Can Pakistan’s Stock Market Euphoria Last?

The Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) has turned into a theater of euphoria. In recent months, the KSE-100 has scaled historic highs, luring investors with the promise of easy gains and signaling a newfound confidence in the economy. The question now is not whether the rally has been spectacular, but whether it can last.

Several factors support the bulls. The State Bank’s shift toward monetary easing has reduced borrowing costs, drawing investors away from fixed income and into equities. Lower interest rates traditionally inflate valuations, and Pakistan is no exception. Add to this the IMF’s continued engagement and incremental fiscal discipline, and the picture looks markedly better than just two years ago when fears of default loomed large. International credit agencies have upgraded Pakistan’s outlook, further feeding optimism.

Sectors like banking, energy, and cement — heavyweights in the index — have reported improved earnings, lending substance to the rally. Market psychology is also playing its part; momentum has a way of sustaining itself, as more investors join in, driven by fear of missing out.

But euphoria has a habit of blinding participants to lurking dangers. Pakistan’s political fragility remains the most potent risk. A sudden shift in the governing coalition, renewed street agitation, or policy U-turns could shake investor confidence overnight. Likewise, the country’s external account remains precarious; a spike in oil prices or weakening of the rupee could unravel the fragile stability. Inflation, though easing, is hardly conquered, and any resurgence would force the central bank back into tightening mode.

Overvaluation is another trap. After such a steep run, some stocks now trade at stretched multiples. Unless earnings growth matches expectations, disappointment could trigger a sell-off. And with global financial markets on edge over interest rate uncertainty and geopolitical flare-ups, Pakistan is hardly insulated from external shocks.

Trump’s Gaza Plan: A Critical Evaluation

US President Donald Trump has recently unveiled Gaza proposal aiming at an immediate cessation of large-scale hostilities, swift hostage returns, and an internationally supervised transitional mechanism for aid and reconstruction. The plan’s clarity of purpose and rapid timeline respond to urgent humanitarian imperatives and reflect the international community’s appetite to halt suffering quickly. Yet clarity is not the same as feasibility.

The plan conditions major concessions — disarmament, handover of local administration, and the release of hostages within days — on compliance by an armed movement embedded in a densely populated territory. Observers warn that such hard deadlines may be operationally impractical and risk provoking standoffs rather than negotiated de-escalation.

Legitimacy is another central issue. The initiative was advanced by external actors and endorsed publicly by several regional capitals and Israel, but it was not the product of inclusive negotiation with the full range of Palestinian stakeholders. That gap raises questions about local ownership, representation, and the long-term acceptability of an externally driven transitional authority.

Equally important are enforcement and verification. The plan sketches mechanisms for aid flow and prisoner exchanges but leaves underdefined who will verify disarmament, guarantee security guarantees, or arbitrate disputes if steps stall. Without robust, impartial monitoring and contingent incentives, incremental breaches could quickly unravel fragile progress.

Finally, the proposal’s political balance matters. Supporters argue it prioritizes an end to violence and rapid relief; critics say it privileges immediate security outcomes over parallel political guarantees that address grievances and political rights.

A genuinely neutral approach would pair urgent humanitarian measures with credible, rights-based pathways for political resolution and accountability.

Recommendation: recast the plan as phased and conditional — immediate, verified humanitarian pauses; monitored hostage-prisoner exchanges; a time-bound international oversight role with clear benchmarks; and a parallel roadmap for political rights and reconstruction commitments.

Only by combining urgency with inclusivity and impartial verification can any proposal hope to deliver sustainable stability rather than a temporary reprieve.

Ultimately, durable peace will require compromises by all parties, sustained regional cooperation, and transparent international oversight to maintain trust and mechanisms for accountability.

Understanding Netanyahu’s Resistance to Palestinian Statehood Recognition

The question of Palestinian statehood continues to dominate debates at the United Nations, where an increasing number of countries have formally recognized Palestine. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains firmly opposed. His resistance is not only political but also rooted in a complex intersection of security concerns, territorial disputes, and domestic dynamics.

From a security perspective, Israel under Netanyahu argues that recognition of a Palestinian state could pose serious risks. The Israeli leadership contends that without robust guarantees, such recognition might empower militant groups, potentially turning Palestinian territory into a base for armed activity against Israel. This framing allows Netanyahu to position statehood recognition as a matter of national defense rather than political compromise.

A second dimension involves the status of land and settlements. Over the years, Israeli settlements in the West Bank have expanded significantly. International recognition of Palestine would cast these settlements in an unequivocally illegal light under international law, creating new diplomatic and legal challenges for Israel. For Netanyahu, resisting recognition is tied directly to maintaining territorial control and avoiding pressures to dismantle or freeze settlement activity.

Domestic politics also play a decisive role. Netanyahu’s governing coalitions have often included right-wing and religious nationalist parties that categorically reject Palestinian statehood. Within this political framework, any concession toward recognition could destabilize his government. Thus, opposition to statehood is not only ideological but also a strategy of political survival.

Finally, Netanyahu’s regional strategy favors normalization with Arab states without linking it directly to Palestinian aspirations. The Abraham Accords exemplify this approach, where Israel advanced ties with Gulf states while leaving the Palestinian issue unresolved. Recognition of Palestine at the UN challenges this strategy by reasserting the centrality of the Palestinian question in Middle Eastern politics.

Netanyahu’s opposition to Palestinian statehood recognition can be understood as the convergence of security considerations, settlement policies, domestic political imperatives, and regional strategy. It reflects Israel’s broader attempt to manage the Palestinian question on its own terms, rather than through international forums.

 

Warning for Gold Investors

Don’t be panicked but keep close watch on the commodity market, especially gold. The precious metal has 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. Vice President JD Vance pinned the blame for the potential shutdown on the Democrats one day before federal funding is set to lapse. Meanwhile, federal agencies are preparing plans that call for temporary furloughs but not permanent mass firings.

Trump-Netanyahu Peace Plan: Ceasefire or Trap

The Trump–Netanyahu meeting in New York was staged as a diplomatic triumph. Cameras clicked, statements flowed, and a so-called historic deal was announced. Israel has formally endorsed Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, but beneath the fanfare lies a script written as much for domestic politics as for genuine peace.

At the heart of the plan are four pillars: 1) an immediate ceasefire if accepted, 2) release of hostages within 72 hours, 3) a phased Israeli withdrawal, and 4) disarmament of Hamas. On paper, this sounds like a path out of a devastating war. In reality, it looks more like an ultimatum dressed as diplomacy.

The governance structure proposed is even more telling. Gaza would not return to the Palestinians in any meaningful sense but be handed over to a technocratic committee under international oversight. A “Board of Peace” chaired by Trump—flanked by international figures like Tony Blair—would supervise the transition. Hamas, the very power broker in Gaza, is not only excluded but delegitimized entirely. This is less a peace plan than a regime-change blueprint.

The Trump–Netanyahu warning was clear, Hamas must accept the plan “the easy way,” or Israel—with full American backing—will impose “the hard way.” This is not mediation; it is coercion.

For Netanyahu, who faces political vulnerability at home, US cover for renewed aggression is a golden ticket. For Trump, the deal enhances his image as a global dealmaker ahead of a bruising election cycle.

Yet the glaring omission remains Palestinian statehood. By skirting this fundamental issue, the plan buys short-term tactical gains but undermines any sustainable settlement.

Arab capitals, from Cairo to Doha, understand that without Hamas’ consent, the blueprint collapses under its own weight. No technocratic committee or international board can govern Gaza in defiance of its most powerful actor.

Trump and Netanyahu call this peace. In truth, it is a gamble - either Hamas yields, or Gaza is marched toward another round of bloodshed under international applause.

Far from solving the conflict, the deal risks deepening it. A plan that sidelines one side while empowering the other is not peace—it is merely the pause before the storm.

Global Sumud Flotilla approaching Gaza

According to media reports, an international aid flotilla is approaching the Gaza Strip in a bid to break an Israeli blockade on the Palestinian enclave.

“We are 570 kilometers (307.7 nautical miles) away from reaching Gaza,” the International Committee for Breaking the Siege on Gaza said on X.

Tony La Piccirella, an Italian activist from the Global Sumud Flotilla, said in a video statement that they will reach on Tuesday the point that Madleen and Handala aid ships had been intercepted by Israeli naval forces in previous attempts to lift the Israeli siege and deliver humanitarian aid.

On July 26, Israeli naval forces intercepted the Handala aid ship as it neared Gaza’s shores and escorted it to Ashdod Port. The vessel had reached about 70 nautical miles from Gaza, surpassing the distance covered by the Madleen, which made it 110 miles before it had been stopped.

A group of activists joined the Global Sumud Flotilla from the Mediterranean on Monday, and two more boats are joining from the Greek Cypriot Administration and Turkey. The biggest ship of the flotilla will set sail on Tuesday with 100 on board, the activist said.

La Piccirella said in addition to Italian and Spanish navy vessels that provide protection for the flotilla, three more countries are considering sending more military vessels, without revealing the names of these countries.

“So, it's getting bigger. And it's not about us, about the Global Sumud Flotilla. It's like a movement with hundreds of people at sea and millions of people on land, and it's not stoppable until the siege is broken,” he said.

The Global Sumud Flotilla, made up of about 50 ships, set sail earlier this month to break Israel’s blockade on Gaza and deliver humanitarian aid, particularly medical supplies, to the war-ravaged enclave.

Since March 02, Israel has fully closed Gaza’s crossings, blocking food and aid convoys and deepening famine conditions in the enclave.

The Israeli army has killed over 66,000 Palestinians, most of them women and children, in Gaza since October 2023. The relentless bombardment has rendered the enclave uninhabitable and led to starvation and the spread of diseases.

 

 

Israel’s Obsession with Iran: Supremacy, Not Survival

Israel presents its confrontation with Iran as a fight for survival. It propagates Tehran seeks its destruction, and therefore preemptive action is necessary. Yet behind this rhetoric lies a harder reality—Israel’s true concern is not annihilation but the erosion of its strategic supremacy.

At the center of this tension is Iran’s nuclear program. Israel is the Middle East’s only nuclear power, though it never admits it officially. For decades it has enjoyed this monopoly as the ultimate insurance policy.

Iran, even without a bomb, is branded an existential menace. What alarms Tel Aviv is not that Tehran would attack with nuclear weapons, but that a nuclear-capable Iran would undermine Israel’s unrivaled leverage. In other words, it is not fear of destruction, but fear of parity.

The second driver is Iran’s support for resistance groups. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza—these are not armies that can topple Israel, but they have repeatedly punctured its aura of invincibility. Each rocket barrage, each fortified position along the border, is viewed in Tel Aviv as an extension of Iranian influence, shrinking Israel’s space for unchecked action.

Ideology intensifies the clash. Iran refuses to recognize Israel, while Israeli leaders—from Netanyahu onward—frame Tehran as the new Nazi Germany. This absolutist narrative forecloses compromise and justifies covert assassinations, cyber sabotage, airstrikes in Syria, and endless lobbying for harsher sanctions.

The deeper layer is geopolitical. Among Middle Eastern states, only Iran possesses the population, resources, and regional reach to contest Israel’s dominance. Neutralizing Tehran means securing Israel’s role as the region’s undisputed military power—backed by Washington, tolerated by Arab monarchies, and free to redraw the political map to its liking.

Israel’s Iran obsession is not about survival. It is about ensuring that no other state can balance its power. By disguising this pursuit of supremacy as self-defense, Israel sustains a cycle of hostility that makes genuine peace impossible.

The world buys the existential threat narrative, but the truth is starker - Israel seeks not containment of Iran, but its permanent crippling.

 

Crude oil prices drifting down

Crude oil—the world’s most political commodity—is drifting down again. Markets that once trembled at the whisper of war or an OPEC decree are today unimpressed. Prices are slipping not because the world is safer, but because supply is running ahead of demand, and no cartel seems willing—or able—to hold back the flood.

The immediate triggers are clear. The resumption of Kurdish crude exports has added barrels back to an already saturated market. OPEC Plus, once a disciplined enforcer of scarcity, is instead edging up production to defend market share. Add to this the steady increase in US output, and the result is an unmistakable surplus. In Washington, reports of rising crude stockpiles reinforce the perception that inventories will keep swelling into 2026.

Demand is hardly roaring either. The end of the US summer driving season has clipped consumption, while China—the world’s most important incremental buyer—remains stuck in an uneven recovery. India, though growing fast, cannot absorb the excess.

Analysts now project that inventories will rise by more than two million barrels per day through early next year. In oil economics, that is the equivalent of a slow-motion glut.

Layered on top is the dollar’s strength. Every tick upward in the greenback makes oil more expensive for non-US buyers, further cooling appetite. And unlike past cycles, geopolitical flashpoints—sanctions on Iran, Russia’s war economy, Middle East tension—have not translated into major supply disruptions. Traders, ever cynical, now discount the “risk premium” that once propped up prices.

The real story is structural. Oil is losing its tightrope balance between scarcity and abundance. Producers are pumping more aggressively, while demand faces limits from efficiency gains and a global economy weighed down by debt and weak growth.

Unless OPEC Plus suddenly reverses course or a geopolitical shock knocks supply offline, the path of least resistance for oil is downward.

For consumers, cheaper fuel may feel like relief. For producers, especially those whose budgets depend on oil, it is a creeping crisis. And for the global system, it is a reminder the age of automatic oil windfalls is over, and volatility is the new name of the game.

 

MAGA and Nazism: A Disturbing Comparison

Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) slogan has, for millions of Americans, become a rallying cry for patriotism, pride, and national revival. But peel back the red caps, the rallies, and the rhetoric, and one cannot help but be reminded of the echoes of Hitler’s National Socialism (Nazism) in 1930s Germany. While history never repeats itself in the same form, it often rhymes. MAGA and Nazism may be separated by geography, time, and context, yet the patterns of politics of resentment, identity, and exclusion are hauntingly similar.

Is MAGA just politics, or is it an early verse in a dangerous rhyme of history?

Both Trump and Hitler rose from discontent. Hitler exploited post–World War I humiliation, economic despair, and national insecurity; Trump harnessed the frustration of a middle America alienated by globalization, immigration, and cultural liberalism. Both channeled that anger not toward solutions, but toward scapegoats — Jews and minorities in Nazi Germany, immigrants, Muslims, and “global elites” in Trump’s America.

The rhetoric of victimhood is another striking parallel. Hitler constantly reminded Germans they were betrayed by “traitors” and cheated by the world. Trump, in turn, insists that America has been “stabbed in the back” by foreign nations, immigrants, and even domestic institutions — media, courts, and his political opponents. The cry of “America First” is less about revival than about us-versus-them tribalism.

Though, MAGA has not built concentration camps or embarked on genocide. But the infrastructure of hate is disturbingly familiar - demonization of minorities, delegitimization of institutions, glorification of strongman rule, and calls to suppress dissent. Nazism began not with gas chambers but with words, slogans, and rallies that normalized extremism — precisely where MAGA thrives today.

Critics may argue that comparing Trump to Hitler is alarmist. Yet democracies don’t collapse overnight; they are chipped away, one “movement” at a time. MAGA, like Nazism, cloaks itself in the flag, promises restoration of greatness, and scapegoats the vulnerable. The lesson of history is clear: when leaders weaponize nationalism and fear, the road to authoritarianism is short and perilous.

Arab Silence on Iran Sanctions: Hypocrisy at Its Peak

When Western powers tighten the noose of sanctions on Iran, one would expect Muslim nations—bound by faith and shared history—to object. Yet the Arab capitals remain silent, some even nodding in approval. Why? Because geopolitics has conveniently buried the idea of the Ummah.

For decades, Arab regimes have painted Iran not as a fellow Muslim state but as a sectarian rival, a destabilizing Shia power encroaching on their Sunni domains. From Hezbollah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen, Tehran’s fingerprints unsettle Arab rulers. For them, US-led sanctions are not injustice—these are containment.

Add to this the dependency on Washington. The Gulf monarchies thrive on American protection, arms, and trade. To defy US diktats is to risk the very foundations of their security. So they remain mute, even when sanctions cripple ordinary Iranians.

These same states cry foul over Palestine, condemn Western double standards in Gaza, and rally Muslim solidarity—only to abandon it when it comes to Iran. The truth is simple - Arab rulers see a weakened Iran as good for oil markets, good for their regimes, and good for their new friends in Tel Aviv.

Sanctions on Iran are discriminatory, yes. But the bigger betrayal is the silence of Arab leaders who claim to defend Muslim dignity yet quietly cheer when one of their own is strangled.

Sanctions on Iran: A Weapon of Discrimination

The United Nations reinstated an arms embargo and other sanctions on Iran on Saturday following a process triggered by key European powers that Tehran has warned will be met with a harsh response.

Britain, France and Germany triggered the return of sanctions on Iran at the UN Security Council over accusations the country has violated a 2015 deal that aimed to stop it developing a nuclear bomb.

The most disappointing fact is that Iran has been persistently denying it seeks nuclear weapons.

The latest “snapback” sanctions on Iran are being propagated as a principled stand for global security. In reality, these are a textbook case of discriminatory politics masquerading as international law.

When European countries and the United Nations reimposed sweeping restrictions on Iran, they claimed it was about enforcing the nuclear deal. But anyone watching global affairs knows the truth - rules are not applied equally.

Some states, Israel being on the top, are allowed to violate treaties, wage wars, and commit human rights abuses without facing meaningful penalties. As against this, Iran is being punished relentlessly and disproportionately for nearly half a century.

This double standard makes the sanctions discriminatory. International law is supposed to be blind, yet it routinely blinks when powerful countries or their allies are in the dock. If a rule is enforced against one country but ignored for another, then it is not law at all—it is selective punishment.

The impact of these sanctions is another form of injustice. These do not primarily weaken Iran’s ruling regime. Instead, these strangle ordinary Iranians—families struggling to buy food, patients unable to access medicines, students cut off from opportunities abroad.

These sanctions drive inflation, hollow out the middle class, and breed resentment. Yet policymakers continue to inflict this suffering while pretending it advances diplomacy.

The legality of the move itself is shaky. Critics, including Russia and China, argue that the so-called snapback mechanism was triggered improperly. If great powers can bend procedures to suit their interests, then the credibility of international agreements collapses. Why would any state trust deals if enforcement depends on politics rather than principle?

Supporters of sanctions insist these are a peaceful alternative to war. But sanctions do not bring peace—these are economic warfare and are designed to coerce, to cripple, and to remind weaker nations of their place in a hierarchy where might makes right.

Scrutiny should come through fair, consistent, and negotiated mechanisms—not through discriminatory punishment imposed by those who selectively police the world. Otherwise, sanctions cease to be instruments of justice and become tools of domination.

Unless international sanctions are applied evenly, transparently, and with safeguards against humanitarian harm, these will continue to deepen global mistrust.

The sanctions will not be accepted as a neutral enforcement of law, but as another weapon of geopolitics. And the more the world tolerates selective justice, the more fragile the entire international order becomes.

If global powers truly want compliance and stability, they must abandon the hypocrisy of discriminatory sanctions. Anything less will only harden grievances, destabilize regions, and erode what little legitimacy international institutions still command.

While the sanctions should be about justice, at present these are about power. It will not be wrong to say that in case of Iran, the power is not being used to usher peace, but to punish the strongest opponent of Israel.

 

 

Protests and walkouts eclipse Netanyahu's UN appearance

The scene in New York — empty UN rows, diplomatic walkouts and sustained street protests, including large marches from Times Square to the UN and demonstrations outside Netanyahu’s Manhattan hotel — crystallized the political cost of the address.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the United Nations General Assembly on Friday was an attempt at a carefully staged and combative defense of Israel’s aggressive campaign in Gaza and its wider military actions across the region. Yet the performance could not mask the widening gulf between his narrative and the findings of international institutions, public-health agencies, and human-rights organizations.

Netanyahu employed one prominent map, alongside visual aids and rhetorical flourishes critics deemed theatrical props, and he repeated the phrase “Israel must finish the job.”

The line landed amid visible diplomatic rebuke - dozens of delegations staged walkouts and large sections of the Assembly remained conspicuously empty, while thousands of demonstrators in New York took to the streets demanding a ceasefire and accountability.

Independent UN mechanisms and leading rights groups have drawn a far grimmer picture than the one Netanyahu offered. In a September report, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry concluded that the Israeli conduct in Gaza meets the legal threshold of genocide.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented patterns of indiscriminate bombardment, forced displacement, and the deliberate deprivation of essential services that they say amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Public-health agencies and UN partners, drawing on figures from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, estimate that more than 65,500 people have been killed since October 2023.

The war has forced the displacement of up to 90 percent of the population, while famine conditions have taken hold in several areas. The World Health Organization has confirmed hundreds of deaths from malnutrition, many of them children.

Beyond Gaza, Israel’s military actions have extended across the region, with deadly strikes in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, where more than 1,065 people were killed in the 12-Day War. Attacks have also targeted sites in Qatar and other parts of West Asia, widening the conflict’s footprint and drawing condemnation for what critics describe as a campaign of destabilization.

Netanyahu sought to rebut such charges by pointing to evacuation orders and intelligence claims, and by portraying Iran as the backbone of a regional “terror axis.”

Those assertions did not persuade critics who point out that warnings alone cannot absolve a belligerent of responsibility for operations that hit hospitals, shelters, and schools or that substantially hinder lifesaving aid.

The repeated refrain to “finish the job” in an enclave of nearly two million civilians risks being read not as a constrained military objective but as justification for actions with catastrophic humanitarian and legal consequences.

A particularly contentious decision during the UN appearance was the transmission of the speech into Gaza via loudspeakers on the border and, according to multiple reports, through mobile devices.

Framed by Tel Aviv as communication aimed at captives, the broadcasts were described by many humanitarian advocates and Palestinian journalists as coercive psychological pressure imposed on a population already under bombardment and facing starvation.

 

 

PSX benchmark index closes at yet another record high

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained positive throughout the week, closing at a record high of 162,257 points on Friday, September 26, 2025, posting a weekly gain of 4,220 points or 2.67%WoW.

Bullish sentiments were supported by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif’s successful meetings with US President Trump on Thursday, and the signing of long-awaited PKR1.2 trillion debt arrangement with banks to retire power sector circular debt.

Consequently, E&Ps and Power sector scrips remained highest index contributors, along with Commercial Banks. Moreover, Pakistan is expecting a delegation of Saudi businesses to explore bilateral trade opportunities following the recent strategic defense agreement.

The said positives boosted investors’ confidence, driving weekly market participation to an all-time high, with average daily traded volume increasing by 20%WoW to 2.2 billion shares.

Fertilizer sales surged in August 2025, with urea and DAP offtakes rising 46%YoY and 53%YoY, respectively, supported by discount offerings and lower inventories.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$22 million to US$14.4 billion as of September 19, 2025. PKR appreciated by 0.03%YoY to close at PKR281.37 to a US dollar.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) IMF presses Pakistan on missed tax targets, 2) Power tariffs set for 10% cut after PKR1.225 trillion debt repayment, 3) Japan intends to invest in Reko Diq project, 4) Unilateral tariff concessions on 700 items sought from China, and 5) FBR chief says no proposal for mini-budget.

Power generation, E&P, and Pharmaceutical were amongst the top performing sectors, while Woollen, Leasing companies, and textile spinning were the laggards.

Major selling was visible from Bank and Foreigners with net sell of US$29.5 million. Mutual funds and Individuals emerged net buyer with net buy of US$42.3 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were, KEL, BWCL, HUBC, DGKC, and MARI, while laggards included: TGL, EPCL, POML, PKGP, and BNWM.

According to AKD Securities, PSX is expected to remain positive in the coming weeks, with the upcoming IMF review 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. The top picks of the brokerage house include: OGDC, PPL, PSO, FFC, ENGROH, MCB, LUCK, DGKC, FCCL, INDU, ILP, and SYS. 

Tony Blair being tipped to run Gaza

According to the reports published in Haaretz and the Times of Israel the White House is backing a proposal to install former British prime minister Tony Blair at the head of a new “Gaza International Transitional Authority” (GITA), which would serve as Gaza’s supreme political and legal authority for as long as five years.

The body, modeled on transitional administrations in Kosovo and Timor-Leste, would initially be based in Egypt and later enter Gaza with a supposedly UN-endorsed, largely Arab peacekeeping force.

According to the details, GITA would oversee a technocratic Palestinian Executive Authority tasked with delivering services, running ministries such as health and education, and supervising vetted civil police.

Hamas is explicitly excluded, while the Palestinian Authority (PA) is promised an eventual role — but with no firm timetable.

By contrast, the UN General Assembly recently backed the “New York Declaration,” a plan for a one-year interim administration that would then hand power to a reformed PA following elections.

Arab states have warned that their support for any peacekeeping force depends on a credible political horizon toward Palestinian statehood. Many fear that the Blair plan offers only a more palatable form of occupation, granting Israel reassurances while denying Palestinians genuine sovereignty.

Blair’s involvement is especially controversial. While he enjoys ties with Arab leaders from the Persian Gulf, Palestinians broadly resent his record as Middle East envoy and his role in the US-led invasion of Iraq. To many, his leadership would symbolize not liberation but a continuation of externally imposed control.

The plan comes against the backdrop of Washington’s earlier floated ideas — including transforming Gaza into a “Riviera” or even facilitating mass removal of Palestinians — rhetoric widely condemned as edging toward ethnic cleansing.

Though the details from the Blair proposal do not explicitly call for displacement, critics warn that without guarantees of rights, participation, and a binding timeline, Gaza risks foreign control and loss of sovereignty.

 

Yemeni drone attack injures more than 20 in Israeli city of Eilat

According to media reports, at least 22 people were injured, including two seriously, after a drone fired from Yemen hit the city of Eilat in southern Israel on the Red Sea coast on Wednesday.

Video and images from emergency responders and the Israeli military show the drone landed near stores and restaurants. The drone was fired during the final hours of the holiday of Rosh Hashanah, which marks the Jewish New Year.

Houthis have repeatedly launched drones and ballistic missiles at Eilat and other areas in southern Israel, but these launches are frequently intercepted. It’s unclear how Wednesday’s drone penetrated Israel’s air defenses.

“Interception attempts were made, and search and rescue teams are operating in the area where the report was received regarding the impact,” the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement.

Many of those who were injured in the attack suffered shrapnel from the explosion, according to Magen David Adom (MDA), Israel’s emergency response service.

A 60-year-old man who was seriously injured was struck by shrapnel in his limbs, while a seriously injured 26-year-old man suffered shrapnel wounds to his chest, MDA said. One other person suffered moderate injuries, MDA said.

The IDF said in a separate statement that its troops “are assisting in evacuating civilians from the area and providing initial medical care.”

“An IDF helicopter was dispatched and is currently assisting in evacuating injured individuals from the scene,” it added.

The Houthi militant group in Yemen later claimed responsibility for the attack, calling it a “qualitative military operation.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz vowed to revenge against Houthis following the attack on the city.

“The Houthi terrorists refuse to learn from Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza – and they will learn the hard way,” Katz said in a statement.

“Whoever harms Israel will be harmed sevenfold,” Katz added.

Earlier in September, a drone launched from Yemen by Houthi rebels hit the arrivals hall at Ramon Airport in southern Israel on Sunday, the Israeli military and the Israel Airports Authority said.

No sirens were sounded, the IDF said, since the drone was identified but not classified as hostile. An “extensive investigation” was expected.

Since Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza began in October 2023, the country has come under fire from missiles and drones from the Houthis in Yemen, who claim to strike Israel in solidarity with the Palestinians.

Israel has carried out waves of strikes targeting Houthi military facilities and civilian infrastructure the IDF says is used by the Houthis. But the long-range exchange of fire has escalated recently.

In late August, Yemen’s Houthi rebels vowed to take revenge for the killing of their prime minister and other political leaders by Israeli airstrikes earlier that month.

 

US pushing gold prices to unrealistic levels

The perception that the United States is pushing gold prices to unrealistic levels is getting credence among some analysts, but the reality is more complex. Gold prices are influenced by multiple forces, many of which are tied to US policies and actions. Let us do some due diligence:

1. US Dollar and Monetary Policy

Gold is priced is quoted in US dollars around the world. When the Federal Reserve cuts interest rates, maintains low real yields, or expands liquidity through quantitative easing, investors seek gold as a hedge against dollar weakness. Conversely, when the Fed signals persistent inflation risks but avoids aggressive tightening, gold becomes attractive as a safe asset.

2. Inflation and Debt Pressures

The US is running record deficits and debt levels (over US$35 trillion). To finance this, the Fed and Treasury rely on loose monetary policies, which fuel fears of currency debasement. Gold thrives in such environments.

3. Geopolitical Strategy

Some analysts argue the US indirectly supports higher gold prices by fostering global instability - Middle East wars, tensions with China and Russia. In uncertain times, central banks and investors shift to gold. Ironically, Washington doesn’t mind if gold rises, because it pushes countries like China, Russia, and emerging economies to park reserves in gold instead of US Treasuries, reducing immediate pressure on US bond markets.

4. Central Bank Buying Trend

In recent years, especially after US sanctions on Russia’s reserves, central banks worldwide including China, Turkey, India, and even Poland have accelerated gold purchases to reduce dependence on the US dollar. The US fuels this trend by using the dollar as a geopolitical weapon, it motivates others to seek neutral reserve assets like gold, which drives its prices higher.

5. Speculation and Market Psychology

Large US-based funds and banks also influence gold prices via futures and ETFs. Speculative flows exaggerate moves, at times pushing prices well above fundamentals.

While it is being propagated that the US is not literally setting gold prices, in reality its monetary policy, sanctions strategy, and geopolitical behavior create conditions that push demand for gold. To some, this makes prices look unrealistic, but in fact they reflect rising mistrust in the US dollar system.

Following is the graph showing the hike in gold prices over the last two years (2023–2025). You can see a steady rise in 2023–2024, followed by a sharp surge in 2025 — nearly doubling from under US$2,000/ oz to over US$3,700/ oz.

Saudi Support to Pakistan Beyond Diplomacy

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan share a relationship that is often described as “brotherly” rather than merely diplomatic. Rooted in faith, history, and mutual respect, the Kingdom’s support to Pakistan over the decades has been nothing short of exceptional. At every critical juncture—from wars and economic crises to natural disasters—Riyadh has stepped forward with generosity, affirming its role as Islamabad’s most trusted partner.

Historical Foundations of Brotherhood

Saudi Arabia was among the very first nations to recognize Pakistan after its independence in 1947. Since then, ties have been nurtured on shared Islamic values and common aspirations. The relationship quickly matured into a strategic alliance, with both nations backing each other in times of need. During Pakistan’s wars in 1965 and 1971, Riyadh extended strong political and moral support. Similarly, Pakistan stood firmly with the Kingdom during regional crises, cementing trust that has endured for generations.

Financial Lifelines in Times of Need

Perhaps the most visible manifestation of Saudi support has been on the economic front. Pakistan, a developing country often facing fiscal and balance-of-payment challenges, has repeatedly found in Riyadh a source of immediate relief.

In recent years alone, the Kingdom deposited billions of dollars in Pakistan’s State Bank reserves, providing crucial breathing space at a time when international institutions were either hesitant or demanded painful reforms. Oil supplies on deferred payment have cushioned Pakistan’s import bill, helping stabilize inflation and energy costs. Unlike Western lenders, Saudi assistance has rarely been tied to political or structural conditions, making it uniquely generous and timely.

This pattern is not new. Since the 1970s, Riyadh has offered concessional oil facilities, long-term loans, and grants to help Pakistan weather external shocks. Time and again, Saudi Arabia has proven to be Pakistan’s financial first responder.

Energy Security and Investment Potential

Saudi Arabia has also played a key role in Pakistan’s energy security. Its oil facilities have ensured that Pakistan’s economy continues to function even during periods of global energy volatility. Looking ahead, Riyadh has expressed strong interest in investing in Pakistan’s energy infrastructure, particularly in the proposed multibillion-dollar Gwadar Oil Refinery. Such projects not only promise to reduce Pakistan’s dependence on imported petroleum products but also strengthen its role as a regional energy hub.

Humanitarian Generosity and People to People Impact

The Kingdom’s generosity extends far beyond state to state transactions. During Pakistan’s worst humanitarian crises, including the devastating 2005 earthquake and the catastrophic floods of 2010 and 2022, Saudi Arabia was among the largest donors of aid. Relief goods, medical teams, and financial contributions directly helped millions of displaced and vulnerable citizens.

Saudi-funded development projects—ranging from schools and hospitals to water supply schemes—have left a lasting impact on communities across Pakistan. These initiatives reflect Riyadh’s recognition that real support lies not just in financial transfers but in uplifting the quality of life of ordinary people.

Strategic and Defense Cooperation

Defense and security cooperation remain another cornerstone of the relationship. Pakistani military personnel have long been involved in training Saudi armed forces, a partnership that has enhanced Riyadh’s defense capacity while deepening trust between the two establishments.

At the diplomatic level, Saudi Arabia has consistently stood by Pakistan on sensitive issues, particularly Kashmir. By lending its political weight to Islamabad’s positions at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and other global platforms, Riyadh has amplified Pakistan’s voice in the international arena.

Mutuality of Interests

Although Saudi Arabia’s exceptional support to Pakistan often takes the spotlight, the relationship is not one-sided. Pakistan has consistently extended manpower, expertise, and solidarity to the Kingdom. Millions of Pakistani workers in Saudi Arabia are a vital part of the Kingdom’s development, especially under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030. Their contributions not only drive Saudi progress but also sustain Pakistan’s economy through remittances that exceed billions of dollars annually.

In times of regional tension, Pakistan has also stood firmly with Riyadh, whether by providing military expertise or diplomatic support. This reciprocity underscores the fact that the partnership is built on mutual respect and shared strategic interests.

Looking Toward the Future

As the global order undergoes transformation, the Saudi-Pakistan relationship is poised to enter a new phase. Vision 2030, which seeks to diversify the Saudi economy beyond oil, opens new avenues for Pakistani professionals, investors, and skilled workers. Pakistan, with its youthful population and strategic location at the crossroads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, remains a natural partner for Riyadh’s long-term ambitions.

Furthermore, investment in renewable energy, technology, agriculture, and infrastructure can redefine the contours of this relationship. What has historically been dominated by financial and defense cooperation is now broadening into sectors that will drive growth in the 21st century.

Exceptional Saudi support to Pakistan is not merely about financial bailouts or humanitarian aid. It is the reflection of a bond rooted in shared faith, tested by history, and strengthened by mutual benefit. For Pakistan, Saudi Arabia has been a dependable partner in times of uncertainty. For Riyadh, Islamabad remains a steadfast ally with strategic depth and human capital.

As both nations look ahead, their challenge is to transform this exceptional support into sustainable, future-oriented cooperation. By building on decades of trust, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan can not only uplift their own people but also set an example of solidarity and resilience for the wider Muslim world.

 

Hamas is Freedom Fighter, Not Terrorist

The dominant Western discourse labels Hamas a “terrorist organization.” Yet this framing neglects both the context of Israel’s occupation and the legal principles that underpin the Palestinian right to resist. A critical reassessment reveals Hamas as part of a broader liberation struggle—comparable to anti-colonial movements across Africa, Asia, and Europe—that embodies the right of oppressed peoples to fight for self-determination.

Legal Basis of Resistance

International law recognizes the legitimacy of armed resistance against foreign occupation. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 37/43 (1982) affirms the right of peoples “under colonial and foreign domination and alien occupation to struggle … by all available means, including armed struggle.”

The Palestinian case clearly falls within this framework. Israel’s continued occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem violates numerous UN resolutions, including UN Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) and 338 (1973), which demand Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.

Thus, the actions of Palestinian resistance groups—including Hamas—are not “terrorism” in the legal sense but a manifestation of the internationally recognized right to resist occupation.

Historical Parallels

Resistance movements throughout history were often branded “terrorist” by dominant powers. The French Resistance against Nazi Germany engaged in armed attacks and sabotage but is now revered as heroic.

Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC) was on US and British terrorist watch lists until the 1990s.

Similarly, the FLN in Algeria and the Mau Mau in Kenya were vilified as terrorists during their anti-colonial wars.

Today, they are celebrated as freedom fighters who dismantled colonial rule. Hamas should be understood in this historical continuum rather than through selective moral judgments.

Political and Social Legitimacy

Hamas is not an isolated militant group. In the 2006 Palestinian legislative elections, declared free and fair by international monitors, Hamas won a majority, underscoring its legitimacy among Palestinians.

Beyond its military dimension, it provides education, healthcare, and welfare services in Gaza, functioning as both a political and social actor.

This dual role strengthens its claim as a national liberation movement rather than a mere armed faction.

Double Standards

The Western narrative reveals glaring inconsistencies. When Ukraine resists Russian occupation, it is celebrated as self-defense. When Palestinians resist Israeli occupation, it is condemned as terrorism.

Such double standards highlight the politicization of the term “terrorism,” stripping it of objective meaning and weaponizing it to delegitimize legitimate struggles.

Palestinian Struggle

It is important to emphasize that Hamas does not exist in isolation but as part of a century-long Palestinian resistance to dispossession and occupation.

The 1948 Nakba displaced hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and Israel’s subsequent expansion entrenched a system widely described by human rights organizations—including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch—as apartheid. In this context, Hamas embodies continuity with the larger Palestinian liberation struggle.

Hamas is not merely a militant group but a resistance movement rooted in the Palestinian right to self-determination. International law, historical precedent, and moral logic place it firmly within the tradition of freedom fighters, not terrorists.

To criminalize Hamas is to criminalize the very notion of liberation. Just as yesterday’s “terrorists” became today’s national heroes, the Palestinian struggle—and Hamas as part of it—must be recognized as a fight for justice and freedom.

 

Disappointing utterings of President Trump

US President Donald Trump castigated the United Nations on Tuesday as a “feckless institution” in a grievance filled, self-congratulatory speech to the General Assembly that attracted mixed sharp criticism of allies.

In his roughly hour-long address, Trump praised America’s direction under his leadership while warning that Europe would be “ruined” if it continued pursuing what he called a “double-tailed monster” of liberal migration policies and costly green energy projects.

He accused the UN of being full of “empty words” that fail to resolve wars, yet later told Secretary-General Antonio Guterres the US remained “100%” behind the organization’s peacekeeping potential.

The president’s remarks underscored Washington’s return to an unapologetic “America First” posture, with sharp critiques of US allies and the global body itself.

Trump lauded expanded US drilling and tougher immigration controls, urging other countries to follow suit.

He warned European nations against what he called the “green energy scam,” claiming it would devastate their economies and societies.

On Ukraine, Trump shifted tone dramatically after meeting President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, saying he now believes Kyiv, with NATO support, could retake all occupied territory. The reversal marked his strongest endorsement yet of Ukraine’s war effort against Russia.

Trump emphasized his role as a global mediator, pointing to US efforts to ease conflicts in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia.

He repeated his claim that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, though experts dispute the extent of his impact.

Breaking from prepared remarks, Trump mocked a broken escalator and teleprompter at UN headquarters, drawing laughter from delegates.

He closed by declaring that his “real prize” would be saving lives by ending wars, not international accolades.

Despite fiery rhetoric, Trump sought to balance his attacks with assurances of US commitment, leaving diplomats to parse an address that veered between confrontation and conciliation.

 

  

Saudi Arabia under dynamic leadership of MBS

Saudi Arabia’s transformation under Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) is not only reshaping the Kingdom but also sending ripples across the Muslim world, including Pakistan. His bold reforms under Vision 2030 have turned Saudi Arabia into a symbol of modernization rooted in tradition, economic diversification, and youth empowerment. For countries in South Asia and the wider Muslim Ummah, Saudi Arabia’s progress offers both lessons and opportunities.

A Model of Economic Diversification

For decades, Saudi Arabia’s economy was defined by oil revenues. Today, under MBS, it is rapidly diversifying. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), non-oil real GDP grew by 4.5% in 2024, and overall growth is projected to reach 3.9% by 2026.

Flagship projects like NEOM and the development of renewable energy — targeting 130 GW by 2030 — are positioning Saudi Arabia at the cutting edge of global innovation. For Pakistan, which struggles with energy insecurity and overreliance on imports, Saudi Arabia’s example of large-scale solar, wind, and hydrogen projects is highly relevant. Pakistan can benefit from Saudi expertise and investment in clean energy, aligning with its own climate challenges.

Social Reforms and Their Regional Significance

One of the most striking achievements of Vision 2030 is the empowerment of Saudi women. Female labor participation has surged from 17% in 2016 to nearly 36% by 2023, exceeding Vision 2030’s original target.

This has lessons for Pakistan, where female participation in the workforce remains under 25%. The Saudi example demonstrates that carefully managed reforms, aligned with cultural and religious values, can unlock the economic potential of women without eroding tradition. It is an important message for conservative societies across South Asia that modernization and faith can coexist.

Opportunities for Pakistan

Saudi Arabia under MBS has become one of Pakistan’s most reliable partners. The Kingdom’s direct investments — whether in oil refineries, infrastructure, or mining — promise to strengthen Pakistan’s fragile economy. Riyadh’s supportive financial packages in times of crisis have also been crucial in stabilizing Pakistan’s reserves.

With MBS driving Saudi diversification, Pakistan can position itself as both a strategic partner and a beneficiary. Skilled Pakistani labor is already in demand in Saudi Arabia, and Vision 2030’s mega-projects will open opportunities for professionals in engineering, IT, health, and services. Strengthening people-to-people ties will further cement the historical bond between the two nations.

Regional Implications

Saudi Arabia’s progress is not just a national story — it carries regional weight. A stable, modern, and forward-looking Saudi Arabia strengthens the Muslim world at a time when many nations are trapped in conflict or stagnation. By asserting an independent foreign policy, hosting global investment forums, and committing to sustainability, MBS is redefining Riyadh’s role as a leader in the Middle East.

For South Asia, Saudi Arabia’s transformation is an anchor of stability and opportunity. Countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and even Afghanistan can benefit from stronger trade, labor mobility, and shared energy initiatives. In a world where the Muslim voice is often fragmented, Riyadh’s rise under MBS provides a rallying point.

A Leadership Style that Inspires

While some critics focus on controversies, the undeniable fact is that MBS has injected new energy into Saudi society and its global standing. His leadership resonates with young people — not only in Saudi Arabia but across the Muslim world. For many in Pakistan, where governance often appears directionless, MBS’s clarity of vision and decisiveness stand in sharp contrast.

Saudi Arabia’s transformation under MBS is a story of ambition meeting execution. The Kingdom is diversifying its economy, empowering its youth and women, and asserting itself on the world stage. For Pakistan and its neighbors, the lesson is clear: bold leadership, rooted in cultural values but open to innovation, can turn challenges into opportunities.

As the Muslim world looks for models of progress, Saudi Arabia under MBS shines as an inspiring example — not just for Arabs, but for Pakistanis and all those who yearn for reform without losing identity.

 

US and Israel must pay for Gaza reconstruction

Reports suggest that US President Donald Trump is set to convene leaders and officials from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, and Pakistan for a multilateral meeting on Gaza. The centerpiece of his proposal will be threefold: 1) release of captives, 2) a ceasefire, and 3) Israeli withdrawal. Yet behind these points lies Washington’s real demand — pressing Arab and Muslim countries to provide troops and bankroll Gaza’s reconstruction.

This approach is deeply flawed. After nearly two years of war, Gaza has been turned into rubble. Over 65,000 Palestinians are dead, the entire population displaced, and famine has taken hold. UN inquiries and global rights experts have already concluded that Israel’s campaign constitutes genocide.

Against such evidence, one must ask: why should Arab and Muslim states be asked to fund the rebuilding of a land destroyed by Israel with American weapons and American diplomatic cover?

Morally and legally, it is Israel and its principal sponsor — the United States — who must foot the bill, not the victims’ brothers and neighbors.

In fact, justice demands far more: compensation to the families of the dead, even a million dollars for each life taken, as a measure of accountability.

History underscores this logic. After World War II, defeated aggressors were made to pay. Germany’s factories and patents were seized, Japan delivered reparations to occupied nations, and Italy compensated countries it had invaded.

The Western Allies later softened the approach through the Marshall Plan, choosing reconstruction over humiliation. But the guiding principle remained the same: those who destroy must pay to rebuild.

Expecting Arab and Muslim nations to pay for Gaza’s reconstruction is not only unjust, it is an insult. It absolves Israel of responsibility while shifting the burden onto those who stood with the victims.

If Washington and Tel Aviv believe in peace, they must accept the hard truth: accountability is the foundation of stability. Gaza will not rise from the ashes if the arsonists walk free and the neighbors are forced to pick up the tab.

President Trump Gaza Belongs to Palestinians

US President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet leaders and officials from multiple Muslim-majority countries on Tuesday and discuss the situation in Gaza, which has been under a mounting assault from Washington's ally Israel.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday that Trump will hold a multilateral meeting with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia and Pakistan.

Axios reported Trump will present the group with a proposal for peace and post-war governance in Gaza.

In addition to freeing hostages and ending the war, Trump is expected to discuss US plans around an Israeli withdrawal and post-war governance in Gaza, without Hamas involvement, according to Axios.

Washington wants Arab and Muslim countries to agree to send military forces to Gaza to enable Israel's withdrawal and to secure funding for transition and rebuilding programs, Axios reported.

Trump will address the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, a day after dozens of world leaders gathered at the United Nations to embrace a Palestinian state, a landmark diplomatic shift nearly two years into the Gaza war that faces fierce resistance from Israel and the United States.

The nations said a two-state solution was the only way to achieve peace, but Israel said the recognition of a Palestinian state was a reward to extremism.

Israel's assault on Gaza since October 2023 has killed tens of thousands, internally displaced Gaza's entire population, and set off a starvation crisis. Multiple rights experts, scholars and a UN inquiry assessed it amounts to genocide.

Israel calls its actions self-defense and has also bombed Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Qatar during the course of its war in Gaza.

Trump had promised a quick end to the war in Gaza, but a resolution remains elusive eight months into his term.

In February, Trump proposed a US takeover of Gaza and a permanent displacement of Palestinians from there. It was labeled as an "ethnic cleansing" proposal by rights experts and the United Nations. Forcible displacement is illegal under international law. Trump cast the plan as a re-development idea.

What options US can exercise if Afghans refuse to handover Bagram Air Base?

If Afghans refuse to handover Bagram Air Base back to the United States, Washington is likely to face a serious strategic dilemma. The response will likely depend on how far the super power is willing to push its military and political leverage in the region. Some of the likely options are:

1. Diplomatic Pressure

The first option would be to apply diplomatic pressure on the Taliban government, possibly through Qatar or Pakistan as intermediaries. The US may frame Bagram’s access as essential for counterterrorism monitoring, and push for a limited presence under international arrangements rather than outright US control.

2. Economic and Sanctions Leverage

If diplomacy fails, Washington could use financial levers that include:

Tightening sanctions on Taliban leaders.

Blocking international recognition of the Taliban government.

Cutting off humanitarian exemptions or aid that Afghanistan relies on.

This would make Kabul’s refusal costlier.

3. Regional Partnerships

The US might deepen military partnerships with neighbors instead. For instance:

Expanding use of bases in Central Asia (though Russia and China will resist this).

Strengthening presence in the Persian Gulf (Qatar, UAE).

Increasing over-the-horizon operations using drones and satellites.

This would reduce dependency on Bagram, though at a higher logistical cost.

4. Covert Operations

If Washington views Bagram as critical for counterterrorism, it could resort to covert methods—arming rival Afghan groups, intelligence penetration, or even destabilization strategies to pressure the Taliban into concessions.

5. Accept and Adapt

Though difficult, the US may accept that Afghanistan is now firmly outside its reach and adapt by monitoring from afar. This would reflect Washington’s reluctance to re-engage militarily in Afghanistan after two decades of war.

Syria regime change: MI6 links with HTS

The outgoing chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), Richard Moore, has confirmed that London maintained clandestine communications with the extremist group Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) before the fall of Bashar al-Assad.

Spy agencies determining fate of Middle East

We are of the view that the geopolitics in the Middle East are basically driven by the top ace spy agencies CIA and MI6 due to their long presence and lust to attain dominance. Both the agencies often play complementary as well as opposing role. In the Middle East, both the CIA of United States and MI6 of Britain active, but their influence and power are not equal. To read details click https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2025/09/spy-agencies-determining-fate-of-middle.html

Speaking in Istanbul on Friday, Moore described establishing a “backchannel” with HTS—still officially designated a terrorist organization—as allowing Britain to “get ahead of events” during Syria’s political transition.

HTS, which many consider the rebranded version of al-Qaeda in Syria, was formally dissolved after its leader, Ahmad al-Sharaa, assumed power in December 2024, but its senior operatives continue to dominate Syria’s government.

Al-Sharaa, also known as Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, was captured as a senior al-Qaeda commander in Iraq in 2006 and released from US custody in 2011, yet remains unapologetic for his past attacks.

According to reports by independent journalist Kit Klarenberg, the British engagement with HTS was facilitated by Inter-Mediate, a shadowy “conflict resolution” NGO founded by Jonathan Powell, now National Security Advisor to Prime Minister Keir Starmer.

According to leaked documents, the firm maintains an office inside Syria’s Presidential Palace and worked closely with MI6 and the Foreign Office to groom HTS for political legitimacy. Critics warn this constitutes a flagrant violation of British counter-terrorism laws, which criminalize dealings with proscribed groups.

The partnership between HTS and Western intelligence agencies had long been suspected. Former US ambassador Robert Ford disclosed that in 2023, a UK NGO sought his help to rebrand HTS from a terrorist entity into a political actor. Inter-Mediate’s consultations reportedly ensured the extremist group’s military seizure of Damascus would align with London’s strategic interests.

This revelation raises serious questions about Britain’s role in Syria, echoing the CIA’s Timber Sycamore program, which, from 2012 onwards, funneled weapons, funding, and training to rebel groups fighting Assad—many of which later merged with extremist factions like HTS.

The program exposed how Western interventions intended to shape Syria’s political landscape often empowered the very groups classified as terrorists, underscoring the risks of covert operations that prioritize regime change over stability and civilian protection.