PSX benchmark index up 2.8%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) continued its bullish momentum during the week, driven by investor optimism following the announcement that the IMF Executive Board will meet on December 08, 2025, to consider and approve third tranche of US$1.2 billion for Pakistan.

The benchmark index was up 4,575 points during the week, up 2.8%WoW, to close at 166,678 points. However, market participation weakened by 14.2% WoW with average daily traded volume down to 1.1 billion shares, as compared to 1.3 billion shares in the prior week.

Sentiment further boosted after Petroleum Minister Ali Pervaiz Malik announced that Reko Diq is close to achieving financial close with US$3.5 billion in loans secured, sparking a strong rally in the Oil and Gas Exploration sector. The inclusion of FFC in the Shariah-compliant index fueled a surge in the scrip.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$9 million to US$14.6 billion as of Nov 21, 2025.

Other major news flow during the week included, 1) SIFC unveils business-friendly roadmap, 2) PM Shehbaz eyes US$1 billion trade with Bahrain in three years, 3) Chinese group to establish US$1.5 billion industrial park on 300 acres, 4) Food Exhibition 2025 draws strong international interest as B2B deals reach US$615 million, and 5) IMF recognizes Competition Commission of Pakistan’s major turnaround.

Leather & Tanneries, Fertilizer, Commercial Banks, Technology & Communication and Cement were amongst the top performers, while Jute, Modarabas, Refinery, Leasing Companies and Glass & Ceramics were amongst the worst performers.

Flow wise, major buying was recorded by Banks/ DFIs and Mutual Funds with a net buy of US$14.5 million and US$9.5 million during the week, respectively. Foreigners & Individuals were major sellers with net sell of US$12.9 million and US$9.1 million, respectively.

Top performing scrips of the week were: SSGC, SRVI, PIOC, HUMNL and FATIMA, while laggards included: PKGP, BWCL, YOUW, CNERGY and ATRL.

AKD Securities foresee the momentum at PSX to continue given successful IMF Executive Board approval of the IMF’s second review, minimal flood impact and improved credit ratings by global agencies amid falling fixed income yields.

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

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

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

Trump’s Second Term Is Damaging US Image

As Donald Trump settles further into his second term, concerns are mounting among observers who expected the United States to restore steadiness in its global leadership. Many Americans who voted for him again may have hoped for economic revival or decisive action, yet the outcomes so far have been uneven at best and deeply troubling at worst. His first term already raised questions about the quality of decision-making in Washington, but the second term has amplified those doubts.

To be fair, no US president operates in isolation. The power centres of oil conglomerates, the military-industrial complex, and Wall Street—longstanding financiers of electoral campaigns—shape the contours of policymaking. This is not unique to Trump; it reflects a broader structural reality embedded in the American political system. Likewise, administrative norms in any government impose limits, compelling leaders to follow certain procedures irrespective of personal preference.

What distinguishes Trump, is his persistent disregard for these constraints. Many of his executive actions—whether aggressive tariff regimes, abrupt withdrawal from international agreements, or confrontational moves in international waters—reflect a governing style marked by impulsiveness rather than foresight. These decisions have often produced more disruption than strategic advantage, leaving allies unsettled and adversaries emboldened.

The United States continues to project itself as the world’s largest and most resilient democracy, yet Trump’s leadership is testing that claim. His tendency to bypass institutional checks and frame governance as a personal mandate creates the perception of a leader more interested in consolidating authority than strengthening democratic norms. While he may not be a “king” in the literal sense, some of his actions signal an uncomfortable tilt toward unilateralism.

The cost of this approach is increasingly visible on the global stage. Instead of enhancing America’s influence, it has chipped away at its credibility. Partner nations now question Washington’s consistency, while global institutions struggle to anticipate US positions on critical issues. For a country that built its reputation on predictability and democratic stewardship, this erosion is significant.

If the United States wishes to reclaim moral authority and strategic stability, its leadership must demonstrate that democracy is anchored in institutions—not in the whims of an individual.

Can Iran Revive a Dormant ECO?

Iran’s renewed diplomatic activity suggests a determined effort to resuscitate the long-underperforming Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO). The arrival of Iranian Minister for Industry, Mining and Trade, Seyed Mohammad Atabak in Istanbul—where ECO ministers gathered at this level for the first time in two decades—reflects a deliberate push by Tehran to reposition the bloc as a relevant regional economic platform. For Iran, this moment is less about protocol and more about strategic necessity.

At the heart of the Istanbul discussions is a long-awaited effort to revisit trade agreements, especially tariff reductions aimed at boosting intra-ECO commerce. For Iran, which has endured years of Western sanctions and now sees minimal prospects for diplomatic relief, regional economic arrangements have become a priority. The US-Israeli strikes on Iranian infrastructure earlier this year further hardened Tehran’s conviction that Western partners cannot be relied upon for economic stability.

The second Iran-ECO Conference held in Tehran in September clearly signaled Iran’s aspirations. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi openly stated that the current level of ECO cooperation “does not match the enormous capacities” of its member states. His remarks were not diplomatic rhetoric— but a candid assessment of a bloc that has failed to convert geography into economic strength. Stretching across South, Central, and West Asia, ECO should have been a natural trade corridor. Instead, it has remained largely dormant.

This renewed push comes amid a shifting global economic order. As economist Majid Shakeri points out, the US — once the world’s “demander of last resort”—no longer plays its traditional role. Washington’s declining appetite for foreign goods and its reliance on punitive tariffs have weakened the post-WWII economic framework. For ECO members, this creates both a void and an opportunity: if global structures are eroding, regional alliances must step in.

Iran seems ready to do the heavy lifting. By pushing for tariff reforms, expanded connectivity, and practical cooperation, Tehran aims to keep ECO from fading into geopolitical irrelevance. Whether the other member states share the same urgency remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Iran is positioning itself as the driving force behind ECO’s overdue revival.

Why Another Attempt by Trump to Term Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Outfit?

US President Donald Trump has once again moved to classify select branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations. This has reopened an old debate - is this a necessity or a politically motivated classification aimed at reshaping US engagement with the outfit.

Trump’s push reflects both a strategic calculation and a political impulse. The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is a sprawling and diverse movement that mixes religious activism, social services, and political participation.

Over nearly a century, it has evolved into a constellation of national chapters, each shaped by its own environment. Some branches participate peacefully in politics; others have drifted into confrontation or splintered into militancy. This complexity is precisely what makes blanket designations controversial.

Trump’s argument is straightforward: certain Brotherhood factions — particularly in Egypt, the Levant, and parts of North Africa — engage in or enable violence, undermine regional stability, and maintain ideological ties with militant groups such as Hamas. His camp sees the Brotherhood as the “mother ship” of modern political Islam, capable of inspiring radicalism even if a given chapter claims to operate peacefully.

For Trump, the designation strengthens counterterrorism posture and aligns the US with governments that have long viewed the Brotherhood as an existential threat.

But critics warn that the move is far riskier than it appears. The Brotherhood is not a single command-and-control structure. Lumping all its branches together under a terrorism label ignores the internal diversity and may end up targeting groups that operate legally, contest elections, or run social welfare networks. Such a sweeping designation risks criminalizing civil society, shutting down charities, or ensnaring individuals with loose associations — all without improving security.

There is also the geopolitical cost. Many US partners in the Middle East suppress the Brotherhood not because of terrorism, but because it challenges entrenched power structures. By echoing these regimes uncritically, Washington may be empowering authoritarianism rather than isolating true extremists. The move could also fuel anti-US sentiment by portraying America as hostile to political Islam in all its forms.

Trump’s latest attempt is therefore less about clarity and more about convenience. It may satisfy a political constituency, but it blurs the line between legitimate security concerns and ideological overreach — a distinction the US can’t afford to ignore.

 

Restricting Trading of Cash Settled Crude Oil Contracts

After closely observing commodity markets for more than a decade, one conclusion becomes unavoidable: the system has drifted far from its original purpose. Commodity futures were designed to help producers and consumers manage risk. Instead, they have become playgrounds for speculative capital. The overwhelming dominance of cash-settled crude oil contracts —now estimated to account for over 90% of global energy trades—has allowed speculation to overshadow genuine hedging. It is time to reconsider this model and work toward a gradual reduction of trading in cash-settled crude oil contracts.

Cash settlement fundamentally changes the nature of commodity markets. When traders can enter and exit massive positions without ever taking delivery, the market becomes unanchored from physical realities. Price discovery—the core justification for futures markets—suffers. Prices increasingly reflect sentiment, algorithms, and fund-driven volatility, rather than real supply–demand conditions. Producers are left navigating distorted signals; consumers face unpredictable swings that have little to do with harvests, inventories, or shipping flows.

The ultimate beneficiaries of this system are large speculators—most notably fund managers—who profit from volatility without any connection to the underlying commodity. With no storage constraints or delivery obligations, speculative capital can dominate volumes and dictate market direction. Meanwhile, genuine hedgers find themselves pushed to the margins of markets supposedly created for them.

None of this suggests that cash-settled contracts should be banned overnight. Liquidity matters. But the current balance is unhealthy and unsustainable. A phased rebalancing is both practical and necessary. Exchanges should gradually increase the share of physically deliverable contracts, strengthen warehouse receipt systems, and enforce stricter inventory reporting. Regulators should impose higher margins on purely speculative cash-settled positions to curb excessive leverage.

Physical delivery brings discipline. It forces markets to acknowledge storage capacity, transport costs, stock levels, and real economic flows. It restores transparency and aligns futures pricing with fundamentals. More importantly, it reduces the outsized influence of speculative capital on commodities that are crucial for food security, energy planning, and industrial production.

Commodity markets must serve the real economy, not the speculative ambitions of a few. The dominance of cash-settled trading has diluted that purpose. A deliberate move toward more physically grounded trading is essential to restore credibility, stability, and fairness in global commodity markets.

 

 

 

Israel kills Hezbollah military leader Tabtabai

According to Reuters, Israel killed militant group Hezbollah's top military official in an airstrike on a southern suburb of Beirut on Sunday, the Israeli military said, despite a US-brokered truce a year ago.

The strike, the first on the outskirts of the Lebanese capital in months, targeted Iran-backed Hezbollah's acting chief of staff, Ali Tabtabai, the military said in a statement.

Israel's strike crossed a "red line", Hezbollah official Mahmoud Qmati said as he stood near the bombed-out building in the Haret Hreik suburb, a Hezbollah stronghold.

Hezbollah's leadership would decide on whether and how the group would respond, he added.

Lebanon's health ministry said the strike killed five people and wounded 28 more. It hit a multi-story building, sending debris crashing into cars on the main road below.

People rushed out of their apartment buildings, fearing further bombardment, a Reuters reporter said.

The United States imposed sanctions on Tabtabai in 2016, identifying him as a key Hezbollah leader and offering a reward of up to US$5 million for information on him.

The Israeli military statement said Tabtabai "commanded most of Hezbollah's units and worked hard to restore them to readiness for war with Israel".

In a short-televised statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would not allow Hezbollah to rebuild its forces and that he expected the Lebanese government "to fulfill its obligation to disarm Hezbollah."

 

 

 

Pakistan Still Remains Afghanistan’s Most Practical Trade Corridor

Regional connectivity has become one of the most contested conversations in South Asia, with every major player seeking influence through trade routes, port access and infrastructure diplomacy. Amid these competing narratives, one reality often gets overlooked - when it comes to Afghanistan’s transit needs, Pakistan continues to offer the most practical, cost-efficient and geographically logical route. This is not a political claim — it is a commercial and logistical fact shaped by geography, infrastructure and decades of established trade flows.

Pakistan’s strategic location provides Afghanistan with the shortest and most direct access to the sea. For more than forty years, the Karachi–Torkham and Karachi–Chaman corridors have served as the main arteries linking Afghan traders to global markets. These routes are supported by a fully developed logistics ecosystem that includes deep-sea ports, highways, customs facilities, warehousing chains and thousands of transport operators who understand the specific dynamics of cross-border trade. This maturity reduces time, cost and uncertainty — three critical factors for a landlocked economy.

Alternatives exist, but none match Pakistan’s combination of scale and efficiency. Iran’s Bandar Abbas route is functional but burdened by longer distances, higher freight costs and the unpredictability of sanctions. The much-publicized Chabahar corridor, backed by India, remains more of a political project than a commercially competitive pathway; its capacities and market traction are still limited. Northern routes through Central Asia involve multiple border crossings, harsh climatic conditions and infrastructure gaps that add both cost and delay.

Afghanistan may wish to diversify its transit options — a reasonable aspiration for any landlocked nation. However, diversification should not be conflated with cost effectiveness. Geography remains the defining factor. Pakistan’s ports are closest, its transit infrastructure is the most established, and its logistics sector is already aligned with Afghan commercial patterns.

Despite shifting regional politics and the emergence of competing narratives, Pakistan retains a natural advantage that no alternative route has yet been able to match. It remains Afghanistan’s most practical, cost-efficient and reliable corridor to the world — a fact that regional policymakers should recognize as they debate connectivity, competition and the future of trade in South Asia.

 

Gazans Being Buried Under Broken Promises

At times, one gets a chilling feeling that Gazans have been buried alive under the rubbles—not only of their shattered homes, but of the world’s broken promises. The Trump-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was marketed as a bold diplomatic breakthrough, complete with plans for an interim administrative setup backed by a handful of states. But what followed was not diplomacy—it was a carefully choreographed deception.

The promised administrative structure, which was supposed to stabilize governance and allow humanitarian breathing space, has never moved beyond press statements and political theatrics. Nothing substantial has been established. No credible mechanism has been deployed. The so-called “international support” evaporated the moment cameras were switched off. The agreement now stands as an empty shell, useful only for speeches and selective justification.

Meanwhile, Israel has shown absolute contempt for the spirit and substance of the ceasefire. The killings have not stopped; on the contrary these have intensified. Entire blocks have been vaporized. Families have vanished under collapsed concrete. The word “ceasefire” has become a cruel joke—a hollow term used to mask a campaign that continues with alarming impunity.

Even more disturbing is Israel’s pursuit of an anti-Hamas armed group inside Gaza. Instead of honoring the agreement, Israel appears determined to reengineer Gaza’s internal dynamics through coercion and proxy militias. This is not conflict resolution; it is social engineering under the guise of security.

For Gazans—already trapped in the world’s largest open-air prison—the message is brutally clear: no agreement will protect them, no international promise will be honored, and no external actor will intervene before the next bombardment begins. The world watches, counts casualties, and moves on.

What remains today is not just rubble, but a moral collapse. A ceasefire that exists only on paper, an international community performing selective outrage, and a population slowly erased from global consciousness.

Gaza does not need more signatures. It needs protection. It needs enforcement. And above all, it needs a world willing to acknowledge that “ceasefire” cannot coexist with continued annihilation.

Indian Search for an Afghanistan Corridor—Bypassing Pakistan

For decades, India’s access to Afghanistan has been shaped—more accurately, restricted—by geography and politics. A quick look at the regional map explains the dilemma, India shares no border with Afghanistan, and the only direct land pathway runs through Pakistan. But with Islamabad refusing transit to Indian goods, New Delhi has to explore alternative corridors. Over time, these alternatives have evolved from theoretical proposals into functioning routes that reduce Pakistan’s leverage and expand India’s strategic reach. To read details click https://shkazmipk.com/india-afghanistan-trade/

Trump-Mamdani Meeting: An Unexpected but Constructive Moment

In an unusually cordial Oval Office meeting, President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani set aside months of mutual criticism to explore areas of cooperation. The encounter between two ideologically opposite figures was striking not only for its substance but for its tone. Gone were the harsh labels and charged rhetoric. Instead, both men emphasized affordability, shared responsibility, and their mutual interest in seeing New York City thrive.

Trump, who had previously characterized Mamdani in stark ideological terms, repeatedly stepped in to shield the mayor-elect from adversarial questions. The president even joked about photo angles and urged reporters to acknowledge areas of agreement. Mamdani, for his part, maintained his positions while stressing that ideological differences should not impede work on the city’s urgent economic challenges.

For the 34-year-old mayor-elect, the meeting was politically advantageous. He demonstrated a willingness to engage constructively with the president without compromising on principle. Trump’s warm remarks — including saying he would feel comfortable living in New York under Mamdani — undercut months of attempts by critics to paint the mayor-elect as a radical threat. The optics alone blunted a central Republican attack line heading into the midterms.

Trump also gained from the interaction. By surprising observers with an affable, conciliatory tone, he created a media moment that highlighted his ability to find common ground across ideological lines. His focus on affordability resonated with voters who have long cited economic pressures as their top concern, and he capitalized on the contrast between expectations of conflict and the reality of cooperation.

The sharpest blow fell on GOP strategists and media voices who had sought to build a sustained anti-Mamdani narrative. Trump’s own comments deflated that effort in minutes, raising questions about the future viability of that messaging. Meanwhile, Mamdani’s media critics found their lines of attack weakened as Trump dismissed hostile framing during the press exchange.

Beyond the political theater, the meeting holds meaningful implications for New York. Trump’s earlier signals about potentially withholding federal funds now seem remote, and the prospects for coordination on affordability have improved. If both leaders maintain this pragmatic tone, New York City stands to benefit from a rare moment of cooperation at the highest levels.

In a polarized era, the encounter offered a refreshing reminder that dialogue — even between unlikely partners — can still yield positive outcomes for all involved.

PSX benchmark index closes the week almost flat

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during the week ended on November 2025, driven by investor skepticism amid the ongoing deadlock between Pakistan and Afghanistan over peace talks. Sentiments were further dampened as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), in its Governance and Corruption Diagnostic (GCD) Assessment Report, disclosed the prevalence of massive corruption at all levels. The benchmark index inclined by 167 points during the week, up 0.1%WoW, to close at 162,103 points.

Market participation strengthened by 35.7%WoW with average daily traded volume rising to 1.3 billion shares, as compared to 0.9 billion shares in the prior week.

On the macroeconomic front, current account reported a deficit of US$112 million during October 2025, as compared to a surplus of US$296 million during the same period last year.

 IT exports for the month of October 2025 were reported at US$386 million, up 17%YoY, marking the highest-ever monthly level.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) held FX reserves increased by US$27 million to US$14.6 billion as of November 14, 2025.

AKD Securities foresees the momentum in the KSE-100 to continue given successful IMF Executive Board approval of the IMF’s second review, minimal flood impact and improved credit ratings by global agencies amid falling fixed income yields.

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

This outlook is supported by the lack of alternative investment avenues and the attractive valuation of local equities, with the KSE-100 index trading at a multiple of 7.6x offering a dividend yield of 6.8%.

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

 

Pakistan Governance Crisis: IMF Has Only Stated the Obvious

The IMF’s Governance and Corruption Diagnostic Assessment is not a revelation; it is a mirror Pakistan’s ruling elites have avoided for decades. What the report exposes — institutional decay, unchecked discretion, opaque decision-making, and a culture of privilege — is neither new nor surprising. What is alarming is that Pakistan still requires an external lender to tell it what its own citizens have been shouting for years: corruption is not an aberration but the organizing principle of governance in this country.

The IMF’s findings cut through the official narratives of “reform”, “revival”, and “investment climate improvement”. At the heart of Pakistan’s economic paralysis lies a state captured by networks of political, bureaucratic, and business interests that thrive on informality and opacity. The tax system remains deliberately complex to create rent-seeking opportunities. SOEs continue bleeding because political appointees treat them as fiefdoms. The judiciary — hobbled by colonial-era laws — cannot enforce contracts, discouraging both investment and fair competition. And the powerful remain insulated from accountability through special exemptions, selective transparency, and politically driven discretion.

The IMF’s pointed reference to the Special Investment Facilitation Council is especially damning. By questioning its opaque functioning and the immunity granted to its officials, the report exposes the contradiction at the heart of Pakistan’s economic strategy: demanding investor confidence while institutionalizing unaccountable power. If the government had confidence in its own governance architecture, it would not have delayed publication of the report for months.

The Fund’s proposed reform agenda — transparency, parliamentary oversight of financial discretion, mandatory e-procurement, restructuring of anti-corruption bodies, and removal of preferential treatment — is basic housekeeping for any functioning state. Yet in Pakistan, these measures appear radical only because they directly threaten entrenched interests.

The tragedy is that Pakistan does not suffer from a lack of diagnosis; it suffers from a lack of will. Every governance failure highlighted in the GCDA has been documented for years, yet every government has chosen to preserve privilege over reform. The IMF can nudge, advise, and pressure — but it cannot manufacture political courage.

Pakistan’s elites may believe they can continue business as usual. The economy says otherwise. Time for denial is over.

Different Narratives on MBS Visit to the US

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the United States should have been a major diplomatic moment. Washington is reportedly seeking up to one trillion dollars in Saudi investment and is pushing to secure large-scale defence deals—developments that would ordinarily draw substantial media attention. Yet the muted coverage reveals a deeper divergence in narratives, shaped by political interests, historical biases, and selective framing within the US media.

American media reporting on the visit was surprisingly limited, and when it did appear, it was often filtered through familiar lenses. One reason lies in the highly polarized nature of US media, where influential lobbies and advocacy groups help shape editorial priorities.

Coverage of Middle Eastern leaders—especially from the Muslim world—tends to be influenced by domestic political calculations and long-standing geopolitical alliances. The result is not necessarily overt hostility but selective emphasis. In the case of the Crown Prince, this has meant that past allegations continue to overshadow the strategic dynamics of the visit.

A second dimension is the recurring focus on old controversies. Even as diplomatic relations between Washington and Riyadh have evolved substantially, parts of the US press remain firmly tied to earlier narratives.

Over the past several years, both countries have recalibrated their relationship, recognizing shared interests in energy stability, defence cooperation, and regional security. The Biden administration’s strategic engagement with Riyadh—especially in the face of global competition and shifting economic centers—underscores this recalibration. Yet certain media outlets still prioritize revisiting past accusations rather than analyzing the present-day stakes.

A third narrative thread centers on the Abraham Accords. Much of the American media continues to portray Saudi Arabia as the “missing link” in the normalization framework, framing Riyadh as hesitant or resistant. However, such portrayals often overlook the Kingdom’s stated position - normalization cannot move meaningfully forward without addressing Palestinian rights and a credible path to peace. This is not a rejectionist stance but one rooted in longstanding regional consensus. Oversimplifying it into reluctance ignores the political and moral considerations shaping Saudi policy.

What the muted media response fails to capture is the broader significance of the visit. The U.S. push for extensive Saudi investment—at a time of domestic economic uncertainty—reflects both economic urgency and geopolitical necessity. Saudi Arabia’s global profile is expanding, backed by deep financial reserves, ambitious economic reforms, and growing ties with China, South Asia, and emerging markets. For the U.S., maintaining strong ties with the world’s largest energy exporter remains strategically vital. For Saudi Arabia, diversifying partnerships does not mean distancing itself from Washington; rather, it reflects a more assertive, multi-vector foreign policy.

Ultimately, the contrasting narratives surrounding the Crown Prince’s visit say more about American media dynamics than about the visit itself. The gap between U.S. foreign-policy priorities and media portrayals highlights a persistent misalignment: domestic political framing often eclipses strategic realities. In this instance, the real story lies not in how the visit was covered—but in how much was left uncovered.

 

Two state solution requires a clear and serious path, says MBS

Saudi Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Salman on Tuesday reiterated the importance of establishing a clear and credible path toward a two-state solution, stressing the need for a defined plan to resolve the Palestinian issue.

Speaking at a joint press conference with US President Donald Trump at the White House, the Crown Prince said Saudi Arabia seeks peace for Palestinians, Israelis, and the wider region, noting that there is a lot of work underway with the United States.

He praised President Trump’s efforts to advance peace and underscored the vitality of the Saudi-US relationship, saying Riyadh will continue to work closely with Washington.

He added that while some had attempted to undermine ties between the two countries, Saudi Arabia remains committed to strengthening the relationship.

The Crown Prince described the partnership as deep and enduring saying. “We have worked together for many decades, and today marks a historic day for the future of our relationship.”

He also emphasized the importance of investing with the United States, calling it an important nation with a strong economy.

On economic cooperation, the Crown Prince announced that Saudi investments in the United States will rise to nearly US$1 trillion, saying the agreements signed on Tuesday represent the largest investment expansion in the history of the bilateral relationship.

He noted the strong demand to support and empower key sectors, adding that the Kingdom’s investments span multiple areas that connect Saudi Arabia with the United States.

Addressing regional issues, the Crown Prince said it would be positive for the region to reach a peace agreement with Iran.

He also highlighted the Kingdom’s long-term vision in adopting advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence.

For his part, President Trump welcomed the Crown Prince, describing him as a close friend and “an impressive man on every level” who enjoys great respect at the White House.

Trump also praised Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman, saying he had told the monarch that your son is truly exceptional.

Trump thanked Saudi Arabia for investing US$600 billion in the United States and expressed hope that the figure would reach US$1 trillion.

He said cooperation with the Kingdom would create new job opportunities and described the Saudi-US alliance as great and strategic.

Trump also announced that the United States will sell F-35 fighter jets to Saudi Arabia, calling the Kingdom a strong and important ally.

He added that the Crown Prince had played a significant role in strengthening ties with Syria and said he sees potential for a civilian nuclear agreement with Saudi Arabia.

“The relationship with Saudi Arabia is at its best,” Trump said, adding, “I love the Kingdom, and they love America. Saudi Arabia is a partner that believes in America’s success.”

 

No firm is immune if AI bubble bursts

According to Reuters, Alphabet Chief Executive Sundar Pichai said no company would be unscathed if the artificial intelligence boom collapses, as soaring valuations and heavy investment in the sector fuel concerns of a bubble.

Pichai said in an interview with the BBC published on Tuesday that the current wave of AI investment was an "extraordinary moment" but acknowledged "elements of irrationality" in the market, echoing warnings of "irrational exuberance" during the dotcom era.

There has also been much debate among analysts about whether AI valuations are sustainable.

Asked about how Google would cope with a potential bursting of a bubble, Pichai said he thought it could weather the storm but added, "I think no company is going to be immune, including us."

Alphabet shares have surged about 46% this year, as investors bet on its ability to compete with ChatGPT-maker OpenAI.

In the United States, concerns about lofty AI valuations have begun to weigh on broader markets, while British policymakers have also flagged bubble risks.

In September, Alphabet pledged 5 billion pounds over two years for UK AI infrastructure and research, including a new data centre and investment in DeepMind, its London-based AI lab.

Pichai also told the BBC in the interview conducted at Google's California headquarters that Google would begin training models in Britain, a move Prime Minister Keir Starmer hopes will bolster the country's ambition to be the world's third AI "superpower" after the United States and China.

Pichai also warned of the "immense" energy needs of AI and said Alphabet's net-zero targets would be delayed as it scales up computing power.

 

MI5 warns MPs they could be targeted by Chinese spies

According to the Independent, MI5 has warned MPs and peers that they face a significant espionage risk from the Chinese state. A new “espionage alert” has been circulated to members of the Commons and Lords, issued by the security services.

In a letter to MPs, Commons speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said Chinese state actors are “relentless" in their attempts to "interfere with our processes and influence activity at Parliament".

The Commons speaker claimed the Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) was "actively reaching out to individuals in our community", arguing they seek to "collect information and lay the groundwork for long-term relationships, using professional networking sites, recruitment agents and consultants acting on their behalf".

Security minister Dan Jarvis will address the House of Commons on Tuesday afternoon to outline measures the government is taking to combat Chinese espionage.

Cloudflare down

According to the Independent, parts of the web appear to have stopped working amid a technical problem at Cloudflare. Visitors to websites such as X, formerly known as Twitter, and film reviewing site Letterboxd saw an error message that indicated that Cloudflare problems meant that the page could not show.

Cloudflare is an internet infrastructure that offers many of the core technologies that power today’s online experiences. That includes tools that protect websites from cyber-attacks and ensure that they stay online amid heavy traffic, for instance.

“Cloudflare is aware of, and investigating an issue which potentially impacts multiple customers,” the company said in a new update. “Further detail will be provided as more information becomes available.”

Tracking website Down Detector, which monitors outage, was also hit by the technical problems itself. But when it loaded it showed a dramatic spike in problems.

Affected users saw a message indicating there was an “internal server error on Cloudflare’s network”. It asked users to “please try again in a few minutes”.

 

Trump-BBC Rift: A Test of Ego, Power, and Media Credibility

The rift between US President, Donald Trump and the BBC should have been resolved the moment the broadcaster apologized for the flawed edit of his January 06, 2021, speech. The program was not aired in the United States, was not accessible to American voters, and the BBC openly acknowledged the mistake. Any leader genuinely focused on governance would have accepted the apology and moved on. But Trump, driven by a familiar high-handedness, has chosen confrontation over closure.

This is not new territory. Trump has repeatedly used legal threats as political tools, often presenting himself as a victim of vast conspiracies. His latest threat—to sue the BBC for up to US$5 billion—feels less like a quest for justice and more like an extension of his personalized politics, where grievances are amplified and institutions are pressured to bend to his narrative. It is, in many ways, a performance of power.

For the BBC this is no mere drama. As a publicly funded British institution, its credibility directly affects British reputation. Retreating in the face of Trump’s aggressive posture would undermine both its journalistic independence and the trust of licence-fee payers. In an era when media houses worldwide are accused—sometimes rightly—of serving political agendas, the BBC cannot afford to appear intimidated by any leader, foreign or domestic.

The Reuters report makes the legal landscape even clearer. Trump intends to sue in Florida, bypassing the UK where limitations have expired, yet he faces the far tougher American defamation standard. The BBC is expected to argue convincingly that the program was inaccessible to US voters and carried no malicious intent. His claim of reputational harm is further diluted by the fact that he ultimately won the 2024 election.

In broader geopolitical terms, major powers have long used media as instruments of influence—Washington through the CIA, London through MI5 and MI6. If US agencies can leverage media for strategic messaging, British ones cannot stand idle while a national broadcaster’s integrity is questioned on questionable grounds.

Ultimately, this episode reveals more about Trump’s inflated sense of entitlement than about the BBC’s misstep. A leader secure in legitimacy would have accepted the apology. Instead, Trump has once again elevated ego above statesmanship.

US–Riyadh Dialogue Enters a New Phase

The meeting between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and US President Donald Trump signals not just a diplomatic engagement but a recalibration of one of the most consequential bilateral relationships in modern geopolitics. Both sides arrive with clear agendas, yet the regional landscape they must navigate has changed dramatically. As Washington pushes for investments, defence arrangements, and normalization with Israel, Riyadh appears more cautious, more self-assured, and far less willing to accept old formulas.

For Trump, the objectives are straightforward: 1) secure a massive US$500 billion Saudi investment, 2) persuade the Kingdom to join the Abraham Accords, and 3) lock in lucrative arms deals. His administration is presenting the visit as an opportunity to “broaden ties,” spanning commerce, technology, and even nuclear cooperation.

It is MBS’s first US trip since Jamal Khashoggi’s killing in 2018 — an event that caused global outrage but has now been diplomatically “moved past” in Washington’s narrative. Trump is expected to again sidestep human rights concerns, focusing instead on transactional gains.

Saudi investment on the scale of half a trillion dollars carries inherent risks for the Kingdom. Such deep financial exposure would place Riyadh firmly within Washington’s strategic orbit, making it vulnerable to political pressure from the US and, by extension, from Israel. The Kingdom knows that once its capital becomes entrenched in the American economy, it loses critical room for maneuver in foreign policy.

The second US priority — coaxing Riyadh into the Abraham Accords — remains far more complex. Saudi Arabia has outlined clear conditions for recognizing Israel, yet Trump’s approach relies more on pressuring Riyadh than moderating Israeli policies. MBS is acutely aware of the domestic, religious, and geopolitical sensitivities tied to formal ties with Israel. Entering the Accords without significant concessions from Tel Aviv would carry unpredictable consequences at home and across the Muslim world.

Washington’s third objective, securing large defence deals, is no longer guaranteed. The longstanding US narrative portraying Iran as the Kingdom’s chief threat justified decades of American arms sales. But with Riyadh and Tehran now engaged in détente — shifting from “foes” to “friends” — the rationale for massive weapons purchases has eroded. The Kingdom today sees no imminent adversary that requires US arsenals.

The old oil-for-security arrangement has weakened. Saudi Arabia now seeks more — a formal defence pact ratified by Congress, nuclear cooperation, and access to advanced AI technologies central to its Vision 2030 aspirations. Washington may instead offer a limited executive-order commitment, far from the ironclad guarantee Riyadh desires.

MBS arrives United States with ambition but also clarity. Trump may push hard, but the Kingdom is no longer willing to operate under outdated assumptions. The Washington–Riyadh dialogue is indeed entering a new phase — one defined not by dependence, but by negotiation, recalibration, and a shifting balance of power.

Will India Make Any Attempt to Save Hasina?

The situation surrounding Sheikh Hasina has entered a critical phase as a Dhaka court prepares to announce a televised verdict expected to convict the former prime minister on charges of crimes against humanity linked to last year’s student-led protests. Her son, Sajeeb Wazed, has stated that the outcome is predetermined, a death sentence is likely, but Hasina is secure in India under full protection.

The core question is whether India will intervene in any form. Hasina has lived in exile in New Delhi since August 2024, and according to her son, she is being treated “like a head of state.” This indicates that India has already taken a clear position: providing her sanctuary. Whether that extends to diplomatic or political intervention is less certain.

India’s relationship with Hasina has been long and strategic. Her 15 years in power offered New Delhi stability across a sensitive border and alignment on security issues. Losing that political stability in Bangladesh carries regional implications, especially given the scale of unrest reported by the United Nations: up to 1,400 deaths and thousands injured during the July–August 2024 protests.

The interim government, led by Muhammad Yunus, rejects claims of political motivation, stressing the transparency of the tribunal. However, the broader context includes the suspension of the Awami League’s registration, bans on its political activity, and ongoing detentions of its activists.

Wazed has warned that elections without the Awami League will not be allowed to proceed and that protests will escalate, potentially leading to violence. Recent crude bombings and arson in Dhaka indicate that tensions are already rising.

For India, intervening directly risks worsening anti-India sentiment within Bangladesh. Remaining passive, however, could result in Hasina facing severe judicial consequences and her supporters confronting a political dead-end.

India is likely to maintain a protective stance over Hasina’s physical safety while avoiding overt involvement in Bangladesh’s judicial or electoral process. Whether this limited approach will be enough as the situation deteriorates remains uncertain.

No Force Should Replace Gaza’s Right to Self-Rule

The United Nations is set to consider a resolution authorizing an International Stabilization Force (ISF) in Gaza, a move that reflects widespread concern over renewed violence. Senior diplomats suggest China and Russia may abstain rather than veto the US-backed draft, which proposes a transitional Board of Peace and a 20,000 strong ISF to support security, humanitarian access, and governance.

While international support can help create a stable environment, the ultimate decision on Gaza’s political future must rest with its people. Any transitional arrangement should pave the way for free and fair elections within 90 days, giving Gazans the authority to choose their own leaders.

The US draft emphasizes a pathway to Palestinian self-determination, tied to reforms and reconstruction efforts. This approach highlights the importance of structured governance and long-term development. Equally, those responsible for the destruction must contribute to rebuilding Gaza, ensuring homes, schools, and hospitals are restored quickly.

Regional and international support remains crucial. Arab and Muslim countries, including Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, have endorsed the initiative, reflecting broad concern for the humanitarian situation. At the same time, suggestions for clearer UN oversight, such as Russia’s alternative draft, underline the need for transparency and coordination.

The path forward is straightforward - stability, reconstruction, and self-rule must go hand in hand. International support can assist, but Gazans themselves must lead the process. With swift elections, accountable governance, and targeted rebuilding, Gaza can chart a path toward lasting peace and recovery.

A Careful Moment for US–Saudi Diplomacy

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s upcoming visit to Washington promises to be one of the most closely watched diplomatic engagements of the year. President Donald Trump has already framed the event as an occasion to “honor Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince,” signalling both warmth and strategic intent. The White House is preparing pageantry normally reserved for a full state visit—an unmistakable sign of the value Washington places on Riyadh. Yet amid the ceremony and high-level meetings, a measure of prudence will serve both sides well.

The Crown Prince’s itinerary reflects the depth of the US–Saudi partnership. Tuesday begins with a formal welcome on the South Lawn, followed by an Oval Office meeting and the signing of important economic and defense agreements. A high-profile dinner in the East Room and a major US-Saudi Business Council gathering the following day underscore the widening scope of cooperation. President Trump has repeatedly spoken of his “very special relationship” with Prince Mohammed, calling him an “incredible man” and even a friend. That message alone sets a favourable tone for the visit.

However, American political culture is uniquely sensitive to past controversies—particularly those amplified by the media. The tragic killing of a Saudi journalist several years ago generated intense debate in Washington, some of which still lingers in parts of the political class. Although the matter has long been addressed at the state level, it has not entirely faded from public memory. In such an environment, even the most ceremonial visits can attract renewed scrutiny.

It is in this context that a gentle reminder becomes relevant - diplomatic engagements at this level benefit immensely from careful messaging, coordinated outreach, and an awareness of how quickly narratives can be revived. Such caution is not a criticism of either leader; rather, it is a recognition of the complexities of contemporary geopolitics.

Ultimately, the Crown Prince’s visit offers a valuable opportunity to reaffirm a partnership that remains central to Gulf stability and global economic cooperation. By keeping the focus on shared goals and forward-looking dialogue, both Riyadh and Washington can ensure that the visit strengthens ties, reinforces mutual respect, and avoids distractions that serve neither side.

Hawks Threatening Fragile Regional Peace

The recent explosion at a police station in Indian-held Kashmir — coming just days after deadly blasts in New Delhi and Pakistan — has once again raised concerns of malign actors working deliberately to destabilize an already volatile region. Whether the Kashmir incident was truly an accidental detonation, as Indian authorities insist, or part of a wider pattern, the cumulative effect is unmistakable: someone is adamant at keeping tensions high and diplomacy frozen.

According to officials, the Nowgam police-station blast occurred while forensic teams were examining confiscated explosives. The explanation may be technically sound, yet the timing is troubling. Three significant blasts across two countries within a single week cannot be brushed aside as mere coincidence. In the past, similar strings of incidents have conveniently emerged whenever even a hint of diplomatic calm seemed possible between India and Pakistan.

Beyond the security lens lies a broader geopolitical undercurrent. With Pakistan-Afghanistan transit trade suspended amid deteriorating ties between Islamabad and Kabul, India is making well-calculated moves to expand its footprint in the region. New Delhi’s push to position itself as a reliable trade partner for Afghanistan and Central Asia — backed notably by its renewed emphasis on the Chabahar corridor — is not accidental. It aligns neatly with Pakistan’s current vulnerabilities - fractured politics, troubled borders, and waning influence in a region it once dominated economically.

This is precisely the landscape in which hawks thrive. Their objective is not simply to trigger panic but to shape narratives that erode trust, fuel suspicion, and undermine any chance of sustained engagement. Each blast, each rumour, each accusation feeds into a cycle designed to keep India and Pakistan locked in strategic paralysis.

For Pakistan, the stakes are particularly high. Its economic revival hinges on rebuilding regional connectivity and reasserting itself as a natural trade and transit hub. But that requires stability — not only at home but across its borders. Repeated shocks, even when labelled “accidental,” play directly into the hands of those who want to see Pakistan isolated and reactionary.

If the region is to move forward, both New Delhi and Islamabad must resist being dragged by hawks into predictable confrontations. Joint investigations, fact-based assessments, and a willingness to insulate diplomacy from security incidents are essential. Otherwise, every spark — whether accidental or engineered — will continue to push South Asia closer to the brink.

At a moment when the region desperately needs calm, hawks are doing what they do best - threatening the fragile peace that holds it together.

Pakistan efficient in seeking debt, pathetic in boosting exports

If Pakistan ever launches a “national skill inventory,” debt-seeking deserves pride of place—right next to cricket and political speeches. Few nations can match our talent for locating, negotiating, and securing loans at record speed. In fact, if there were global rankings for borrowing, Pakistan would be a top-tier performer. Our only handicap is that medals can’t be pledged as collateral.

Over the last few years, we have turned debt acquisition into a disciplined craft. China rolls over funds before we even finish the request. Saudi Arabia extends deposits faster than we can print press releases thanking them. And commercial banks? They happily oblige—charging interest rates so high they should come with a health warning. But we take the money anyway, proudly calling it “stabilization.”

Yet when it comes to boosting exports—the one activity that could actually reduce our dependency—we become painfully sluggish. The same state that can negotiate billions overnight cannot help exporters ship a container on time. Infrastructure collapses, policies flip, energy costs skyrocket, and bureaucratic hurdles stretch on longer than IMF conditionalities.

Our export basket still resembles a museum catalogue: textiles, some rice, a bit of leather, and heroic claims that IT exports will one day rescue us. Meanwhile, competitors raced ahead years ago. Bangladesh became a garment giant, Vietnam turned into a global manufacturing hub, and India climbed the tech value chain. Pakistan? We perfected the art of writing desperate letters requesting “emergency support.”

We do not lack vision—only execution. We produce policies like an assembly line but refuse to implement even the simplest reforms. Instead, we remain obsessed with “new inflows,” as if the nation is a smartphone constantly running on low battery and eternally plugged into someone else’s charger.

It is the grand irony of our economic life: we can sell our pleas faster than we can sell our products. Friendly countries trust us with their money more than global markets trust our goods.

Until Pakistan learns to earn instead of borrow, we will remain trapped in this cycle—experts at seeking debt, amateurs at creating value.

Trump’s Admission Strengthens Iranian Case Against US

Donald Trump’s casual admission that he personally oversaw Israel’s strikes on Iran has reopened a legal and diplomatic front Washington had been trying hard to keep shut. What the administration denied in real time, Trump confirmed with ease — turning a boastful remark into potential evidence. In a region where narratives matter and legal battles increasingly shape geopolitical outcomes, Trump’s words have handed Tehran an unexpected opening.

Trump’s claim that he was “very much in charge” of the Israeli attacks carries serious implications. In the US, suspects are routinely warned that anything they say can be used against them. Yet some assume this principle does not apply to those in power. There was a reason the administration initially distanced itself from the June 13 strikes. Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted Israel had acted “unilaterally” and that the US was not involved. But Trump, seeking to inflate his own role, publicly claimed responsibility in early November, ignoring the consequences.

Tehran reacted immediately. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said it had always been clear the US participated in what Iran called Israel’s “crime of aggression.” The 12-day campaign ended on June 24, leaving more than 1,100 Iranians dead, including military commanders, scientists and civilians. Key nuclear, military and civilian sites were hit.

Analysts believe the offensive stopped only after Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes caused significant damage in Israel and hit a US airbase in Qatar. Without that response, they argue the strikes could have continued until Iran was destabilized.

Iran quickly escalated the matter to the United Nations. Its ambassador urged the Security Council to hold Washington accountable. Days later, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi wrote to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, calling the strikes violations of the UN Charter, IAEA resolutions and Security Council Resolution 487.

He said responsibility rests with Israel and the US, “which – in line with Trump’s admission – directed and controlled the aggression.” Iran formally demanded full reparation for material and moral damages.

International law expert Dr. Hesamuddin Boroumand said Trump’s admission amounts to acknowledgment, giving Iran grounds to pursue compensation through UN mechanisms. He added that Iran could also approach the UN Human Rights Council, as attacks on civilian sites violated the Geneva Conventions and the fundamental right to life, creating criminal responsibility for US officials involved.

A recent precedent exists: in South Africa’s genocide case at the ICJ, statements by Israeli officials were used as evidence. The ICC later cited some of those remarks when issuing arrest warrants, including for Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Trump’s words, offered casually, may now carry weight far beyond domestic politics — potentially reviving Iran’s case against the United States on the global stage.

PSX benchmark index up 1.5%WoW despite volatility

The successful approval of 27th Amendment by majority in both lower and upper houses settled political uncertainty, driving the index up by 3,751 points in last two trading sessions. Consequently, benchmark index closed at 161,935 points on Friday, up 1.5%WoW. The said positive outweighed the early-week bearish sentiment stemming from continued tensions between Pakistan and Afghanistan, as peace talks concluded without a resolution and Afghanistan announced a suspension of trade with and through Pakistan.

Meanwhile, market participation weakened by 13.6%WoW with avg daily traded volume down to 944 million shares, as against 1.1 billion shares a week ago.

On the macroeconomic front, workers remittance during the month of October 2025 was recorded at US$3.4 billion, up 12%YoY. Alongside, inflows under the Roshan Digital Accounts were reported at US$250 million during October 2025, up 4.6%MoM.

Auto sector sales rose to 20,985 units, up 38%YoY.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$22 million to US$14.5 billion as of November 07, 2025.

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

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

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

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

 

Hamas Is Still Alive — and Waiting for Everyone Else to Catch Up

The assumption in many Western and regional capitals that Hamas has been politically or administratively dismantled in Gaza is proving premature. If anything, the prolonged delays in implementing the so-called Trump plan have created the very vacuum in which Hamas thrives. As one analyst put it, “the longer the international community waits, the more entrenched Hamas becomes.” And Gaza today is a textbook example of how power fills empty spaces faster than diplomacy does.

Washington insists there is “progress” toward forming a multinational force and a new governing arrangement for Gaza. A US State Department spokesperson even framed Hamas’ alleged taxation and fee collection as proof that “Hamas cannot and will not govern Gaza.” Yet on the ground, the opposite appears to be unfolding. Hamas is not only governing but quietly reassembling the skeleton of its pre-war administration.

The Palestinian Authority, eager for a return to relevancy, wants a formal role in Gaza’s next chapter. Israel wants no such thing. Fatah and Hamas, meanwhile, cannot even agree on what the “next chapter” should look like. In this fog of indecision, Hamas behaves like the only actor with a plan — even if that plan is merely survival until everyone else stops arguing.

Local dynamics tell an even clearer story. Hamas continues to monitor goods entering the enclave, operates checkpoints, questions truck drivers, and fines price manipulators. While this is far from the full taxation regime it once imposed, it signals something crucial, administrative muscle memory. Even a senior Gaza food importer noted that Hamas “sees and records everything,” a polite way of saying that the movement’s bureaucratic instincts remain intact.

Financially, Hamas has kept its payroll alive — standardizing salaries at 1,500 shekels per month and drawing, diplomats say, on stockpiled cash reserves. It has replaced killed regional governors and filled the seats of 11 politburo members who died in the war. Thousands of its employees, including police, remain ready to work under any “new administration,” a phrase that increasingly sounds theoretical.

On the Israeli-controlled side, small Palestinian factions opposing Hamas have emerged, but their presence is symbolic rather than structural. They are irritants, not alternatives.

Gaza’s civilians continue to bear the brunt of this unresolved power struggle. Aid flows have improved since the ceasefire, but daily life remains harsh, prices remain punishing, and income has evaporated. In such conditions, the governing force that remains visible — even minimally — begins to look like the only functioning authority.

Gaza activist Mustafa Ibrahim summed up the situation with brutal clarity, Hamas is exploiting delays “to bolster its rule.” The unanswered question is whether anyone can prevent that. The more realistic question may be whether anyone is even ready to try.

For now, one conclusion is unavoidable - Hamas is still alive — politically, administratively, and strategically. And unless an alternative emerges with both legitimacy and capacity, Hamas will remain exactly where it has always been — filling the void left by others’ hesitation.

Pak–Afghan trade standoff: Self-Inflicted Losses for Both Sides

The Pakistan–Afghanistan trade standoff is fast turning from a political dispute into an economic disaster. Both sides claim victory, yet both are bleeding revenue, jobs, and regional influence — while Iran and Central Asia quietly collect the gains.

The disruption in Pak–Afghan transit trade has become a contest of blame and bravado, but beneath the rhetoric lies a shared economic loss. Both countries are paying the price for political posturing.

Pakistan’s Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has termed the situation a “blessing in disguise,” arguing that reduced cross-border movement will curb smuggling, terrorism, and market distortion. Yet, the security argument offers little comfort to exporters whose businesses now stand still.

Since mid-October, border crossings have remained closed, leaving thousands of trucks stranded and trade worth over US$45 million in limbo. Exporters of cement, textiles, footwear, fruits, and food items in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, and Sindh are bearing the brunt. With more than 60 percent of Afghan imports already diverted to Iran, Central Asia, and Turkey, Pakistan risks losing both the Afghan and Central Asian markets.

For Afghanistan, Deputy Prime Minister Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar’s call to find alternate routes may project defiance and independence, but the costs are real. Afghan traders rely on Pakistan’s ports and goods, especially for food and medicines. Turning to Iran or Central Asia will lengthen routes and raise costs, pushing prices higher for Afghan consumers.

Meanwhile, Iran, Uzbekistan, and Turkmenistan quietly emerge as the real beneficiaries. Their ports and overland routes are gaining traction as Afghanistan diversifies its trade options.

In the end, neither Islamabad nor Kabul wins. The prolonged standoff damages trade, jobs, and investor confidence on both sides. What could have been a bridge of mutual economic gain has turned into another front of economic self-destruction.

The message is clear: political posturing may please leaders, but it impoverishes nations.

Growing Perception: US Is a Bankrupt Country

The United States projects itself as the unshakable center of global power — militarily unmatched, technologically advanced, and economically dominant. Yet beneath this grand image lies a fundamental contradiction: America is increasingly living on borrowed time, borrowed money, and borrowed global credibility. Its bankruptcy, though not yet declared on financial ledgers, is visible in the erosion of fiscal discipline, social priorities, and political purpose.

The US economy, long admired for innovation and dynamism, now moves more on hype than on hard production. Wall Street rises and falls on corporate storytelling rather than real growth. Speculation, not substance, drives asset prices, and the financial sector has grown far more influential than the industrial base that once defined American prosperity. The gap between finance and reality has become a structural weakness — a fragility disguised as success.

At the heart of this illusion lies a debt crisis that Washington refuses to confront. The national debt has surpassed US$35 trillion, over 120 percent of GDP. The US government borrows incessantly, financing deficits through Treasury Bills and an endless stream of freshly printed dollars. For now, this is sustainable because the dollar remains the world’s reserve currency — the unit of global trade and finance. But this privilege, often taken for granted, is not eternal. As emerging economies diversify their reserves and experiment with alternative payment systems, confidence in the dollar-centric order will inevitably weaken.

Equally troubling is the American addiction to war and global dominance. With more than 700 military bases in over 80 countries, the US spends more on defense than the next ten nations combined. Yet back home, its infrastructure crumbles, its healthcare system remains unaffordable, and its citizens face widening income inequality. The contrast between its external ambition and internal neglect reflects a deeper moral and strategic exhaustion.

The recent government shutdown again exposed this contradiction. The political elite could not agree on basic governance but remained united in approving billions for military aid abroad. This is not patriotism — it is paralysis. It reveals a political class more committed to confrontation than correction.

America’s bankruptcy is therefore multidimensional. Financially, it depends on debt; politically, it depends on division; and morally, it depends on militarism. The United States can print dollars, but it cannot print trust, social cohesion, or global respect. Unless it redirects its resources from war-making to nation-building, its decline will not be a distant forecast — it will be a lived reality.

The world still looks to Washington for leadership, but leadership built on debt and deception is unsustainable. True strength lies not in weapons or markets but in the welfare of citizens and the integrity of governance. On both counts, America today stands dangerously overdrawn

US Anti-Hezbollah Campaign Can Backfire in Lebanon

Washington’s renewed intrusion into Lebanon’s internal affairs exposes once again its misplaced confidence in engineering political outcomes abroad. Under the pretext of counterterrorism, the United States is attempting to redraw Lebanon’s power map — an effort as unrealistic as it is destabilizing.

A high-level US delegation’s visit to Beirut, led by senior counterterrorism officials, carried a familiar ultimatum: Lebanon’s progress depends on disarming Hezbollah and cutting its ties with Iran. The message was cloaked in diplomatic niceties about freedom and prosperity, but the intent was blunt coercion. For a country still grappling with economic collapse and political paralysis, Washington’s prescriptions sound less like support and more like dictates.

Hezbollah has made its position unmistakably clear. Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem declared that Israel’s aggression “cannot persist” and that his movement “will not abandon its weapons.”

The statement, echoed across Lebanese media, was not mere rhetoric — it was a reminder that Hezbollah remains deeply rooted in Lebanon’s social, political, and security landscape. Any attempt to uproot it through sanctions or external pressure will only strengthen its defiance.

Meanwhile, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun’s reassurances to visiting American officials about tackling terrorism financing seem less a policy commitment and more a gesture of survival under duress. Washington’s sanctions on Hezbollah members came not as part of constructive diplomacy but as punitive leverage — reinforcing the perception that the US seeks submission, not partnership.

The pattern is depressingly familiar. From Iraq to Syria, Washington’s self-assigned role as regional architect has left behind fractured states and festering resentment. Lebanon risks becoming the next stage for this failed experiment.

If the US truly seeks stability, it must abandon its obsession with remolding sovereign nations to suit its strategic comfort. Otherwise, its anti-Hezbollah campaign may end up backfiring — deepening Lebanon’s divisions and pushing the region toward another preventable crisis.