than a united economic community.

Have All Abandoned Hamas?

The question of whether Hamas has been completely abandoned by its allies deserves a nuanced answer. While the militant-political organization is under unprecedented isolation and financial strain, it has not been left entirely friendless. What has changed is not the existence of support, but the depth and nature of it. The few remaining backers are more pragmatic and cautious than ideological.

Iran remains the most steadfast supporter of Hamas, but even Tehran’s approach has shifted from enthusiasm to calculation. The Islamic Republic continues to provide limited training, intelligence, and weapons through its network that includes Hezbollah and the IRGC. Yet, Hamas no longer occupies the central role it once did in Iran’s “Axis of Resistance.” Tehran’s strategic priority today is containing Israel through Hezbollah in Lebanon and maintaining deterrence in Syria and Iraq. In that equation, Hamas has become an auxiliary, not a frontline force.

Qatar, long seen as Hamas’s financial lifeline, has also recalibrated its policy. The unmonitored cash deliveries to Gaza that sustained Hamas’s governance structure are now being rerouted through the United Nations and humanitarian agencies. Doha seeks to retain its role as a mediator rather than an outright patron. That shift leaves Hamas with a smaller and more conditional stream of funds — insufficient to maintain administrative control in a war-torn enclave.

Turkey’s support, meanwhile, has settled into the realm of rhetoric. President Erdoğan continues to speak forcefully for Palestinian rights, but Ankara avoids concrete steps that could jeopardize its economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Turkey’s relationship with Hamas has become largely symbolic — a political shield rather than a material one.

Across the Arab world, the mood has changed dramatically. Egypt views Hamas as a destabilizing factor on its Sinai frontier; Jordan and the Gulf monarchies see it as a residue of the Muslim Brotherhood; and Saudi Arabia, pursuing strategic normalization with Israel, has little appetite for association. The UAE, a key Arab power, treats Hamas as a security threat rather than a liberation movement. This new regional consensus marks a profound isolation for the group.

Yet, Hamas is not entirely defeated. It continues to command thousands of fighters, retains limited weapons stockpiles, and still projects control over parts of Gaza. More importantly, popular sympathy for the Palestinian cause across the Muslim world remains deeply rooted. But sympathy does not translate into resources. Without substantial state sponsorship, Hamas is now sustained mainly by resilience, underground networks, and a sense of defiance rather than structured external support.

In essence, Hamas stands at a crossroads. Its godfathers have not fully abandoned it, but their backing has turned conditional and cautious. The movement survives, but in a diminished, more isolated form — powerful enough to persist, yet too constrained to dominate. The age of ideological patronage is ending; what remains is a movement fighting for relevance amid the ruins it once ruled.

 

Why SAARC Lost Its Way?

When the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was established in 1985, it represented a rare regional consensus in a politically fragmented subcontinent. The founding declaration emphasized collective self-reliance, mutual assistance, and the pursuit of shared prosperity. For a region holding nearly one-fourth of humanity, the potential was extraordinary. Yet, after four decades, SAARC stands largely dormant — a victim of geopolitical rivalry and institutional inertia rather than structural failure.

SAARC’s vision was ambitious but achievable: foster economic, social, and cultural cooperation to enhance the quality of life in member states. However, the trajectory of the organization was quickly derailed by the deep-rooted political mistrust between India and Pakistan. The unresolved Kashmir dispute, periodic border tensions, and competing security narratives transformed the platform into a casualty of bilateral hostility. Since the 2014 Kathmandu Summit, SAARC’s high-level meetings have been suspended indefinitely, leaving the secretariat in Kathmandu underutilized and politically irrelevant.

The cost of this dormancy has been immense. Intra-regional trade among SAARC members remains below 6 percent of total trade — the lowest for any comparable regional bloc. Transport corridors, energy-sharing projects, and digital connectivity initiatives have been stalled. The absence of a collective policy voice has left South Asia peripheral in major global economic and climate negotiations.

Comparatively, ASEAN and the European Union began with modest frameworks centered on trade facilitation and economic complementarity, eventually evolving into influential regional institutions. Their success was not rooted in political harmony but in the understanding that economic interdependence can temper political rivalry. SAARC, unfortunately, allowed politics to precede economics, forfeiting the very logic that drives successful regionalism.

The failure to institutionalize decision-making has also weakened SAARC’s resilience. The Secretariat operates with limited resources and minimal authority. Summits and ministerial meetings, which should function as policy engines, have instead become arenas for diplomatic signaling. Moreover, the proliferation of alternative regional frameworks — notably BIMSTEC and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization — reflects the shifting preferences of member states toward arrangements perceived as more functional or geopolitically advantageous.

Yet, it would be incorrect to describe SAARC as obsolete. The organization retains a symbolic and functional foundation that can be reactivated. Its network of specialized bodies in agriculture, environment, health, and disaster management continues to operate, albeit at suboptimal capacity. More importantly, the shared challenges of climate vulnerability, energy security, and regional inequality demand precisely the kind of coordinated response that only a platform like SAARC can provide.

The need is not to abandon SAARC but to reimagine it — as a mechanism of pragmatic regionalism rather than political posturing. The first step toward revival is to acknowledge why it failed: not because its goals were unrealistic, but because national egos overshadowed collective rationality. South Asia’s sleeping might remain potent; it only awaits political maturity to awaken.

An Update on New York City Mayoral Race 2025

The 2025 New York City mayoral race has emerged as a defining moment for the city’s political direction, with Zohran Mamdani now widely viewed as the frontrunner. The general election is scheduled for November 04, 2025, and will decide whether the city embraces a progressive shift or returns to centrist leadership.

Zohran Mamdani, a 33-year-old Democratic state assemblyman from Queens, represents a new generation of progressive voices in New York politics. Born in Uganda to Indian parents and raised in New York, Mamdani has built his career around social equity, immigrant rights, and economic justice. Identifying as a democratic socialist, he defeated former governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary held on June 24, 2025 — a result that shocked political observers and reshaped expectations for the general election.

Mamdani’s campaign focuses on affordable housing through rent regulation and public investment, reforming the NYPD’s oversight and budget, and addressing widening income disparities. His movement has drawn strong backing from younger voters, immigrant communities, and progressive groups, setting him apart from Cuomo, who is now contesting as an independent candidate appealing to moderates and centrist Democrats. Republican Curtis Sliwa remains a distant third.

Recent Emerson College and Quinnipiac University polls show Mamdani leading with 43–46 percent support, followed by Cuomo with 28–33 percent and Sliwa with 10–15 percent. With housing affordability and public safety dominating debate, Mamdani’s rise reflects both the city’s frustrations and its yearning for generational change.

Bridging the Divide: Pakistan and Taliban Need Dialogue, Not Confrontation

The relationship between Pakistan’s ruling regime and the Taliban stands at a delicate crossroads. Bound by geography, faith, and shared history, the two sides also carry layers of mistrust accumulated over decades of shifting alliances and conflicting expectations. In recent years, political statements, security operations, and media narratives have widened this gap further. Yet, beneath the surface lies an undeniable truth — their destinies remain intertwined. To stabilize the region, both must replace suspicion with structured dialogue, and confrontation with cooperation. Military responses may suppress symptoms, but only intellectual engagement can address the root causes of misunderstanding.

The first major misunderstanding arises from security concerns. Pakistan’s authorities often believe that the Taliban have not taken adequate measures against elements of Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), who continue to operate from Afghan territory. On the other hand, the Taliban view Pakistan’s cross-border operations and frequent border closures as violations of Afghan sovereignty. Both sides see each other’s actions through a defensive lens. A structured security dialogue — focusing on intelligence coordination, cross-border communication, and non-interference — can help bridge these perceptions and restore mutual confidence.

The second area of friction involves economic and trade relations. The Taliban leadership frequently accuses Pakistan of using trade controls as leverage, while Pakistan expresses concern over smuggling, informal trade routes, and foreign currency outflows. These differences have converted economic engagement into a tool of pressure rather than cooperation. A transparent, rules-based mechanism for transit trade and financial transactions could turn the economic relationship into a stabilizing force. When trade and transport flow smoothly, political tensions tend to ease naturally.

The third and perhaps most sensitive dimension is ideological understanding. Many in Pakistan interpret the Taliban’s policies solely through a security framework, while the Taliban often perceive Pakistan’s government as too close to Western interests. These views overlook the nuanced realities on both sides. Constructive academic and religious exchanges, involving scholars and opinion leaders, could help generate trust and empathy. Mutual respect for each side’s national priorities is essential for regional harmony.

Peace cannot be dictated by military power or external persuasion; it must evolve from within the region itself. Pakistan and the Taliban must recognize that lasting stability demands open communication, patience, and political maturity. Excluding foreign influences and engaging in honest dialogue will help transform mutual suspicion into cooperation. The region has paid too high a price for conflict — it is time to invest in understanding. Dialogue, not deterrence, is the true foundation of peace between Pakistan and the Taliban.

 

US War on Drugs or Control of Trade?

The United States has long waged wars with shifting names — “War on Terror,” “War on Drugs,” “War for Freedom.” Yet, behind every noble slogan lies a trail of power politics. The latest episode — dispatching an aircraft carrier to intercept drug boats — sounds more like a geopolitical maneuver than a humanitarian mission.

The US has once again deployed an aircraft carrier — not to confront a rival navy, but to chase down drug smugglers. The declared mission is to curb narcotics trafficking, yet the use of such massive military hardware for a policing task invites skepticism. Why send a carrier strike group — costing billions — to do what coast guards and drug enforcement units are meant to handle?

When Washington turns a military operation into a “war on drugs,” it often signals a wider agenda. The US Navy’s global reach conveniently allows it to assert presence in any region — from the Caribbean to the Pacific — under the noble banner of counter-narcotics. What appears to be law enforcement frequently doubles as strategic positioning. In a world where power projection is wrapped in moral language, fighting drug traffickers becomes a useful excuse for extending surveillance and influence.

There’s also a darker interpretation that refuses to fade. Could these “anti-drug” operations actually be a cover for controlling the lucrative narcotics trade itself? History does not absolve Washington. The Iran-Contra affair and recurring allegations of CIA-linked drug networks in Central America showed how the lines between enforcement and exploitation can blur. When tons of seized drugs disappear from transparency and accountability, suspicion fills the vacuum.

The global drug economy, valued at over half a trillion dollars annually, offers enormous leverage to whoever controls its routes and flows. By interdicting shipments, deciding which networks survive, and which are dismantled, the US effectively regulates the trade — if not overtly, then subtly.

The aircraft carrier, in this context, is not just chasing smugglers — it is asserting dominance. Washington’s “war on drugs” has become a convenient façade for strategic reach. After all, in America’s global playbook, every mission — even one draped in moral intent — is ultimately about control. In this war, purity may just be another commodity.

 

PSX benchmark index declines amid volatility

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) witnessed volatility during the week, pressured by weaker than anticipated corporate earnings. The benchmark index declined by 502 points during the week, down 0.3%WoW, to close at 163,304 points.

Market participation also weakened by 17%WoW with average daily traded volume down to 1.8 billion shares as against 2.2 billion shares in the prior week.

On the macroeconomic front, current account for September 2025 reported a surplus of US$110 million. A point worth mentioning is, IT exports for September 2025 were reported at US$366 million, up 25%YoY, marking the highest ever monthly IT exports.

Power generation during September 2025 was reported at 12,592GWh, up 1%YoY, whereas cost of generation declined by 24%YoY.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) were reported at US$14.5 billion as of October 17, 2025.

According to AKD Securities, the momentum at PSX is expected to continue given successful staff-level agreement of the IMF’s second review, minimal flood impact and improved credit ratings by global agencies amid falling fixed income yields.

Investors’ sentiments are expected to further improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

This outlook is supported by the lack of alternative investment avenues and the attractive valuation of local equities, with the KSE-100 trading at a multiple of 7.4x while offering a dividend yield of 6.6%.

The top picks of the brokerage house include: MEBL, MCB, HBL, OGDC, PPL, PSO, FFC, ENGROH, LUCK, DGKC, FCCL, and INDU.

 

Trump’s Tariffs: Open Defiance of WTO Rules

“The WTO’s silence in the face of US defiance marks the slow death of multilateralism.”

When power tramples principle, the rulebook becomes meaningless. The United States, once the architect of global trade discipline, now stands as its most brazen violator. President Trump’s tariff crusade has reduced the WTO’s founding ideals to diplomatic theatre.

When the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created, it was supposed to end the era of arbitrary trade wars. Countries pledged to respect the Most-Favored-Nation principle — no discrimination, no selective punishment. Yet today, that rulebook lies in tatters, largely because the United States, the self-proclaimed guardian of free trade, has chosen to ignore it.

President Donald Trump’s latest wave of tariffs on steel, aluminum, and Chinese imports is nothing short of a declaration of defiance. Cloaked in the language of “national security,” these measures are neither lawful nor justified under WTO norms. These are pure economic bullying — a tactic to reassert American dominance under the guise of protecting domestic jobs.

Let’s be clear, the WTO’s Article XXI, which allows exceptions for national security, was never meant to give license for economic intimidation. Trump’s use of it is a cynical distortion, designed not to protect US borders but to weaponize trade policy. It exposes the hypocrisy of Washington preaching free markets abroad while practicing protectionism at home.

WTO panels have already ruled against such tariffs, but the US has paralyzed the system by blocking the appointment of judges to the Appellate Body — effectively ensuring no verdict can ever be enforced. This deliberate sabotage turns the WTO into a toothless watchdog, helpless against the very member it was meant to discipline.

The tragedy is not merely in Washington’s defiance but in the world’s silence. Each unjustified tariff erodes another layer of global trust, while the WTO watches from the sidelines, stripped of authority. If the international community fails to challenge US economic unilateralism now, the collapse of the multilateral trading order will not be a distant fear — it will be a fait accompli.

 

Fixing Wheat Support Price: A Sovereign Right, Not A Privilege

When an external lender begins dictating what price Pakistan should pay its farmers, it crosses from advice into interference. Fixing the support price of wheat — the nation’s staple crop — is a sovereign right, not a privilege granted by the IMF. To read details click https://shkazmipk.com/achieving-food-security-6/

Fighting Without Fighting: Super Powers Wage War by Other Means

Wars are no longer fought only on battlefields. The twenty-first century has transformed the nature of conflict: the weapons are now economic sanctions, cyberattacks, and proxy alliances, while the targets are national economies and public perceptions. The art of modern warfare lies not in destroying armies but in destabilizing societies. This is the new face of power — fighting without fighting.

During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union perfected the strategy of indirect confrontation. They waged proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, where others fought on their behalf. That same philosophy now defines global politics once again. Today’s superpowers — primarily the United States, China, and Russia — prefer to engage through economic blockades, digital espionage, and information manipulation rather than direct military confrontation. The logic is simple, global integration makes total war too costly to win and too dangerous to survive.

Economic warfare has become the preferred tool. The United States uses financial sanctions and trade restrictions as strategic weapons. Russia, in turn, employs energy supplies as instruments of coercion. China manipulates market access and technology exports to shape global alignments. In this arena, a single executive order or export ban can inflict more damage than a missile strike. The global financial system has become a silent battlefield, where currencies, commodities, and credit replace tanks and artillery.

Cyber warfare adds another invisible dimension. State-backed hackers can paralyze banking systems, shut down power grids, or steal sensitive data — all without firing a shot.

The 2022–24 conflict in Ukraine, for instance, has shown how digital attacks and disinformation can amplify physical wars. The battlefield now includes social media platforms and data networks, where narratives are manufactured and public opinion is weaponized.

Meanwhile, proxy conflicts continue to shape regional politics — in the Middle East, Africa, and Eastern Europe. These low-intensity wars allow great powers to test new technologies, weaken rivals, and expand influence without bearing the political cost of direct involvement. The blood is local, but the strategy is global.

The danger is that “war without war” is harder to detect and even harder to end. Economic sanctions, once imposed, linger for years; cyber weapons, once unleashed, spread uncontrollably. The absence of visible warfare creates a dangerous illusion of peace while societies quietly erode from within.

In this new world order, victory is no longer measured by territory captured but by systems disrupted, economies weakened, and narratives controlled. The future of conflict will not be marked by explosions but by silence — the silence of power grids failing, economies collapsing, and truths being rewritten.

The War That Will Never Be Fought — But Never End

The United States and the Soviet Union never fought a direct war, and their modern successors — Washington and Moscow — are unlikely ever to do so. Both possess nuclear arsenals capable of ending human civilization within hours, a reality that forces restraint even in the fiercest confrontations. Yet, the absence of direct warfare does not mean peace. From Korea to Ukraine, the two powers have fought shadow wars through proxies, sanctions, and propaganda — proving that while a nuclear world discourages combat, it encourages competition without limits.

The Cold War, which dominated the second half of the twentieth century, was essentially a struggle for global dominance without direct confrontation. The US and USSR armed their allies, financed revolutions, and competed for ideological influence from Asia to Latin America. Conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan became testing grounds for superpower ambitions. Each side bled indirectly, ensuring that nuclear deterrence remained intact while smaller nations paid the human cost.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many believed the Cold War had ended for good. But three decades later, the same strategic rivalry re-emerged — this time between the US and Russia. The Ukraine war has become the modern version of a Cold War battlefield. The US supplies advanced weapons, intelligence, and economic support to Kyiv, while Russia frames the conflict as a defensive war against NATO encirclement. Both powers fight fiercely, but indirectly, ensuring no direct clash between American and Russian troops.

The logic remains the same - nuclear deterrence equals survival. Direct war would mean destruction for both, leaving only proxy wars, cyber battles, and economic coercion as tools of power. Each side tests the other’s limits without crossing the line of mutual annihilation. The contest has moved from ideology to influence — from red flags and capitalism to control over energy routes, technology, and global alliances.

Even hawkish voices in Washington calling for tougher action against Moscow know the line that cannot be crossed. Sanctions may strangle economies; drones and missiles may change the battlefield; but a direct strike remains unthinkable. Moscow, too, understands this calculus. The nuclear shadow keeps both in check — unwilling to yield, yet unable to attack.

In truth, the Cold War never died; it simply evolved. The battlegrounds have changed, but the mindset remains: weaken the rival, avoid direct war, and dominate the narrative. Proxy adventurism — from Eastern Europe to cyberspace — will persist as the preferred weapon of choice. The world’s two great powers may never face each other openly, but their shadow duel ensures the war that will never be fought will also never end.

Investors to pay the price of gold bubble

Gold prices recorded the steepest daily fall in five years on Tuesday, as investors booked profits. Spot price was down 5.5% to a one-week low of US$4,115.26 per ounce at1745 GMT, its steepest fall since August 2020. Prices scaled an all-time peak of US$4,381.21 on Monday and have gained about 60% this year, bolstered by geopolitical and economic uncertainty, rate-cut bets and sustained central bank buying.

Readers may recall that in my post titled “Warning for Gold Investors” dated September 30, 2025 I had informed the investors taking significant position not to panic, but keep close watch on the commodity market, especially gold. By that time the precious metal had rallied more than 10% this month, but took a breather after reaching another record early Tuesday, last trading day of the month. The prospect of an imminent United States government shutdown added to the metal’s appeal as a safe haven investment. 

Gold’s dramatic fall has exposed the fragile foundations beneath its record-breaking rally. The message is clear: even gold, long considered a bastion of stability, is not immune to engineered market forces.

One cannot ignore the role of central banks in this saga. In recent months, major central banks ramped up gold purchases aggressively, creating artificial demand and fueling a meteoric rise in prices. While presented as prudent diversification and a hedge against inflation, these purchases effectively inflated a bubble, enticing private investors to chase gains without understanding the underlying dynamics.

Profit-taking by investors was inevitable once the price peaked. The frenzy generated by central banks had drawn private money into the market, but when the momentum stalled, those same investors rushed to lock in gains, triggering the sharp correction.

Compounding the drop, the US dollar strengthened, making gold more expensive for international buyers. Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions—the usual excuse for gold’s safe-haven appeal—have eased, and seasonal demand from India’s post-Diwali slowdown further weighed on the market. Analysts also note that prices had become technically overbought; the correction was overdue.

This episode exposes a fundamental truth - gold’s recent highs were less about organic demand and more about engineered interventions. Central banks, in effect, played puppeteer, manipulating sentiment while ordinary investors bore the brunt of volatility.

Despite the fall, gold remains up roughly 60% for the year. The long-term narrative of gold as a hedge against uncertainty remains, but this correction is a warning - markets can be steered to extremes by institutional players, and what shines today may be a bubble tomorrow. Investors chasing gold’s glitter must remember—it is not immune to human engineering.

Can Takaichi be “Iron Lady” of Japan?

Sanae Takaichi has won the parliamentary vote to become Japan’s prime minister, making her the first woman to clinch the nation’s top job in a country that ranks low in female political representation. Here’s a look at the new premier who’s an admirer of the hard-nosed politics of Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher.

Her real challenge will not come from rivals or parliament — it will come from the economy. She could well become Japan’s Iron Lady, not through war or ideology, but through her ability to steer the country out of its prolonged economic stagnation.

Japan’s economy, once an emblem of post-war recovery and industrial excellence, has been losing momentum for decades. Aging demographics, shrinking productivity, and mounting debt have created a complex policy maze. The nation that built the world’s most efficient industries now faces declining competitiveness, reliance on imported energy, and a vulnerable yen. A true reformist must confront these realities with courage and consistency — qualities that define an iron leader.

The parallels with Margaret Thatcher are not misplaced. When Thatcher came to power, Britain was sinking under inflation, labor unrest, and fiscal weakness.

Similarly, Takaichi would need to challenge decades of bureaucratic comfort, revive investor confidence, and make painful structural reforms — even if those choices upset entrenched interests within her own party.

She has to focus on restoring economic sovereignty. Japan’s dependence on foreign energy and global supply chains exposes it to external shocks. A bold policy mix — energy diversification, digital transformation, and innovation-driven industrial growth — could gradually restore national resilience. Instead of expanding debt to stimulate demand, she may prefer fiscal prudence, targeted spending, and reforms that attract foreign investment without compromising independence.

At the same time, she has to navigate global economic warfare. In an era where sanctions, tariffs, and currency manipulation replace military confrontation, Japan is often caught between Washington’s strategic interests and Beijing’s market influence. Balancing both relationships without hurting Japan’s trade or technology sectors will require diplomatic finesse and strategic depth — the real test of her strength.

Internally, the toughest challenge will be political. Japan’s ruling establishment is dominated by conservative men who resist change. A woman at the top would have to prove that strength is not measured in volume but in vision — and that discipline and clarity are as powerful as confrontation.

If she succeeds, Japan could witness its own economic renaissance. Her iron resolve could redefine governance — less about charisma, more about competence. She would not be remembered for waging wars, but for rebuilding Japan’s confidence in its own economic future.

Japan does not need another populist; it needs a reformer with steel in her resolve and clarity in her economics. If that leader happens to be a woman, she may well be remembered as the Iron Lady who reshaped Japan — not through power, but through policy.

Does Hamas Still Have Muscles to Violate Ceasefire?

After nearly 800 days of relentless Israeli bombardment, Gaza stands shattered — its people displaced, cities flattened, and infrastructure destroyed. Yet Israel continues to accuse Hamas of violating ceasefire terms. The question naturally arises: does Hamas, after such devastation, still possess the means to breach a truce, or is this accusation yet another attempt to justify continued aggression?

Since the beginning, Tel Aviv has framed its military operations as “defensive,” aimed at dismantling Hamas. But the scale and duration of the campaign tell another story — one of collective punishment rather than defense. Civilian areas, hospitals, and refugee camps have been repeatedly struck, erasing the line between combatant and non-combatant.

The power imbalance is stark. Israel, equipped with one of the world’s most advanced militaries, faces a besieged enclave surviving under blockade. In such a context, claims of Hamas violating ceasefires seem less credible and more like political cover for ongoing strikes. Each new round of violence devastates Gaza further while bolstering Israel’s domestic narrative of self-defense.

Globally, the reaction remains divided. Western powers still defend Israel’s “right to protect itself,” while UN bodies and human rights organizations warn of violations of international law. The destruction of civilian infrastructure, denial of humanitarian aid, and use of starvation as a weapon have drawn growing condemnation — yet no serious accountability follows.

Ironically, despite the prolonged war, Israel’s strategic goals remain unfulfilled. Hamas has not been eradicated; instead, its symbolic strength has grown amid Gaza’s suffering. Meanwhile, Israel’s moral and diplomatic standing continues to erode.

By insisting that Hamas alone violates the ceasefire, Israel attempts to retain moral high ground. But after 800 days of devastation, that claim sounds increasingly hollow. The real question is not whether Hamas still has the strength to fight — but whether Israel has the courage to stop a war that has already lost its purpose.

Fire at Dhaka Airport: Accident or Sabotage?

A roaring blaze at Dhaka’s Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport cargo complex has ignited more than flames — it has sparked suspicion. Was it a tragic mishap born of negligence, or a calculated attempt to disrupt Bangladesh’s export lifeline? The line between accident and sabotage has rarely appeared so blurred.

The massive fire that swept through the cargo complex has raised troubling questions. Was it merely another case of poor safety and outdated infrastructure, or does it point to something more sinister — a deliberate act of sabotage? The truth is yet to emerge, but the scale of the damage and timing of the incident demand a deeper look.

According to initial reports, the blaze engulfed multiple warehouses, destroying export-bound goods and disrupting one of Bangladesh’s busiest trade arteries. Officials have launched a probe, but as of now, the cause remains “unknown.” Electrical short-circuiting — a common culprit in Bangladesh’s industrial fires — cannot be ruled out. The fact is incident occurred inside a high-security airport zone making it difficult to accept negligence as the only explanation.

Bangladesh has witnessed a string of devastating fires this year, from markets and garment factories to chemical depots. Each tragedy has exposed the country’s weak enforcement of fire safety codes and inadequate emergency response. However, when such an incident occurs within an airport’s cargo village — a zone under tight surveillance and restricted access — suspicion naturally grows.

If investigators find multiple ignition points, traces of accelerants, or evidence of tampering with security systems, the narrative could shift toward deliberate sabotage. In recent months, regional instability and heightened smuggling crackdowns have disrupted illicit trade networks. Could the fire have been intended to erase evidence or cripple exports? The possibility cannot be dismissed outright.

At stake is not just property loss, but international confidence in Bangladesh’s logistics chain. The cargo complex handles billions in textile exports; even temporary disruption can ripple through global supply lines. Authorities must therefore pursue this probe with utmost transparency and professionalism.

Whether the Dhaka airport fire proves to be an accident born of negligence or a calculated act of sabotage, it exposes a deeper vulnerability: the fragility of Bangladesh’s critical infrastructure.

The incident should serve as a wake-up call — to upgrade safety systems, tighten surveillance, and confront the culture of complacency before another disaster strikes.

 

United States Still Eyes Afghanistan

Washington’s withdrawal ended its military presence, not its strategic ambitions in the heart of Asia

When the United States hurriedly withdrew from Afghanistan in August 2021, it claimed to have ended its “forever war.” Yet, Afghanistan has not slipped off Washington’s strategic radar. The methods have changed, but the motives remain. The US still views Afghanistan as a vital piece on the Eurasian chessboard — prized for its geography, intelligence value, and economic undercurrents.

First, Afghanistan’s narcotics economy remains an unspoken factor. Despite Taliban claims of banning poppy cultivation, UN data confirms continued opium production, which fuels regional criminal networks. For decades, allegations have persisted that Western intelligence agencies — especially the CIA — have tolerated or even exploited the drug trade to fund covert operations. Renewed US engagement, framed as “counter-narcotics cooperation,” could restore informal oversight of these financial flows.

Second, the chaotic exit left behind billions of dollars’ worth of military hardware — aircraft, vehicles, ammunition, and advanced surveillance systems. Much of it reportedly fell into Taliban hands or black-market networks. Washington would prefer to track, retrieve, or neutralize sensitive technologies before they reach Iran, China, or Russia. A covert re-entry, through intelligence operations or private contractors, serves this purpose well.

Third, Afghanistan’s location remains uniquely strategic. It borders Iran, China’s Xinjiang region, and several Central Asian states under Russian influence. For US planners, it is an ideal observation post to monitor three rivals simultaneously. Hence the growing emphasis on “over-the-horizon” intelligence operations launched from Gulf or Central Asian bases.

Fourth, China’s expanding Belt and Road Initiative through Pakistan and Central Asia heightens Washington’s unease. Beijing’s efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and integrate it into regional connectivity projects threaten to edge the US out of Eurasia. Re-engagement under humanitarian, counterterrorism, or anti-drug programs provides Washington a convenient pretext to retain influence.

Finally, a chronically unstable Afghanistan serves certain geopolitical interests. It prevents regional integration and complicates projects like Iran’s Chabahar port or China’s CPEC. Controlled instability ensures continued leverage without the burdens of occupation.

In essence, the US may not reoccupy Afghanistan with troops, but it seeks reassertion through intelligence, proxies, and influence networks. The 2021 withdrawal ended one phase of occupation but opened another — quieter, subtler, and more strategic. Afghanistan remains too valuable for Washington to abandon — not for peace, but for power.

Trump’s America: Angrier, Divided, and Diminished

Donald Trump has left an indelible mark on American politics — and not necessarily for the better. As anti-Trump demonstrations re-emerge across major cities, the United States stands at a moral and institutional crossroads. The man who promised to “Make America Great Again” may have, in fact, made it angrier, more divided, and dangerously unpredictable.

Trump entered politics as an outsider, a businessman who vowed to drain the Washington “swamp.” Instead, he deepened the very rot he claimed to fight. His tenure blurred the line between governance and self-promotion. Policy became theatre, and truth became negotiable. America’s traditional allies were alienated, global agreements torn up, and diplomacy reduced to Twitter outbursts. Under the banner of “America First,” the United States often stood alone.

Economically, Trump’s initial years delivered the illusion of prosperity — rising markets, corporate tax cuts, and record-low unemployment. But beneath that glitter lay unsustainable deficits, widened inequality, and a fragile economy that crumbled under the first major shock of COVID-19. His pandemic response was chaotic, driven by denial and blame rather than science or empathy. The cost was measured not only in lives lost but in the erosion of public trust.

Perhaps Trump’s most lasting legacy is the deep polarization he cultivated. He thrived on division — turning neighbors into adversaries and truth into casualty. His relentless attacks on media, judiciary, and federal institutions weakened the very foundations that once made America resilient. The January 6th attack on the Capitol was not an aberration; it was the logical culmination of years of incitement and contempt for democratic norms.

Internationally, Trump diminished America’s moral authority. He cozied up to autocrats, undermined multilateralism, and reduced global leadership to transactional bargaining. Even where he scored diplomatic points — such as Middle East normalization deals — the motivation seemed less about peace and more about personal legacy. The result: a world less trusting of American commitments and more skeptical of its leadership.

Today’s protests are not just about Trump’s politics — these are about what America has become under his shadow. A nation once admired for its democratic strength now struggles with internal distrust, misinformation, and fear of its own divisions. Trump did not create America’s anger, but he weaponized it — and that will remain his most enduring contribution.

Let us explore, has Trump made the United States better or worse? The evidence is painfully clear. He has exposed America’s vulnerabilities, exploited its divisions, and left behind a democracy that feels more fragile than ever. The real question is whether America can recover from the politics of resentment he unleashed — or whether Trump’s version of greatness has permanently altered the American soul.

 

Media reports rarely tell truth about crude oil dynamics

Crude oil is produced in many countries, but mostly traded at United States and European exchanges. The producers are often cheated through “cash-settled contracts,” where traders make or lose money without ever taking physical delivery. The real beneficiaries are traders and brokers, while producers are conveniently blamed for rise or fall in production.

The global oil market thrives on numbers — and the manipulation of those numbers. In recent months, a wave of contradictory reports about production, inventories, and demand forecasts has left analysts scratching their heads. This confusion is not the result of poor data collection; it is often a calculated strategy to influence markets, politics, and perceptions.

OPEC Plus producers have long mastered the art of “strategic opacity.” By understating their actual output, they create the illusion of compliance with agreed production cuts and keep prices artificially firm.

At the same time, major consumers — particularly the United States and China — have their own reasons to talk down prices by projecting excess supply or slowing demand. The numbers they release, or the ones they emphasize, are shaped not by accuracy but by advantage.

Even institutions with global credibility — the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) — frequently publish forecasts that seem less about data science and more about timing. Their revisions often coincide with key policy announcements or diplomatic shifts.

When oil prices rise too fast, one report warns of “demand destruction.” When prices fall, another quickly highlights “tight supply.” Such contradictions do not reflect improved understanding; they reflect managed narratives.

Private analytics firms and trading houses add another layer of distortion. In a market driven by algorithmic trading and speculative bets, even a single misleading headline can trigger billions in movements. The ambiguity surrounding real supply-demand dynamics benefits those who can manipulate sentiment faster than facts can catch up. For import-dependent nations like Pakistan, this fog of misinformation results in erratic import costs, unpredictable subsidies, and fiscal strain.

The fundamental problem is that oil data remains under the control of those with vested interests. Despite advances in satellite tracking and tanker monitoring, governments and cartels still decide what to disclose — and when. Transparency is talked about endlessly, but practiced sparingly.

Oil has always been more than just an energy commodity; it is a weapon of economic control. The constant release of conflicting numbers is part of a broader game — one where perception, not reality, drives policy and profit. Until the world moves toward truly independent and verifiable reporting of global oil flows, the “truth” about crude will remain flexible, convenient, and profitable — for a select few.

In the end, the market is not confused by accident. It is kept confused — deliberately.

PSX benchmark index records nominal increase despite volatility

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PX) ended the week on a positive note, albeit remaining volatile throughout the week, pressured by investor skepticism given uncertainty stemming from heightened geopolitical tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pakistan secured a staff-level agreement with IMF in its second review for the US$7 billion Extended Fund Facility program and first review of Resilience and Sustainability Facility. The benchmark index gained 708 points during the week, witnessing it’s second highest single-day gain of 7,033 points on Tuesday, up 0.4%WoW, to close at 163,806 level.

Market participation strengthened by 36%WoW with average daily traded volume reported at 2.2 billion shares, as compared to 1.6 billion shares a week ago.

On the macroeconomic front, petroleum imports for September 2025 were reported at US$1.2 billion, down 11%YoY.

Textiles and clothing exports for September 2025 were recorded at US$1.6 billion, down 2%YoY.

Roshan Digital Accounts inflows for September 2025 were recorded at US$196 million, up 17%YoY

LSM output increased by 0.5%YoY during August 2025.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$21 million to US$14.4 billion as of October 10, 2025.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan and Saudi Arabia agreed to explore new trade, investment avenues, 2) Shehbaz and COAS to visit Saudi Arabia from October 26, 3) Pakistan and Vietnam begin PTA talks to expand trade, investment, 4) Nepra gives the go-ahead to effect CTBCM, and 5) Petrol and diesel prices slashed.

Vanaspati & Allied Industries, Commercial Banks, INV.Banks/ INV.Cos/ Securities Cos, Power Generation & Distribution and Paper & Board were amongst the top performing sectors, while Close-end Mutual Funds, Leasing Companies, Modarabas, Textile Weaving and Leather & Tanneries were amongst the laggards.

Major selling was recorded by Mutual Funds and Insurance aggregating to US$36.5 million, which was mostly absorbed by Companies recording net buy of US$30.3 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: PSEL, BOP, SSOM, PSX, and LOTCHEM, while laggards included: GADT, PKGP, PABC, and JVDC.

According to AKD Securities, believes the bullish momentum o continue given successful staff-level agreement of the IMF’s second review, minimal flood impact and improved credit ratings by global agencies amid falling fixed income yields.

Investors’ sentiments are expected to further improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the US and Saudi Arabia.

The outlook is supported by the lack of alternative investment avenues and the attractive valuation of local equities, offering attractive dividend yield.

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

 

Dollar Bomb Ticking Faster and Louder

When I uploaded my post “Dollar Bomb Can Burst Any Time” on August 24, 2020, only a few took it seriously. Five years later, the warning sounds louder — and far more credible — as de-dollarization gains momentum across continents. The same excesses once confined to American finance have now evolved into a global geopolitical fault line. 

The warning signs are flashing brighter than ever. The scale of money creation in the United States has reached alarming proportions. With public debt now exceeding US$35 trillion and fiscal deficits continuing to mount, the Federal Reserve faces a trap of its own making. Keeping interest rates high risks plunging the economy into recession, while lowering them could reawaken inflation. Either way, the era of cheap money that once fueled global dominance of the dollar is drawing to a close.

Now critics openly say that the so-called “resilient” US economy rests on shaky foundations. Growth is being financed not by productivity, but by unprecedented monetary expansion. More than 60 cents of every dollar the federal government spends is borrowed or printed. This illusion of prosperity masks structural decay — the same speculative excesses and fiscal irresponsibility that triggered the 2008 financial crisis, now magnified many times over.

The repercussions are no longer confined to American borders. A growing number of countries are openly challenging the dollar’s hegemony. The BRICS alliance — now expanded to include energy-rich nations like Saudi Arabia and the UAE — is laying the groundwork for a new trade settlement system that bypasses the US financial network. China is leading the charge, pushing for the yuan in energy transactions and bilateral trade, while Russia and Iran have turned to local currency arrangements to circumvent sanctions.

The Gulf states, long considered the backbone of the petrodollar system, are quietly rethinking their dependence on the greenback. Deals between Beijing and Riyadh to price oil in yuan have sent shockwaves through Washington. Once the world’s major energy producers start accepting payments in other currencies, the dollar’s status as the global reserve currency will erode faster than expected.

The US, meanwhile, continues to export inflation through its fiscal recklessness. Ordinary Americans face rising living costs, while policymakers keep resorting to debt-financed spending. Analysts warn that if confidence in the dollar falters, the US could face a sovereign debt crisis of its own — one that no amount of printing can avert. When foreign creditors and central banks begin to question Washington’s ability to repay without devaluation, the “safe haven” myth collapses.

Gold purchases by central banks have surged to multi-decade highs, underscoring a quiet but steady return to real assets. The shift is not just financial — it is geopolitical. The world’s emerging powers are building an alternative order that no longer depends on US control of money, trade, or technology.

If the dollar bomb bursts, the consequences will be global and enduring. Markets will convulse, commodities will reprice, and the old financial hierarchy will crumble. The illusion of endless American solvency will fade — replaced by a multipolar monetary world, one no longer bound by the dictates of Washington.