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.

 

From RCD to ECO to Complete Dormancy

Regionalism has often been hailed as a path toward prosperity, but the trajectory of the Regional Cooperation for Development (RCD) and its successor, the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), tells a sobering story of missed opportunities. What began with promise in the 1960s has today slipped into near-complete irrelevance.

The RCD was founded in 1964 by Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey to strengthen economic, cultural, and technical cooperation. It emerged in a Cold War environment, where smaller powers sought to shield themselves from great-power dependency by building regional linkages.

On paper, the project had logic, three strategically located Muslim countries, with shared aspirations of modernization, pooling resources to advance trade, industry, and connectivity. In practice, RCD never went beyond symbolism.

The organization lacked institutional strength, faced political frictions, and struggled to overcome the dominance of external economic ties over intra-regional trade.

By the late 1970s, the Iranian Revolution and shifting geopolitical alignments sealed RCD’s fate. In 1979, it faded into history without leaving a substantial legacy.

A revival attempt came in 1985, when the same three countries launched the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO). ECO promised a fresh start and greater ambition. Its major breakthrough came in 1992 with the admission of seven new members — Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

ECO spanned a vast geography bridging South, Central, and West Asia, with a market of nearly half a billion people and immense natural resources.

Observers predicted that ECO could become a Eurasian economic powerhouse, knitting together landlocked Central Asia with energy-rich Iran and Turkey, and consumer-rich Pakistan.

As decades passed, the promise remained unfulfilled. Member states pursued conflicting foreign policies, were more deeply tied to external trade partners than to each other, and often lacked political trust. Infrastructure gaps meant goods could not move freely.

Overlapping memberships — in the OIC, SCO, CIS, and other blocs — diluted ECO’s relevance.

High-sounding declarations at summits were rarely followed by implementation. Even flagship projects, such as the Islamabad-Tehran-Istanbul railway, never became viable trade corridors.

Today, ECO exists largely as a ceremonial body. Meetings are infrequent, agreements unenforced, and the organization invisible in global or even regional affairs.

Intra-ECO trade remains stuck around 7–8% of members’ total trade, a telling indicator of stagnation.

Compared to other regional blocs such as ASEAN or the EU, ECO demonstrates how political will, not geography, determines success.

The journey from RCD to ECO to dormancy offers a lesson ‑ regional cooperation cannot survive on rhetoric alone. Without trust, shared vision, and consistent follow-through, even the most promising initiatives collapse into irrelevance.

ECO still retains potential — its geography places it at the crossroads of major trade routes, including China’s Belt and Road Initiative. But unless member states move beyond statements and invest in genuine integration, ECO’s story will remain one of unrealized potential and organizational decay.

 

 

Britain, Australia and Canada recognize Palestinian state

Britain, Canada and Australia all recognized a Palestinian state on Sunday in a move borne out of frustration over the Gaza war and intended to promote a two-state solution but which is also bound to anger Israel and its main ally, the United States.

The three nations' decision aligned them with about 140 other countries which also back Palestinians' aspiration to forge an independent homeland from the Israeli-occupied territories.

Britain's decision carried particular symbolic weight given its major role in Israel's creation as a modern nation in the aftermath of World War Two.

"Today, to revive the hope of peace for the Palestinians and Israelis, and a two-state solution, the United Kingdom formally recognizes the State of Palestine," Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on X.

Other nations, including France, are expected to follow suit this week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

Israel's Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir said that Britain, Canada and Australia's decisions on Sunday were a reward for murderers. That assault killed 1,200 people and saw 251 others taken hostage, according to Israeli tallies.

Israel's ensuing campaign has killed more than 65,000 Palestinians, most of them civilians, according to Gazan health authorities, and has spread famine, demolished most buildings and displaced most of the population - in many cases multiple times.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Varsen Aghabekian Shahin welcomed countries recognizing a Palestinian state.

"It is a move bringing us closer to sovereignty and independence. It might not end the war tomorrow, but it's a move forward, which we need to build on and amplify," she said.

Western governments have been under pressure from many in their parties and populations angry at the ever-rising death toll in Gaza and images of starving children.

"Canada recognizes the State of Palestine and offers our partnership in building the promise of a peaceful future for both the State of Palestine and the State of Israel," Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said on Sunday.

Israeli minister Ben-Gvir said he would propose at the next cabinet meeting to apply sovereignty in the West Bank - de facto annexation of land Israel seized in a 1967 war.

He also said the Western-backed Palestinian Authority, which exercises limited self-rule in the West Bank, should be dismantled.

 

 

President Trump you cannot order Taliban to handover Bagram Air Base to the United States

It may be a wish of US President Donald Trump to get control of Bagram Air Base. However, he does not have any authority to demand the Afghan government to handover the base. Threatening bad things would happen to Afghanistan if it does not give back control of the base to the United States, is outright terrorism.

Here are several possible motives behind the Trump demand:

·        Restoring US influence in Afghanistan and the wider region, especially after the pull-out which many view as a strategic loss.

·        Countering rivals, particularly China and others by having a base close by.

·        Strengthening counterterrorism posture, ensuring that militant groups can't easily use Afghan territory to plan or launch attacks.

·        Leveraging domestic political pressure as the opponents say the withdrawal decision was a mistake.

·        Using it as a bargaining chip to secure concessions i.e. economic aid, diplomatic recognition, etc.

Being a sovereign county and also because the US does recognize the Taliban government of Afghanistan it is the inherent right of Taliban to outright rejected the US demand.

·        They rightly say Afghanistan’s territorial integrity cannot be compromised.

·        No foreign military presence will be allowed.

·        Taliban insists that political and economic relations with the US are possible without giving up land or allowing foreign bases.

Regaining control of Bagram will not an easy task for the US. It would likely require a major military deployment, security provisions, defense spending, etc. Experts say holding the base would be challenging militarily and politically.

Some analysts view the US demand as an attempt to restore hegemony over Afghanistan and adjoining countries.

They warn that pushing too hard might destabilize relations, reduce cooperation, or provoke negative responses from locals or other countries.

Under the Doha Agreement (2020) and other engagements, the US made certain commitments about respecting Afghanistan’s sovereignty, no foreign bases, etc. Returning to or demanding possession of Bagram is violation of these agreements.

Chinese dam being termed a global threat

According Nikkei Asia, China is building a massive dam that could alter the world's water systems as profoundly as climate change itself, Brahma Chellaney writes this week. He doesn't hold back, says "What Beijing portrays as an engineering marvel is in fact an ecological disaster in the making."

The US$168 billion Himalayan super-dam is being constructed on the Yarlung Zangbo River (also known as the Brahmaputra) in the one of the world's most seismically active zones, straddling a heavily militarized frontier where Beijing claims India's sprawling Arunachal Pradesh state as "South Tibet."

"Constructing the world's largest dam atop a geological fault line is more than reckless ‑ it is a calculated gamble with catastrophic potential," the author of "Water: Asia's New Battleground" says. "Any collapse, whether from structural weakness or reservoir-induced seismicity, would devastate India's northeast and Bangladesh, placing tens of millions at risk."

"The stakes extend beyond Asia," he adds. "Tibet is warming twice as fast as the global average, accelerating glacier melt and permafrost thaw. With its towering height rising into the troposphere, the Tibetan Plateau shapes the Asian monsoons, stabilizes climate across Eurasia and influences the Northern Hemisphere's atmospheric general circulation."

Here is a summary about the Himalayan super-dam/ hydropower project on the Yarlung Zangbo (upper Brahmaputra) river.

The project is officially known as the Yarlung Zangbo hydropower project, also referred to by names like the Medog Hydropower Station in some sources.

It is being built in the lower reaches of the Yarlung Zangbo River in the Tibet Autonomous Region (People’s Republic of China), particularly in Medog County/ Nyingchi Prefecture, near the area where the river makes the dramatic U-turn close to the border with Arunachal Pradesh, India.

The total investment is estimated to be around 1.2 trillion yuan, which translates roughly US$168 billion. It will consist of five cascade hydropower stations. Expected electricity generation is about 300 billion kilowatt-hours per year. Commercial operations are planned for some time in the 2030s.

The site takes advantage of a section of the river where there is a 2,000 meter drop over a relatively short distance, about 50 kilometers, which gives great potential for hydropower generation.

Rivers downstream of this are India’s Brahmaputra and then Bangladesh’s (Jamuna), so water flow and downstream effects are a big concern.

India and Bangladesh have expressed concerns about how the dam might affect water volume, timing of flow, sediment transport, and flooding downstream.

The region is ecologically rich, with biodiversity hotspots. Building large dams in steep gorges may disrupt habitats, wildlife, and the natural ecology.

Because Tibet is tectonically active, building in deep gorges and making large engineering modifications poses risk. Landslide, earthquake hazards are of concern.

It is not yet clear how many people would need to be relocated or how local Tibetan communities will be affected.

China says the project is important to help meet its increasing demand for clean energy and to reach net-zero emissions goals. It also maintain, in official statements, that downstream impacts will be minimal and manageable.

Donald Trump Wants to Be "Caesar of 2025"

The prospect of Donald Trump returning to the White House in 2025 has provoked widespread debate over the resilience of American democracy. Beyond the policy agenda he promotes, Trump’s political project increasingly resembles what political theorists describe as Caesarism: the concentration of power in a single leader who claims legitimacy through personal charisma, mass support, and the promise of restoring order to a faltering republic. 

The analogy with Julius Caesar is not merely rhetorical. It highlights structural weaknesses in the American political system, the erosion of institutional checks, and the dangers posed when democratic populism shades into authoritarianism.

The term Caesarism has been used in political thought from Max Weber to Antonio Gramsci to describe moments when parliamentary systems are unable to govern effectively, allowing a charismatic figure to rise above institutions. Such leaders do not necessarily abolish democracy outright but hollow it out by subordinating legal frameworks and representative bodies to their own authority. In ancient Rome, Julius Caesar capitalized on decades of institutional dysfunction, elite corruption, and popular disillusionment to establish personal rule. Similarly, Trump situates himself as the only figure capable of resolving America’s political polarization and institutional “gridlock.”

Cult of Personality

Trump’s political strength lies less in coherent policy proposals than in the loyalty of his supporters. This is reminiscent of the shift in Rome from loyalty to the res publica to loyalty to individual generals. Trump frames his struggles with the judiciary, Congress, and the press not as legal or political matters, but as evidence of systemic betrayal of the people’s will. In this framework, Trump becomes the sole authentic interpreter of popular sovereignty—an attribute central to Caesarist leadership.

Elite Complicity

American democracy, like the late Roman Republic, is experiencing a crisis of institutional legitimacy. Repeated constitutional confrontations, the politicization of the judiciary, and hyper-partisan gridlock in Congress have eroded public trust. In such an environment, many elites, particularly within the Republican Party, have aligned with Trump either out of calculation or fear of alienating his base. This dynamic mirrors the Roman Senate’s oscillation between resistance and acquiescence to Caesar, ultimately hastening the republic’s collapse.

Authoritarian Temptation

Both Caesar and Trump have framed their leadership in restorative terms. Caesar promised to restore stability to Rome after decades of civil war and corruption; Trump pledges to “restore American greatness” in the face of cultural fragmentation, economic dislocation, and geopolitical uncertainty. Yet restoration is often a rhetorical cover for consolidation of power. The risk in 2025 is that Trump’s project of national renewal may require undermining constitutional safeguards, subordinating independent institutions, and weakening democratic accountability.

The comparison between Trump and Caesar is not an exercise in historical exaggeration but a warning grounded in political theory. Republics often fall not because they are violently overthrown but because they erode from within, hollowed out by charismatic leaders and complicit elites.

If Trump seeks to become the Caesar of 2025, the United States faces a critical test: whether its institutions and citizenry can resist the allure of strongman politics, or whether it will follow Rome’s trajectory from republic to empire.

PSX benchmark index up 2.33%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) witnessed bullish momentum throughout the week, fueled by investors’ confidence following the historic defense agreement between Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. This optimism was reflected in the PSX achieving its highest-ever traded value of PKR87.4 billion in the last trading session. The benchmark index advanced by 3,598 points, up 2.33%WoW, to close at 158,037 points.

Market participation grew by 43.4%WoW with average daily traded volume rising to 1.8 billion shares, from 1.3 billion shares a week ago, marking second highest average weekly traded volume till date.

State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) left policy rate unchanged at 11% at Monday’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, taking cautious approach given recent floods.

Current Account Deficit (CAD) for August 2025 widened to US$245 million from US$82 million for the same period last year.

IT exports rose to US$337 million, up 13%YoY, but FDI declined by 43%YoY to US$156 million.

Power sector generation for August 2025 was reported at 14,218GWh, up 8%YoY, with the cost of generation declining by 18%YoY, offering some relief on the energy front.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan’s dollar bonds jump to four year high, 2) IMF to be convinced to slash FBR’s envisaged target, 3) Shehbaz-Trump meeting likely on September 25, 2025, 4) Pak, Turkiye to boost ICT cooperation, and 5) Pak-Iran trade reaches US$3 billion.

Property, Technology & Communication, Closed-end Mutual funds, Modarbas and Refinery were amongst the top performing sectors, while Vanaspati & Allied Industries, Leasing Companies, Textile Spinning, Miscellaneous and Engineering were the laggards.

Major selling was recorded by Foreigners with a net sell of US$20.8 million. Mutual Funds and Insurance Companies absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$24.0 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: BOP, TRG, CNERGY, YOUW, and PIBTL, while laggards included: PKGP, ISL, KAPCO, and MEHT.

According to AKD Securities, PSX is expected to remain positive in the coming weeks, with the upcoming IMF review and any developments over circular debt remaining in the limelight.

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

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

Hamas at the Crossroads: Kill or Get Killed

In the brutal theatre of Gaza, Hamas finds itself at a historic crossroads — a reality starkly defined by the dictum kill or get killed. For Israel, the stated objective is clear ‑ the complete dismantling of Hamas as a governing and military force. For Hamas, survival has become both a military necessity and a political imperative.

Israel’s relentless strikes — from Gaza City to Doha — have made it clear that Hamas leaders are no longer safe even beyond their borders. The military offensive inside Gaza has decimated infrastructure, uprooted nearly the entire population, and left Hamas struggling to function as a governing body. Yet, paradoxically, the group continues to resist, proving its resilience through urban warfare, tunnel networks, and the strategic use of hostages in negotiations.

The problem is existential. Unlike traditional political movements that can retreat, regroup, and return, Hamas has been pushed into a corner where capitulation could mean extinction. Its leverage now rests on asymmetric warfare, regional mediation, and the hostage card. Without these, it risks becoming irrelevant — or annihilated.

This survivalist posture comes at a staggering cost. Gaza’s civilian population bears the brunt of the war, facing famine, displacement, and death. While Israel insists that Hamas hides behind civilians, Hamas’s very survival strategy ensures that Gaza remains both its shield and its Achilles’ heel. The humanitarian catastrophe threatens to erode what local legitimacy the group once enjoyed, even as international outrage grows against Israel’s disproportionate use of force.

The irony is bitter ‑ the more Israel tries to crush Hamas militarily, the more the group leans into its identity as an armed resistance movement rather than a governing authority. Each decapitation strike on its leadership risks splintering Hamas into more radical, less controllable factions. Far from erasing Hamas, this “kill or get killed” dynamic could entrench the cycle of violence for another generation.

The only path out of this trap lies not in military annihilation but in political imagination. Without a viable political horizon for Palestinians, attempts to eradicate Hamas will only create new versions of it. As things stand today, Hamas is not simply fighting a war — it is fighting for its very existence. And in that existential battle, Gaza’s civilians are paying the highest price.

 

Significance of Saudi Arabia-Pakistan defence pact

The Saudi Arabia-Pakistan defence pact is not just a military arrangement—it is a strategic partnership that underpins Pakistan’s economic security and Saudi Arabia’s military security. For Pakistan, it guarantees vital financial and diplomatic backing; for Saudi Arabia, it provides trusted military support and, indirectly, a nuclear-armed ally. Together, it represents one of the strongest security relationships in the Muslim world.

The Saudi Arabia- Pakistan defence pact carries deep strategic, political, and economic significance for both countries and the wider region. Its importance can be seen from multiple angles:

Strategic and Security Dimension

Mutual Security Guarantee:

Pakistan has historically provided military training, expertise, and manpower to Saudi Arabia, reinforcing the Kingdom’s defence at times of regional tension. In return, Saudi Arabia has been a security partner for Pakistan in times of external pressure.

Balancing Iran’s Influence:

For Saudi Arabia, Pakistan’s military cooperation is part of a broader strategy to counterbalance Iran in the Gulf and beyond. For Pakistan, it ensures strong backing from the Kingdom while maintaining a delicate balance in its own relations with Iran.

Nuclear Umbrella:

Although not formalized, Pakistan’s nuclear capability is sometimes seen as a potential backstop for Saudi security in case of existential threats, making the defence relationship symbolically powerful.

Military Cooperation

Training and Deployment:

Thousands of Pakistani military personnel have served in Saudi Arabia over the decades, providing training to Saudi forces. Even today, a contingent of Pakistani troops is stationed there for defence cooperation.

Arms and Defence Technology:

Pakistan has supplied small arms, ammunition, and defence equipment to Saudi Arabia. Joint ventures in defence production are under discussion.

Counterterrorism and Intelligence Sharing:

Both states have collaborated closely in intelligence sharing, counterterrorism operations, and combating extremist networks that threaten regional stability.

Economic and Political Significance

Financial Lifeline for Pakistan:

Saudi Arabia has been one of Pakistan’s most consistent financial supporters—providing oil on deferred payments, direct loans, and balance-of-payments support. The defence pact strengthens this bond by ensuring Pakistan’s military commitment in return.

Diplomatic Support:

Saudi Arabia often champions Pakistan’s stance on international platforms, including on Kashmir and economic cooperation within the OIC. Pakistan reciprocates by supporting Saudi positions on regional security and Islamic solidarity.

Regional and Global Context

Gulf Security:

Saudi Arabia views Pakistan as a reliable partner in securing the Gulf, especially in moments of instability.

Islamic Military Alliance:

Pakistan plays a central role in the Saudi-led Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition (IMCTC), with former Pakistani Army Chief Gen. Raheel Sharif appointed as its first commander.

US–China Factor:

The pact also gives Saudi Arabia an alternative to over-reliance on Western defence support, while Pakistan uses it to diversify its security partnerships alongside China.

Symbolic and Religious Aspect

Custodianship of Holy Places:

Pakistan attaches special reverence to Saudi Arabia as the custodian of Islam’s holiest sites, and defence cooperation is also framed as protecting the sanctity of the Two Holy Mosques.

Soft Power and Legitimacy:

The pact signals unity of two major Muslim powers—Saudi Arabia with its economic and religious clout, and Pakistan with its military strength and nuclear capability.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan sign defence pact

According to Reuters, Saudi Arabia and nuclear-armed Pakistan have signed a formal mutual defense pact on Wednesday, in a move that significantly strengthens a decades-long security partnership amid heightened regional tensions.

The enhanced defense ties come as Gulf Arab states grow increasingly wary about the reliability of the United States as their longstanding security guarantor. Israel's attack on Qatar last week heightened those concerns.

"This agreement is a culmination of years of discussions. This is not a response to specific countries or specific events but an institutionalization of longstanding and deep cooperation between our two countries," a senior Saudi official told Reuters when asked about its timing.

Israel's attempt to kill the political leaders of Hamas with airstrikes on Doha, while they were discussing a ceasefire proposal that Qatar is helping to mediate, infuriated Arab countries.

The pact could shift the strategic calculus in a complex region. Allies of Washington, Gulf monarchies have sought to stabilize ties with both Iran and Israel to resolve longstanding security concerns.

But the Gaza war has upended the region and Gulf state Qatar has been subjected to direct hits twice in a year, once by Iran and once by Israel.

The senior Saudi official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, acknowledged the need to balance relations with Pakistan's rival, India, also a nuclear power.

"Our relationship with India is more robust than it has ever been. We will continue to grow this relationship and seek to contribute to regional peace whichever way we can."

Asked whether Pakistan would be obliged to provide Saudi Arabia with a nuclear umbrella under the pact, the official said, "This is a comprehensive defensive agreement that encompasses all military means."

Pakistani state television showed Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the kingdom's de facto ruler, embracing after signing the agreement. In attendance was Pakistan's army chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, regarded as the country's most powerful person.

"This agreement, which reflects the shared commitment of both nations to enhance their security and to achieving security and peace in the region and the world, aims to develop aspects of defense cooperation between the two countries and strengthen joint deterrence against any aggression. The agreement states that any aggression against either country shall be considered an aggression against both," a statement from the Pakistani prime minister's office said.

Gaza being burnt by Israel

Over the last few days the western media has been propagating an Israeli headline, “Gaza is burning”. On the contrary it should have been, “Gaza being burnt by Israel”. The Israeli troops are moving deeper into the enclave's main city. The number of soldiers is rising with each passing day as IDF believe that up to 3,000 Hamas combatants are still in the city.

Please allow us to say that Gaza is not merely a battlefield; it is a society in flames. Over two years of intensive military operations, territorial encirclement, and an all-but-complete blockade have produced a cascade of death, displacement, and institutional collapse.

The question of agency — whether Gaza “is burning” as an accident of war or because a party intends and effects its devastation — is not rhetorical. Evidence from humanitarian agencies, human-rights groups, and UN investigators points clearly to a campaign of force and policy by Israel that has produced, and continues to produce, catastrophic civilian destruction and deprivation.

The multiple UN and humanitarian reports document mass casualties, widespread displacement and the conditions of famine and disease now ravaging Gaza. The UN’s humanitarian coordination office describes Gaza City — home to nearly a million people who have nowhere safe to go — as facing daily bombardment and “compromised access to means of survival.”

The WHO’s public-health analysis confirms the lethal public-health consequences: rising malnutrition and deaths from starvation and disease, with hundreds of children already dead from malnutrition and famine conditions confirmed in parts of Gaza.

These outcomes are not incidental side effects of a narrowly targeted counterterror operation. Human-rights organizations have documented patterns of attacks that repeatedly hit schools, hospitals, shelters, and entire neighborhoods — precisely the civilian infrastructure that normally offers protection in war.

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have catalogued repeated strikes on schools and hospitals, extensive razing of towns, and the use of siege tactics that cut off food, fuel, and medical supplies — measures they say amount to unlawful collective punishment and, in Amnesty’s assessment, further evidence of genocidal intent.

An independent UN commission of inquiry has concluded that actions by Israeli authorities and forces meet the threshold of genocide, citing acts that include killing, causing severe bodily and mental harm, and imposing conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction.

That finding is explosive in normative terms because it reframes the humanitarian crisis as one driven not only by military necessity claims but by a pattern of conduct that international law treats as among the gravest crimes.

Three interlocking dynamics matter. First, operational doctrine: tactics emphasizing area bombardment, extensive use of heavy munitions in dense urban areas, and commands for mass civilian displacement dramatically increase civilian death and infrastructure destruction. Second, blockade and siege: restricting entry of food, fuel, water, and medicines turns even partial destruction into sustained catastrophe by preventing recovery and medical care. Third, accountability failures: continued supply of weapons and limited enforcement of international humanitarian law incentives have, critics argue, reduced the political and legal costs of tactics that imperil civilians.

The human consequences are immediate and wrenching. Schools that once sheltered displaced families are being struck; hospitals struggle to operate without fuel and supplies; entire neighborhoods have been razed to foundations; and children face not only the trauma of violence but death from malnutrition and preventable disease.

If civilian protection were the operational imperative, the combination of precise targeting, unfettered humanitarian corridors, and a halt to displacement orders would reduce civilian suffering. Instead, the combination of intense urban combat, orders pushing mass displacement within a sealed territory, and the impediment of essential supplies has produced conditions that human-rights experts interpret as deliberate or recklessly indifferent to civilian life. That is the core of the charge that Gaza is being “burnt” by Israeli policy and force.

Bipartisan US Bill: A Turning Point for Pakistan’s Democracy

The introduction of the Pakistan Freedom and Accountability Act in the US Congress marks a watershed moment in Pakistan’s struggle for democracy. At a time when voices for justice are being silenced and political prisoners remain behind bars, Washington’s move signals that the world is watching — and willing to act.

Spearheaded by Congressman Bill Huizenga and co-led by Democrat Sydney Kamlager-Dove, the bipartisan measure draws rare unity across America’s political divide. By invoking the Global Magnitsky Act, it targets Pakistani officials — past or present — complicit in human rights abuses, corruption, or suppression of free elections. The message is unambiguous: no official, no matter how powerful, is beyond accountability.

This bill does more than threaten sanctions. It reaffirms America’s commitment to Pakistan’s people, not its ruling elites. It echoes House Resolution 901, which passed with overwhelming support earlier this year, and builds pressure on Islamabad to restore democratic norms, rule of law, and freedom of expression.

The statements from lawmakers underscore its intent. Huizenga declared that the US will not sit idle as abuses mount. Kamlager-Dove stressed that defending democracy must remain central to US policy. Democrat Julie Johnson warned that those who undermine free elections will face consequences on the global stage.

Equally significant is the role of the Pakistani diaspora. Advocacy groups such as the Pakistan-American Public Affairs Committee and First Pakistan Global pushed tirelessly for this legislation.

Their efforts transformed grassroots frustration into congressional action. As Dr Malik Usman noted, the bill embodies Haqeeqi Azadi — real freedom — standing shoulder-to-shoulder with 250 million Pakistanis in demanding justice and the release of political prisoners, including former Prime Minister Imran Khan.

The legislation’s bipartisan nature and alignment with earlier resolutions suggest strong momentum in Congress. More importantly, it places Pakistan’s ruling establishment under unprecedented international scrutiny.

For decades, authoritarian practices in Pakistan thrived under the shield of strategic alliances. That era may be ending.

With this bill, the US draws a clear line ‑ friendship with Pakistan does not mean indulgence of its oppressors. It means solidarity with its people, their rights, and their democratic aspirations.

Doha Summit: Strong Words No Action

Israel’s brazen airstrike on Doha on September 09 is not just an attack on Qatar—it is an assault on the dignity and sovereignty of the entire Arab and Muslim world. Targeting a Hamas delegation engaged in US-backed ceasefire talks, Israel killed five members and a Qatari officer, proving it is willing to bomb peace itself.

At the emergency Arab-Islamic summit in Doha, Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani condemned the strike as “blatant, treacherous, cowardly aggression.”

Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian called it “a blatant act of terrorism,” warning that no Arab or Muslim nation is safe from Israel’s ambitions.

Iraq’s Prime Minister urged a shift “from condemnation to coordinated action.”

Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim blasted the hollowness of repeated declarations.

Turkey’s Erdogan accused Israel of embodying “a terrorist mentality,” and Jordan’s King Abdullah II warned of unending expansionism.

Even the UN Security Council unanimously condemned the strike—an unprecedented rebuke.

Yet evidence suggests coordination between Israel and US Central Command, exposing Washington’s double game ‑ publicly criticizing Israel while enabling its wars across Gaza, Syria, Lebanon—and now Qatar.

This aggression also reflects Benjamin Netanyahu’s desperation. His failure to crush Hamas, coupled with corruption trials and political infighting, has made perpetual war his only survival strategy.

With over 65,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza—including 21,000 children—Israel measures success in death tolls, not strategic gains.

Striking Qatar, host to the largest US base in the region, signals Israel’s broader “Greater Israel” ambitions—regional dominance with American cover.

Five years after the Abraham Accords, it is clear normalization did not moderate Israel. It emboldened Tel Aviv to trample sovereignty with impunity.

By striking Qatar, Israel has crossed every red line, daring Arab states to move beyond words.

The time for statements is over. Arab and Muslim nations must cut ties, enforce boycotts, and present a unified front. Anything less will ensure Israel dictates the Middle East’s future in blood and fire—while the Arab world watches silently from the sidelines.