Foreign Policy or Political Insanity?

In international relations, powerful nations often attempt to influence developments beyond their borders. Yet a fundamental principle of the global order remains the sovereignty of states. When foreign policy begins to challenge that principle too openly, it risks appearing less like strategy and more like political recklessness.

Recent remarks by Donald Trump have revived this debate. In an interview with Axios, Trump asserted that he must be personally involved in selecting Iran’s next Supreme Leader following the death of Ali Khamenei. Dismissing the potential succession of Mojtaba Khamenei as “unacceptable,” the US president suggested Washington should help determine Iran’s future leadership to ensure “harmony and peace.”

Such a proposition is extraordinary even in the hard realities of power politics. Leadership transitions are among the most sensitive internal matters of any nation. A foreign leader openly claiming a role in deciding another country’s highest authority inevitably raises questions about respect for sovereignty and the norms that underpin international diplomacy.

The statement also resonates strongly in historical context. Iran’s modern political memory already carries the imprint of external intervention, particularly the 1953 Iranian coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. That episode continues to shape Iranian perceptions of Western intentions.

Critics argue that Trump’s remarks reflect a broader pattern in his approach to global affairs. His presidency has witnessed sweeping punitive tariffs against trading partners, a reliance on executive orders to push policy objectives, and military intervention in Venezuela that led to the removal of Nicolás Maduro and the emergence of Delcy Rodríguez as the country’s leader.

Whether one views these actions as decisive leadership or excessive unilateralism, the implications are significant. Attempting to influence leadership outcomes in a country as politically and religiously complex as Iran risks inflaming nationalist sentiment and prolonging geopolitical tensions rather than resolving them.

Ultimately, the question confronting the international community is stark - when powerful states begin asserting the right to shape the leadership of other nations, does foreign policy remain diplomacy—or does it begin to resemble political insanity?

Has Israel Pushed US into War Against Iran?

The latest military confrontation involving the United States and Iran did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed Israeli escalation that Washington ultimately chose to join. The central question, therefore, is not whether America is now at war — it clearly is — but whether the pathway to war was shaped primarily in Tel Aviv rather than Washington.

For years, US policy has demonstrated near-automatic alignment with Israel’s security doctrine. Strong diplomatic cover and sustained military support during regional crises created a strategic environment in which Israeli planners could reasonably assume American backing in the event of wider confrontation. When Israeli strikes expanded toward Iran in mid-2025, that assumption appeared to hold. The United States did not restrain the escalation; it became a direct participant.

The recent Senate briefing by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and senior defense officials has done little to clarify the strategic endgame. Lawmakers from both parties emerged expressing uncertainty about objectives, timelines, and even the possibility of deploying ground troops. Concerns over drone defenses, casualties, and munitions stockpiles further suggest that the conflict may be broader and more prolonged than initially presented.

This pattern evokes uncomfortable historical parallels with the Iraq War — a campaign launched with confidence but sustained amid shifting justifications and unclear exit strategies. No two conflicts are identical, yet the strategic risks of escalation without defined political outcomes remain constant.

To be clear, Iran’s regional posture and missile capabilities are not trivial matters. Nor can Israel’s security anxieties be dismissed. However, the responsibility of a global power extends beyond alliance solidarity. It requires independent assessment of costs, consequences, and long-term regional stability.

If Israeli action triggered the sequence of escalation and the United States entered primarily to preserve alliance credibility, then Washington must ask whether it is shaping events — or being shaped by them. Strategic partnerships are assets, but they should not become conduits for unintended wars.

At stake is not merely battlefield success, but America’s claim to strategic autonomy. In geopolitics, perception often hardens into reality. The longer this war continues without clearly articulated objectives, the louder the question will grow: who truly set this course?

Did the United States Build Gulf Bases to Protect Arab Monarchies — or Israel?

The enduring American military presence across the Gulf — from Bahrain and Qatar to United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia — has long been justified under the doctrine of regional stability and collective defence. Successive US administrations have argued that these bases serve as a deterrent against external threats, particularly from Iran, portrayed as a revisionist power challenging the Gulf monarchies and the broader regional order. Defence agreements were signed, billions of dollars’ worth of advanced weaponry was purchased, and a security architecture was institutionalized under the American umbrella.

However, recent escalations — including coordinated US–Israeli strikes on Iranian targets in 2025 and 2026, followed by retaliatory attacks on American installations inside Gulf states — have reignited a fundamental question: were these bases primarily designed to shield the Gulf emirates, or to guarantee strategic depth for Israel? Critics argue that the pattern of engagement suggests a security arrangement in which Gulf territories function less as protected partners and more as forward operating platforms in a broader US–Israel strategic calculus. Supporters of the status quo counter that without American deterrence, Gulf capitals would face far greater vulnerabilities.

The debate, therefore, is not merely about military installations; it concerns sovereignty, threat perception, and the true beneficiaries of regional security alignments. Were Gulf leaders persuaded to view Iran as the primary existential threat while Israel remained outside their formal defence calculus? Or is this interpretation an oversimplification of a far more complex geopolitical reality?

I invite readers to reflect critically:
Are US bases in the Gulf fundamentally defensive shields for Arab monarchies — or strategic assets designed to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge?
Has recent regional escalation validated long-standing security assumptions, or exposed their limitations?

Your considered views will enrich this debate.

Is Larijani Trump’s Likely Choice to Rule Iran?

The reported assassination of Ali Khamenei has pushed Iran into a moment of deep uncertainty. As Washington reassesses its objectives following joint US–Israeli strikes, speculation is mounting over whether the United States would quietly favor a particular figure to stabilize Tehran. Among the names circulating in policy discussions is Ali Larijani — a seasoned insider with deep roots in Iran’s national security establishment.

Larijani is no outsider. A former speaker of parliament, veteran nuclear negotiator and long-time power broker, he has operated at the heart of the Islamic Republic for decades. In the weeks before Khamenei’s death, he was reportedly entrusted with broader strategic responsibilities, reinforcing his standing within the system. That positioning makes him one of the few figures capable of navigating Iran’s complex factional landscape.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has sent mixed signals about Washington’s ultimate aims — oscillating between suggestions of regime change and more limited objectives focused on missiles, nuclear capability and regional proxies. Such ambiguity may be deliberate, allowing room for negotiation if outright systemic collapse proves too costly or destabilizing.

In that context, Larijani’s profile presents both opportunity and risk. Critics describe him as deeply embedded in the regime’s hard power structure, including close interaction with security institutions. Supporters argue that precisely because of his establishment credentials, he could command trust across competing factions — a prerequisite for any controlled transition.

Still, Iran’s constitutional framework cannot be ignored. The Assembly of Experts retains authority to select the next Supreme Leader, and any interim arrangement would remain internally driven. External influence, however significant, has limits.

The central question is not whether Washington can “pick” Iran’s ruler — it cannot. Rather, it is whether US policymakers would prefer dealing with a pragmatic insider capable of negotiation over a fractured and unpredictable power vacuum. If stability and containment become the priority, Larijani may appear to some in Washington as a workable, if imperfect, interlocutor.

In geopolitics, choices are rarely ideal, these are calculated.

Pakistan: Strait of Hormuz risk back in focus

According to a report by Inter Market Securities, the renewed escalation in US-Iran hostilities marks reversal from the constructive progress emerging from last week’s dialogue in Geneva, wherein both sides signaled towards a possible agreement. Early Saturday, the US acknowledged attacks on key Iranian targets, which was followed by waves of retaliatory attacks by Iran on US installations in the GCC region (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia). While the duration of the conflict is uncertain, geopolitical risks are likely to be repriced by markets of all asset classes via higher energy, commodity and freight costs, especially due to rising concerns of a potential disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz – a narrow maritime corridor which links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman – is a critical route for the global energy trade, facilitating nearly one-fifth of global oil, petroleum and LNG trade, alongside nearly one-fourth of global seaborne trade. A partial disruption of the strait can materially lift oil prices and shipping freight. Beyond hydrocarbons, the strait is a key route for 25-30% of global seaborne minerals and 15% of chemicals/ fertilizer trade, among others, indicating worrisome implications on global growth and inflation. During the June 2025 US-Iran escalation (between June 13-24), Brent crude surged more than 10% DoD on June 13, before peaking later in the period north of US$77/bbl, before retracing as tensions dwindled. A similar situation played out early today when markets opened, with Brent crossing US$81/bbl (before retracing). If hostilities persist, oil could be pushed beyond US$80/bbl as well.

Notably, the KSE100 has historically reacted negatively to such events, due to Pakistan’s heavy reliance on imported crude oil and other commodities, giving rise to concerns of a potential deterioration of macroeconomic indicators. The KSE100 corrected 7% between the period before rebounding alongside de-escalation (market halted at the start of the day today). Therefore, a comparable risk-off episode cannot be ruled particularly if oil prices persistently remain elevated (negative for both inflation and the external account).

In the event of a prolonged oil price shock, the near-term macro implications for Pakistan would primarily be inflationary in absence of a swift de-escalation. For every US$5/bbl move in oil prices above with base case of US$65/ US$60/ bbl raises the next 12-month CPI estimates by an average 40bps. Additionally, given Pakistan’s structural reliance on energy imports, primarily crude related imports, 18% of overall import bill FY26 to date, higher oil prices would also weigh on the country’s external account, as a percent of GDP increasing by 20bps each for every US$5/bbl increase. That said, geopolitical oil spikes tend to be temporary, with prices retracing rapidly as tensions ease, limiting the impact on macro estimates.

Despite immediate macro risks, the brokerage house continues to remain constructive on Pakistan equities. The recent market correction has opened up valuation upside, while the earnings outlook and broader macro backdrop remain largely intact. Unless oil prices sustain higher for longer, the brokerage house sees the current market valuations as an attractive entry point.

 

Khamenei: A Leader Par Excellence

The passing of Ali Khamenei closes a defining chapter in the contemporary history of Iran. For more than three decades, he stood at the helm of a nation navigating relentless sanctions, diplomatic isolation, covert pressures, and open hostility led primarily by the United States and its regional ally, Israel. Yet, through turbulence and uncertainty, he projected continuity and resolve.

Khamenei’s leadership was forged in adversity. He inherited a revolutionary system still consolidating itself after war and internal transition. Over time, waves of economic sanctions and strategic containment sought to exhaust Iran’s capacity. Instead, the state apparatus endured. Institutions functioned, elections were held within constitutional timelines, and political processes — however debated externally — continued without systemic collapse. For his supporters, this was proof of institutional resilience under pressure.

He was neither a conventional politician nor merely a symbolic figure. He combined ideological steadfastness with calculated pragmatism. Negotiations were pursued when deemed necessary; resistance was emphasized when sovereignty was perceived to be at stake. His posture was often uncompromising, yet it reflected a consistent strategic doctrine: survival through endurance.

It is no secret that immense military, intelligence, and economic power was mobilized over decades to challenge the system he led. The geopolitical environment surrounding Iran was rarely neutral. Regional realignments, shifting alliances, and calculated silences frequently shaped the strategic space in which external pressure operated. Historians will debate the extent to which global and regional dynamics influenced the course of events. What is beyond dispute, however, is that Iran did not fracture under sustained coercion.

Leaders depart, but legacies are measured by institutional durability. Those who believed that sustained pressure alone could bend Iran’s trajectory repeatedly encountered a more complex reality. Nations shaped by adversity often internalize resilience.

Ali Khamenei’s era will be remembered for confrontation, endurance, and continuity. His critics may question his methods; his followers will celebrate his steadfastness. Yet history is likely to record one central fact: despite extraordinary external pressure, Iran remained intact — and its future will now test whether the structures he fortified can carry that legacy forward.

Israel launches attack against Iran

According to Reuters report, Israel has launched attack against Iran on Saturday, pushing the Middle East into a renewed military confrontation and further dimming hopes for a diplomatic solution to Tehran's long-running nuclear dispute with the West.

The New York Times, citing a US official, reported that US strikes on Iran were underway. A source told Reuters that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was not in Tehran and had been transferred to a secure location.

The attack, coming after Israel and Iran engaged in a 12-day air war in June, follows repeated U.S.-Israeli warnings that they would strike again if Iran pressed ahead with its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

"The State of Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Iran to remove threats to the State of Israel," Defence Minister Israel Katz said.

Explosions were heard in Tehran on Saturday, Iranian media reported.

The US and Iran renewed negotiations in February in a bid to resolve the decades-long dispute through diplomacy and avert the threat of a military confrontation that could destabilize the region.

Israel, however, insisted that any US deal with Iran must include the dismantling of Tehran's nuclear infrastructure, not just stopping the enrichment process, and lobbied Washington to include restrictions on Iran's missile program in the talks.

Iran said it was prepared to discuss curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions but ruled out linking the issue to missiles.

Tehran also said it would defend itself against any attack.

It warned neighbouring countries hosting US troops that it would retaliate against American bases if Washington struck Iran.

In June last year, the US joined an Israeli military campaign against Iranian nuclear installations, in the most direct American military action ever against the Islamic Republic.

Tehran retaliated by launching missiles toward the US Al Udeid air base in Qatar, the largest in the Middle East.

Western powers have warned that Iran's ballistic missile project threatens regional stability and could deliver nuclear weapons if developed. Tehran denies seeking atomic bombs.

Pakistan’s Western Front: Security First, Escalation Last

The latest flare-up between Pakistan and Afghanistan is not about ideology, nor about religion. It is about security — plain and simple. For Islamabad, the issue is whether militant groups hostile to Pakistan can operate from across the border with impunity.

Pakistan’s position is rooted in sovereignty. No state can allow armed actors to use neighboring territory as a launching pad for attacks. Islamabad has consistently maintained that elements targeting Pakistan have found operational space inside Afghanistan since the return of the Taliban government in 2021. Kabul rejects this claim, arguing that Pakistan is deflecting from its internal security challenges. This divergence is not new — but it is now sharper and more dangerous.

The recent Pakistani air operations inside Afghan territory must be seen through this security prism. Islamabad describes them as targeted actions against militant infrastructure, not as aggression against the Afghan state. The subsequent retaliation along the border elevated tensions to a level that Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, termed “open war.” That phrase reflects gravity, not intent for prolonged conflict.

The response from the US Department of State — supporting Pakistan’s right to defend itself while expressing concern over casualties — adds geopolitical context but does not define Pakistan’s policy. Islamabad’s western border challenges are indigenous and longstanding. These predate Washington’s statements and will persist independent of them.

Strategically, Pakistan faces a classic security dilemma. If it acts, it risks escalation. If it does not act, it risks emboldening militant actors. Neither option is cost-free. However, sustained instability on the western frontier would divert resources from Pakistan’s primary priority - economic stabilization and internal reform.

It is also important to recognize what this confrontation is not. It is not a war for territory. It is not a regime-change project. And it is not in Pakistan’s interest to see Afghanistan destabilized. A chaotic Afghanistan historically produces security spillovers into Pakistan. Stability in Kabul, therefore, is aligned with Islamabad’s long-term interests — provided that stability does not come at the cost of Pakistani lives.

The way forward demands firmness without adventurism. Pakistan must continue to defend its sovereignty while keeping diplomatic channels functional. Structured border mechanisms, verifiable counterterrorism cooperation, and sustained political engagement are essential.

For Pakistan, the equation is straightforward: security first, escalation last. Strategic maturity lies in deterring threats without sliding into prolonged confrontation. The western border must not become a permanent battleground — it must become a managed frontier built on accountability and realism.

PSX benchmark index down 2.9%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) continued to witness volatility during the week amid persistent geopolitical tensions between the US and Iran, alongside Pak-Afghan conflict, before staging a recovery on Thursday with a gain of 4,267 points. The benchmark index declined by 5,108 points or 2.9% during the week, closing at 168,062 on Friday, February 27, 2026. Market participation improved during the week, with average daily traded volumes rising by 25%WoW to 1.0 billion shares, from 831 million shares a week ago.

On the macro front, developments remained supportive, with the IMF review team currently in the country. In parallel, the Finance Minister’s remarks regarding the UAE’s US$2 billion loan rollover were also encouraging, providing comfort on the country’s external financing position.

Moreover, SBP’s net FX intervention reached US$11 billion over the last 18 months as of November 2025, while SBP held FX reserves increased by US$16 million to US$16.2 billion as of February 20, 2026, despite the repayment of a US$700 million loan to the China Development Bank.

On the currency front, PKR appreciated by 0.03%WoW against the greenback during the week, closing the week at 279.47 PKR/ US$.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Trump hikes US global tariff rate to 15%, 2) IMF hints at phased tax cut approach, 3) Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif and Qatari Emir agree to deepen economic cooperation, 4) Profit repatriation rises to US$1.67 billion in 7MFY26, and 5) CCP clears Abu Dhabi-based Eve Holdings’ acquisition of First Women Bank.

Vanspati & Allied Industries, Fertilizer, and Automobile Parts & Accessories were amongst the top performing sectors, while Tobacco, Synthetic & Rayon, and Property were amongst the laggards.

Major selling was recorded by Individuals and Foreigners with a net sell of US$18.0 million and US$17.3 million, respectively. Banks absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$33.9 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: SSOM, AKBL, THALL, POL, and BAFL, while laggards included: UNITY, SSGC, TRG, YOUW, and IBFL.

AKD Securities expects the market to recover as domestic and geopolitical uncertainties subside, with market trading at attractive valuations of forward PE of 7.2x and Dividend Yield of 6.6%. The brokerage house anticipates the benchmark Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2o26.

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

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

War with Iran Can Be a Strategic Mistake

In his recent address, US president Donald Trump again signaled that military action against Iran remains an option — citing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, missile program, regional conduct, and human rights record. The message was firm - Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. On that objective, there is rare bipartisan consensus in Washington, but consensus on a goal is not consensus on a method.

Public opinion in the United States is far more cautious than political rhetoric. After the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, American voters are wary of another open-ended Middle Eastern conflict. Polling indicates limited appetite for military escalation. That hesitation reflects hard-earned lessons - wars launched with limited objectives often expand beyond initial calculations.

For Pakistan and the broader region, the consequences would be immediate and severe. Iran sits at the crossroads of global energy routes. Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would send oil prices sharply higher, straining fragile economies across South Asia. For energy-importing states already battling inflation and external account pressures, this would be destabilizing.

Equally important is the question of strategic clarity. Is the objective deterrence? Degradation of nuclear capability? Or regime change? Absent a clearly articulated end-state, military action risks triggering retaliation without securing lasting stability. Even limited strikes could invite asymmetric responses across the region.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, though its stockpile of highly enriched uranium alarms Western powers. Yet past diplomatic frameworks proved that monitoring and verification are possible when political will exists. Diplomacy is slow and frustrating, but war is irreversible.

The 21st century offers enough evidence that military adventurism in the Middle East produces unintended and often uncontrollable consequences. From prolonged insurgencies to regional fragmentation, the record is sobering. An attack on Iran could become another costly chapter in that history — one that reshapes the region in ways no strategist can fully predict and no economy can easily absorb. Strategic restraint is not idealism; it is realism grounded in experience.

Washington’s Iran Policy: Security Rhetoric, Energy Reality

The dominant narrative in Washington frames Iran as a nuclear threat and a destabilizing regional actor. Yet beneath the moral language and security rhetoric lies a more pragmatic driver - energy geopolitics. The United States’ posture toward Iran appears shaped less by concern for Iranian citizens or nuclear anxieties alone, and more by the strategic calculus of global oil and gas dominance.

Over the past decade, the United States has undergone a structural energy transformation. Once heavily reliant on imported hydrocarbons, America is now a leading oil and LNG exporter. This shift has inevitably altered its foreign policy priorities. Sanctions regimes and diplomatic pressure have systematically constrained the energy exports of major producers viewed as adversarial or strategically inconvenient — including Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. The objective is not merely punitive; it is market-shaping.

Iran presents a unique case. Despite nearly half a century of sanctions, isolation, and economic warfare, the Islamic Republic has neither collapsed nor capitulated. Its economy has been bruised, but its political structure remains intact. History suggests that external pressure has not succeeded in engineering regime change in Tehran. Instead, it has often entrenched domestic resistance while imposing hardships on ordinary Iranians.

The persistence of confrontation raises a critical question, what has been achieved? Sanctions have constrained revenues but not fundamentally altered Iran’s regional behavior or strategic ambitions. Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions inject volatility into global energy markets, adding risk premiums that burden consumers worldwide.

A reassessment is overdue. Durable stability rarely emerges from perpetual pressure. Diplomatic engagement anchored in mutual economic interests — including structured energy cooperation — offers a more realistic pathway. Iran has repeatedly denied seeking nuclear weapons, and whether one accepts this claim or not, diplomacy remains the only verifiable mechanism for accountability.

Washington must recognize a simple geopolitical truth - coexistence delivers more than coercion. Escalatory rhetoric and regime-change fantasies have yielded diminishing returns. A pragmatic reset — reducing hostility, encouraging dialogue, and prioritizing regional stability — would better serve global economic and security interests.

Confrontation may generate headlines. Engagement, however, produces results.

Washington Iran policy, US Iran tensions, Iran sanctions, energy geopolitics, oil politics, nuclear narrative, Middle East stability, regime change debate, global energy markets, US foreign policy,

Trump Must Accept Strategic Reality

For nearly half a century, Washington has relied on sanctions, isolation, and coercion to reshape Iran’s behavior. The results are sobering. Rather than capitulate, Tehran adapted. Its political system endured, its regional footprint expanded, and its negotiating posture hardened. Yet Donald Trump has revived the vocabulary of “maximum pressure,” again pairing economic strangulation with threats of military escalation and even rhetoric about targeting Iran’s top leadership.

This moment is being framed as a last chance for diplomacy. Ali Khamenei, now in his late eighties, faces a consequential decision: accept severe limits on Iran’s nuclear program or risk confrontation with the United States and Israel. Reports suggest U.S. envoys favor transactional breakthroughs, while military planners warn that a campaign against Iran could spiral into a prolonged conflict. Such caution is not academic. The Middle East’s history is littered with wars that began as “limited strikes” and evolved into grinding, unpredictable entanglements.

Even recent use of force underscores the limits of coercion. Joint strikes did not erase Iran’s nuclear capabilities outright. Meanwhile, Tehran signals it will not negotiate away what it views as core deterrence — uranium enrichment rights and missile capacity. Offers like diluting enriched uranium or joining a regional enrichment consortium hint at possible off-ramps, but maximalist demands risk closing those exits before they are fully explored.

There is another underappreciated dimension: regional complicity. Past operational successes by Washington and Tel Aviv were facilitated by access, logistics, and airspace in neighboring Muslim-majority states. If those governments now hesitate or refuse, the military calculus changes dramatically. Geography, not just firepower, shapes outcomes.

Regime-change fantasies should also be retired. Decapitation strategies rarely produce stable, pro-Western transitions; more often they unleash fragmentation, nationalism, and cycles of retaliation. Iran’s leadership has reportedly prepared for succession contingencies, signaling that the state’s continuity does not hinge on one individual.

Strategic reality demands sobriety. Escalation may satisfy domestic political narratives, but it heightens risks for regional stability, global energy markets, and civilian lives. Durable security will not emerge from threats alone. It requires credible diplomacy, respect for redlines, and a recognition that adversaries under pressure do not always break — they often dig in.

The wiser course is clear: de-escalate rhetoric, widen diplomatic space, and prioritize negotiated constraints over another open-ended conflict. History has already delivered its verdict on wars of choice. 

Who Decides War: Trump, or the Constitution?

A credible democracy does not drift into war on the strength of rhetoric, speculation, or executive impulse. Yet that is precisely the anxiety surrounding President Donald Trump and the intensifying discussion of possible US military action against Iran. Reports suggest that lawmakers may soon vote on whether to restrain the president’s authority to initiate hostilities without explicit approval. That vote, if it happens, will not be procedural theater — it will be a constitutional test.

The power to declare war resides with the US Congress, not the White House. This division of authority is not a technicality; it is a safeguard designed to prevent unilateral decisions carrying irreversible human, economic, and geopolitical consequences. Limited defensive strikes may fall within executive discretion, but sustained, weeks-long military operations clearly cross into territory requiring legislative consent.

According to Reuters, the US military has been preparing for the possibility of extended operations should diplomacy fail. Preparation, however, must not be confused with authorization. A democracy’s legitimacy rests not merely on capability, but on adherence to process.

The bipartisan initiatives led by Senators Tim Kaine and Rand Paul, alongside Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, reaffirm a fundamental principle - if war is justified, elected officials must debate it openly and vote on it transparently. Evading that responsibility corrodes accountability and weakens democratic credibility at home and abroad.

Supporters of expansive presidential authority argue that Congress should not restrict national security powers. But oversight is not obstruction. Requiring approval is not weakness. It is the constitutional mechanism ensuring that war reflects national consensus rather than political expediency.

An attack on Iran would reverberate far beyond the battlefield — unsettling global markets, inflaming regional tensions, and risking dangerous escalation across an already volatile Middle East. Such a decision demands scrutiny measured not in cable news cycles, but in constitutional gravity.

If conflict is unavoidable, Congress must own the decision. If peace remains possible, diplomacy must be exhausted. What cannot be justified is silence — or worse, the surrender of legislative authority when it matters most.

PSX Benchmark Index Declines 3.6%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during the week due to persistent geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran, coupled with domestic political noise. Benchmark index declined by 6,434 points or 3.6% during the week to close at 173,170 on Friday. Market participation also slowed with the start of Ramadan, with average daily traded volumes declined by 22%WoW to 831 million shares, as compared to 1.1 billion shares in prior week.

Developments on the economic front remained encouraging, as the country posted Current Account surplus of US$121 million in January 2026, against a deficit of US$393 million in the same period last year, primarily driven by higher workers’ remittances.

Industrial activity (LSMI) expanded by 4.8%YoY in 1HFY26, led by growth in automobile and textile sectors.

Government notified PKR5/ kWh reduction in industrial tariffs, higher than initially announced by Prime Minister.

Power generation increased by 12%YoY in January 2026, supported by the incremental industrial power tariff package and imposition of gas levy on CPPs.

Fertilizer offtakes declined by 48%YoY during January 2026, mainly due to elevated channel inventory following advance procurement in prior month.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$19 million to US$16.2 billion as of February 13, 2026.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) IMF review mission to arrive Pakistan on 25th of this month, 2) Pakistan's bonds draw biggest foreign inflows in 19 months during January this year, 3) IT exports increase by 19%YoY during January, 4) Textile exports increase by 1.3%YoY during 7MFY26, and 5) RDA inflows crosse US$12 billion mark during February 2026.

Sector-wise, Vanaspati & Allied Industries and Woollen were amongst the top performing sectors, while Refinery, Modarabas, and OMCs were the laggards.

During the first four trading sessions, major selling was recorded by Foreigners with a net sell of US$26.5 million. Individuals and Banks absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$14.4 million and US$12.1 million, respectively.

Top performing scrips of the week were: INIL, SSOM, THALL, BNWM, and MUREB, while laggards included: PIOC, TRG, UNITY, PSO, and MEHT.

AKD Securities expect market to recover as domestic and geopolitical uncertainties subside, with market trading at attractive valuations of forward PE of 7.3x and Dividend Yield of 6.4%.

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

Top picks of the brokerage house are: OGDC, PPL, UBL, MEBL, HBL, FFC, ENGROH, PSO, LUCK, FCCL, INDU, ILP and SYS.

Trump’s Iran Gambit: A Region on the Brink

The United States appears to be preparing military action against Iran. Reports of rapid troop movements and mobilization of advanced hardware suggest that a strike could be imminent. Yet, in this moment of peril, the world—and notably Muslim leaders—remains largely silent. Their silence, whether intentional or out of fear, risks turning a dangerous plan into an uncontrollable catastrophe.

My deepest concern is that some regional powers may inadvertently facilitate these strikes. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE could become staging grounds or provide logistical support, directly exposing themselves to Iranian retaliation. Tehran’s drone and missile capabilities are not hypothetical: even a “surgical” US strike could provoke swift counterattacks, endangering civilian populations and critical infrastructure across the Gulf.

The most alarming possibility is the elimination of Iran’s top leadership. While some may view this as a tactical objective, it would almost certainly trigger a full-scale regional war. We have seen in past conflicts how targeted killings escalate rather than contain violence, unleashing cycles of retaliation that spiral beyond anyone’s control. The economic consequences would be immediate and global: energy markets would surge, trade routes could be disrupted, and refugee flows would strain neighboring countries. Extremist groups could exploit chaos, further destabilizing the region.

The silence of Muslim-majority nations is deafening. By failing to speak against this looming confrontation, they risk becoming complicit in a war with no winners. The international community—Washington included—must recognize that diplomacy and restraint are far more powerful than pre-emptive strikes. Averted conflict today is exponentially less costly than a conflagration tomorrow.

We stand at a dangerous crossroads. Leadership demands foresight, courage, and moral clarity; recklessness promises death, destruction, and chaos. The world must act now to prevent a spark that could ignite a fire engulfing an entire region. If we do not, history will judge us for failing to speak while war loomed on the horizon.

Congress Must Draw the Line on Iran

As Washington again drifts toward confrontation with Iran, Congress faces a constitutional test it has postponed for far too long. Reports of rapid US military mobilization in the Middle East, coupled with warnings from seasoned observers, suggest that the momentum toward conflict may already be outrunning diplomacy. If so, lawmakers cannot remain spectators.

The bipartisan War Powers Resolution introduced by Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie is not a procedural nuisance; it is a reaffirmation of the separation of powers. The Constitution vests the authority to declare war in Congress precisely to prevent unilateral military adventures driven by miscalculation, political impulse, or external pressure. Requiring explicit authorization before striking Iran is the minimum safeguard, not an obstacle to national security.

Recent commentary paints a troubling picture: ultimatums that touch Iran’s declared red lines, paired with skepticism that genuine negotiations are underway. Whether one accepts that assessment or not, prudence demands congressional oversight. Wars have begun on thinner evidence and with greater confidence than hindsight could justify. Iraq remains the cautionary tale of intelligence failures, inflated expectations, and consequences that lasted decades.

The risks today are neither abstract nor distant. Iranian officials have hinted that a broader US strike would trigger severe retaliation. Even limited exchanges could endanger American troops, destabilize energy markets, and ignite a regional escalation that engulfs allies and civilians alike. Military action is easy to start, notoriously hard to contain.

Civil society groups—from Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) and CodePink—are urging Congress to act. Their arguments vary, but converge on a central point: another Middle East war would be devastating and avoidable. Lawmakers should heed that warning without surrendering to alarmism. The question is not whether Iran poses challenges; it is whether bypassing Congress improves outcomes.

This is a moment for institutional responsibility. Debate the intelligence. Scrutinize the objectives. Weigh the costs. Then vote. If military action is truly necessary, the administration should be able to make its case to the people’s representatives. If it cannot, that itself is an answer.

Congress must draw the line—clearly, constitutionally, and now.

Trump War Mania Crossing All Red Lines

The drumbeat of war rhetoric from Donald Trump toward Iran is no longer just political posturing — it is a test of America’s constitutional integrity. Wars are not reality shows. These are irreversible acts that consume lives, destabilize regions, and stain legacies.

Reporting by Axios, citing journalist Barak Ravid, warns that the United States may be closer to a “massive,” weeks-long conflict than most Americans understand. That phrase should trigger national debate. Instead, Congress is on recess and public discourse remains oddly subdued. Silence, in moments like this, is not neutrality — it is complicity.

America’s strength has never rested solely on military power but on process: consultation with allies, engagement with the United Nations, coordination within NATO, and authorization by the United States Congress. The War Powers Act exists to prevent unilateral escalations driven by impulse or political calculus.

Yet critics observe a troubling vacuum. Democratic leaders such as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have raised procedural objections, but where is the forceful challenge to the logic, risks, and consequences of war itself? Procedural caution without substantive resistance is an inadequate defense against catastrophe.

Columnist David French captured the absurdity: the nation edges toward possible conflict while Congress appears disengaged and the public largely unaware. Meanwhile, Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft warns of familiar patterns — media narratives that amplify hawkish voices while sidelining restraint.

Public opinion tells a clearer story. A YouGov survey shows significantly more Americans opposing military action against Iran than supporting it. After Iraq and Afghanistan, skepticism is not isolationism — it is wisdom earned at staggering cost.

President Trump, a war with Iran would not be surgical, swift, or contained. It would ignite regional volatility, shock global markets, and risk drawing America into another open-ended quagmire. History rarely forgives leaders who confuse bravado with strategy.

Congress must act — not later, not symbolically, but now. Debate openly. Assert authority. Because once the first strike is ordered, red lines stop being diplomatic language, but become graves.

Bangladesh: A cabinet dominated by first-timers

All 24 state ministers in the cabinet are new appointees, and 16 of the 25 full ministers are serving in that role for the first time

With BNP Chairman Tarique Rahman sworn in today at the South Plaza of the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban, the country got its 11th prime minister.

President Mohammed Shahabuddin administered the oath of the prime minister, 25 ministers, and 24 state ministers.

Among those who become ministers for the first time are: Tarique Rahman, AZM Zahid Hossain, Khalilur Rahman, Abdul Awal Mintoo, Mizanur Rahman Minu, Khandaker Abdul Muktadir, Ariful Haque Choudhury, Zahir Uddin Swapan, Aminur Rashid Yasin, Afroza Khanam Rita, Shahid Uddin Chowdhury Anee, Asaduzzaman Asad, Zakaria Taher, Dipen Dewan, Fokir Mahbub Anam, Sardar Sakhawat Hossain Bokul and Sheikh Robiul Alam.

The new state ministers are: M Rashiduzzaman Millat, Anindya Islam Amit, Shariful Alam, Shama Obaed Islam, Sultan Salahuddin Tuku, Barrister Kaiser Kamal, Farhad Hossain Azad, Md Aminul Haq, Mir Mohammad Helal Uddin, Md Abdul Bari, Mir Shahe Alam, Zonayed Saki, Ishraque Hossain, Farzana Sharmin, Shaikh Faridul Islam, Nurul Haque Nur, Yasser Khan Chowdhury, M Iqbal Hossain, MA Muhith, Ahammad Sohel Manjur, Bobby Hajjaj, Ali Newaz Mahmud Khaiyam, Habibur Rashid and Md Rajib Ahsan.

The new BNP-led government under Tarique Rahman officially took office on Tuesday.

The BNP-led coalition won in 209 seats in the February 12 national election.

A Dangerous Drift Toward Another Unnecessary War

Signals emerging from Washington point toward a trajectory the world has seen before: military escalation presented as strategic necessity. Reports that the United States is preparing for the possibility of sustained operations against Iran should prompt serious reflection, not only in the region but among policymakers who understand how quickly “limited actions” evolve into prolonged conflicts.

Military preparedness is routine; political judgment is decisive. Confusing the two is where danger begins.

At the heart of the debate lies an uncomfortable legal tension. Iran, as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), retains the right to pursue nuclear technology for civilian purposes under international safeguards. Disputes over compliance are meant to be resolved through verification regimes and diplomacy. When the language of air strikes overshadows the mechanisms of inspection, the credibility of multilateral agreements erodes.

History offers sobering reminders. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by intelligence later discredited, destabilized a fragile state and reshaped regional security in ways few architects anticipated. The 2011 intervention in Libya, backed by NATO, removed an entrenched regime yet failed to deliver sustainable governance. These episodes illustrate a persistent reality: regime change may be swift in execution but chaotic in consequence.

Renewed rhetoric about altering Tehran’s political order risks repeating this pattern. Externally driven transitions rarely produce the institutional stability advocates promise. More often, they generate power vacuums, factional conflict, economic collapse, and long-term regional spillovers.

Moral arguments, too, demand consistency. Criticism of Iran’s domestic policies carries greater weight when human rights principles are applied universally rather than selectively. Standards invoked abroad cannot appear negotiable at home without weakening their persuasive force.

Equally problematic is the inflation of threat narratives. Iran’s regional posture is assertive and frequently destabilizing, particularly through its network of non-state partners. Yet portraying it as an imminent global menace compresses complex geopolitical realities into a binary framework that leaves little room for diplomacy. For Israel, whose security concerns are genuine, long-term stability ultimately rests on deterrence, engagement, and regional balance — not perpetual confrontation.

The risks of a sustained conflict are neither theoretical nor remote. Iran’s missile capabilities, asymmetric tools, and retaliatory doctrine make escalation highly probable. States hosting American military installations could become unintended theatres of reprisal. Energy corridors, shipping routes, and civilian infrastructure across the Gulf would face heightened vulnerability. Even a carefully calibrated campaign could trigger consequences far beyond initial objectives.

Diplomacy is slow, imperfect, and politically inconvenient. War is swift, destructive, and rarely confined to its opening script. Strategic calculations must reflect that asymmetry.

One need not be a head of state to recognize the stakes. Even an ordinary citizen can observe that conflicts launched with confidence often conclude with outcomes no one predicted — except the families, economies, and regions left to absorb the costs.

After decades marked by intervention fatigue and strategic overreach, Washington faces a defining choice: reinforce diplomacy and international law, or drift toward another confrontation whose consequences may exceed its rationale.

Strategic patience is not weakness. In a volatile geopolitical landscape, it is the most credible expression of strength.

Election or Selection? Bangladesh at the Crossroads

The latest election in Bangladesh has delivered a result that few found surprising. The continuity of leadership has reinforced a long-standing perception: politics in the country remains shaped by dynastic gravity rather than competitive churn. This predictability has revived an uncomfortable question — was it an election defined by open contest, or a selection shaped by structural advantage?

Since independence, power has largely oscillated between two dominant political forces. Such concentration can project stability, yet it also risks creating democratic fatigue. When outcomes appear preordained and opposition participation limited, public trust in the electoral process inevitably comes under strain. Legitimacy in modern democracies is measured not only by victory margins but by the credibility of the contest itself.

However, Bangladesh’s political story cannot be separated from its geopolitical significance. The country sits at a strategic junction in South Asia, attracting the sustained attention of major powers.

For the United States, Bangladesh represents both an economic partner and a node in the Indo-Pacific calculus. Democratic standards, labour rights, and regional security form key pillars of engagement.

India views Bangladesh through the lens of neighbourhood stability, connectivity, and security cooperation. Political continuity in Dhaka often translates into policy predictability for New Delhi, particularly on trade routes and border management.

China’s expanding footprint reflects its broader Belt and Road ambitions. Infrastructure financing and investment ties have deepened, making Bangladesh an increasingly important partner in Beijing’s regional architecture.

Russia, while less visible, maintains interests in energy cooperation and strategic diversification, seeking relevance in a region marked by intensifying power competition.

This convergence of external interests complicates internal democratic debates. Stability is prized by international partners, yet excessive political closure can breed long-term fragility. A system perceived as exclusionary may preserve short-term order while quietly eroding institutional confidence.

The true test for Bangladesh is not merely electoral endurance but democratic resilience. Elections must be seen as credible mechanisms of choice rather than procedural formalities. Without broader participation and trust, even economic progress may struggle to anchor political legitimacy.

In the end, the question lingers: if elections secure continuity but weaken confidence, what exactly has been strengthened — governance, or doubt?

Intimidating Iran Best Pastime of United States

The recent decision by the United States to dispatch the USS Gerald R. Ford, the world’s largest aircraft carrier, from the Caribbean to the Middle East underscores a persistent pattern in Washington’s approach toward Tehran. The move places two US carriers in the region, with the Ford joining the USS Abraham Lincoln amid renewed tensions with Iran. Officially, the deployment is framed as a precautionary step to reinforce deterrence and preserve regional stability.

Yet beyond the language of deterrence lies a familiar policy reflex: the reliance on military signalling as a primary instrument for influencing Iran’s behaviour. This is hardly unprecedented. In 2012, reports of F-22 Raptor stealth fighters deployed to Al Dhafra Air Base in the United Arab Emirates carried similar assurances of routine scheduling and defensive intent. Strategically, however, the message was clear — project strength, signal readiness, and apply pressure without crossing into open conflict.

More than a decade later, the continuity is striking. Carrier deployments, advanced aircraft rotations, and calibrated rhetoric remain central to Washington’s Iran playbook. Such measures undoubtedly serve tactical objectives: reassuring allies, demonstrating capability, and maintaining leverage. But their long-term effectiveness invites scrutiny.

Iran has endured sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and repeated demonstrations of US military power for decades without fundamentally altering its core strategic posture. Pressure has, at times, produced limited concessions, yet it has just as often entrenched mistrust and reinforced Tehran’s security-centric worldview. Deterrence can prevent conflict; it does not automatically resolve the disputes that generate it.

There is also a broader risk. Persistent cycles of escalation and signalling narrow diplomatic space and increase the possibility of miscalculation. In a region already burdened by volatility, symbolism can easily harden into confrontation, even when neither side seeks direct war.

For policymakers and serious observers, the essential question is not whether the United States should maintain a credible security presence in the Middle East. It is whether intimidation-centric strategies yield diminishing returns when repeated without parallel diplomatic innovation.

A more sustainable path would balance firmness with structured engagement — linking military posture to transparent negotiation frameworks, confidence-building measures, and pragmatic channels of communication. History suggests that durable stability rarely emerges from coercion alone.

Power projection may shape headlines and influence short-term calculations, but it cannot indefinitely substitute for political imagination. Lasting progress will depend not on repeating familiar gestures, but on redefining the terms of engagement.

PSX benchmark index declines 2.5%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained bearish during the week ended on Friday, February 13, 2026, on investors’ skepticism over political developments and recent domestic security incidents. These concerns coupled with delay in the financial close of Reko Diq, weighed on Oil & Gas sector, which recorded the largest index point pullback during the week. Overall, the benchmark index declined by 4,526 points or 2.5%WoW, ending the week at 179,604 points. Market participation strengthened during the week, with average daily trading volume rising by 8%WoW to 1.1 billion shares, from 983 million shares in the prior week.

The pressure was partially eased by supportive macro developments: 1) budget surplus of PKR542 billion or 0.4% of GDP in 1HFY26 as against a deficit of PKR1.5 trillion in the same period last year, 2) a 15%YoY rise remittances sent by oversees Pakistanis to US$3.5 billion in first month of current calendar year, and 3) auto sales reaching a 43-month high during the outgoing month.

Moreover, in MSCI’s February 2026 Index review, ABOT was deleted from FM Index. In addition, SEPL and ZAL were added to the MSCI FM Small Cap Index, while LPL was removed.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$21 million to US$16.2 billion as of February 06, 2026. On the currency front, PKR appreciated by 0.03%WoW against the greenback during the week, closing the week at PKR279.62/ US$.

Other major news flow during the week includes, 1) UAE extends US$2 billion lifeline to Pakistan ahead of IMF talks, 2) Moody’s changes Pakistan banking outlook to stable, 3) US approves US$1.3 billion financing for Reko Diq project, 4) Pakistan, Indonesia take fresh steps to deepen trade and investment ties, and 5) GoP announces to invest US$1 billion in AI by 2030.

Vanspati & Allied Industries, Inv. Banks/ Inv. Cos./ Securities Cos., Pharmaceuticals, Chemical and Transport were amongst the top performing sectors, while Textile Spinning, Oil & Gas Exploration, Jute, Synthetic & Rayon and Technology & Communication were amongst the laggards.

Major buying was recorded by Mutual Funds and Individuals with a net buy of US$29.6 million and US$13.0 million, respectively. Foreigners and Brokers were major sellers with net sell of US$25.9 million and US$15.9 million, respectively.

Top performing scrips of the week were: AGP, SSOM, ENGROH, SCBPL, and CPHL, while laggards included: UNITY, PPL, PKGP, BOP, and TRG.

AKD Securities expects market to recover as domestic and geopolitical uncertainties subside, and investor focus is likely to remain on upcoming financial results and improving macros. It forecasts the bench mark Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2026.

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iran’s Revolution Endures at 47

As Iran marks the 47th anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the occasion invites more than ceremonial remembrance. It demands a sober assessment of how a political upheaval that toppled a monarchy evolved into one of the most enduring and debated state projects of the modern era.

For ordinary Iranians, the revolution’s legacy remains layered. In its formative decades, the Islamic Republic expanded literacy, strengthened primary healthcare, and extended infrastructure into rural regions long neglected under the Shah. Education enrollment surged, and social development indicators improved. Just as significantly, the revolution institutionalized a powerful narrative of sovereignty, independence, and resistance to external domination. Yet these achievements coexist with persistent challenges: sanctions-driven economic strain, inflation, currency volatility, and high youth unemployment. A younger, digitally connected generation increasingly measures progress through economic opportunity, social mobility, and personal freedoms—metrics that often fuel domestic debate and periodic unrest.

An important, often oversimplified dimension is contemporary support for the revolutionary system. While global commentary frequently highlights dissent, Iranian society presents a more complex picture. Many citizens—particularly within rural constituencies, state-linked sectors, and groups prioritizing stability and national autonomy—continue to view the revolution as a guarantor of independence and social order. Commemorations still mobilize participation. At the same time, support is rarely unconditional; it exists alongside criticism of governance, economic management, and civil liberties. This coexistence of loyalty and frustration reflects a society negotiating reform rather than uniformly rejecting the state’s ideological foundations.

Externally, the revolution has operated under the shadow of sustained US opposition. Decades of sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and strategic confrontation have sought to constrain Tehran’s regional influence and nuclear ambitions. The result has been paradoxical: economic hardship and technological constraints on one side, but also a reinforced Iranian emphasis on self-reliance, deterrence, and strategic patience.

Regionally, Iran’s emergence as a consequential power is unmistakable. Through asymmetric capabilities, calibrated alliances, and geopolitical persistence, Tehran has embedded itself deeply in West Asian security dynamics. Whether perceived as stabilizer, disruptor, or balancer, Iran today is central to regional calculations.

At 47, the Iranian Revolution stands neither as a frozen triumph nor a failed experiment. It is a living, evolving project—tested by economic pressures, shaped by generational change, and defined by a resilience that continues to confound predictions of its demise.

US Trade Deal Raises Questions Over Bangladesh Autonomy

Bangladesh’s newly signed trade agreement with the United States is being hailed as a step forward in bilateral economic relations. Yet beneath the surface of tariff reductions and textile concessions, the deal raises uncomfortable questions about Dhaka’s strategic flexibility.

The agreement highlights an enduring reality of global economics: trade deals are rarely just about trade. For emerging economies like Bangladesh, the challenge is not merely securing market access but preserving policy autonomy. Economic gains can be meaningful, yet the long-term cost of constrained strategic choices may prove far more significant. In a world shaped by intensifying great-power competition, smaller states must navigate carefully — ensuring that commercial cooperation does not quietly evolve into strategic dependency.

Signed on February 09, the agreement reduces Bangladesh’s reciprocal tariff rate with the US to 19%. In return, Bangladesh secures zero reciprocal tariffs on readymade garments exported to the American market — provided those products are manufactured using US-origin cotton and man-made fibre.

While the trade benefits appear attractive, the language embedded in the agreement suggests broader expectations. The version released by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) includes a notable provision:

“Bangladesh shall endeavor to increase purchases of US military equipment and limit military equipment purchases from certain countries.”

The final text avoids naming specific nations, but earlier drafts reportedly included references to reducing defence imports from China. Even without explicit mention, the geopolitical undertone is difficult to ignore.

Beyond defence procurement, the agreement outlines substantial long-term commercial commitments. Bangladesh is expected to import more than US$15 billion worth of American liquefied natural gas (LNG) over the next 15 years. The deal also encourages increased imports of US automobiles and auto parts.

In aviation, Dhaka has agreed to purchase 14 Boeing civil aircraft along with associated components, with the possibility of additional acquisitions in the future.

Another clause requires Bangladesh to submit a “full and complete” notification to the World Trade Organization (WTO) detailing all subsidies within six months — a move that could expose domestic industrial policies to heightened scrutiny.

Individually, each component of the agreement can be defended as commercially rational. Collectively, however, they reflect a familiar pattern in US trade diplomacy: economic incentives intertwined with strategic alignment.

For Bangladesh, the agreement may indeed open new economic opportunities. But it also underscores a broader dilemma faced by smaller economies — when trade arrangements begin influencing defence sourcing, energy dependence, and policy transparency, the boundary between partnership and pressure becomes blurred.

The deal may strengthen US-Bangladesh ties. Whether it narrows Bangladesh’s room for independent strategic maneuvering remains the more consequential question.

Should Iran Stop Entry of Ships with US Flag in the Strait of Hormuz?

The Strait of Hormuz is not just another sea lane — it is arguably the most consequential chokepoint in global energy geography. At its narrowest, the strait squeezes to just over 21 nautical miles, with segments falling within what Iran views — and much of the world recognizes — as its territorial waters. Yet, Washington, despite a policy of “maximum pressure” against Tehran, insists its vessels must transit unimpeded through these waters. This contradiction lies at the heart of the current impasse.

Under international law, coastal states exercise sovereignty over territorial waters, typically extending twelve nautical miles from their shorelines. While the regime of “transit passage” over straits used for international navigation exists, it is not absolute — especially when strategic maritime access is leveraged amid acute political tensions. Iran asserts that a combination of sanctions, military threats, and economic strangulation amounts to coercion, undermining the spirit of norms meant to protect freedom of navigation.

The US “maximum pressure” policy — a blend of sweeping sanctions, tariffs on Iran’s trading partners, asset freezes, and diplomatic isolation — aims to squeeze Tehran’s economy and force it back to the negotiating table on Washington’s terms. It has undoubtedly inflicted economic pain: deep currency depreciation, elevated inflation, and a contraction in trade with global partners. Yet, the policy has not delivered the strategic outcomes Washington seeks.

Iran has not fully capitulated on its nuclear ambitions, nor has it ceased support for networks that counter US influence in the region. Indeed, analysts argue that the policy’s unrelenting coercion without a clear diplomatic exit has hardened Tehran’s posture rather than moderated it.

Critically, this pressure campaign has complicated the very objective it claims to uphold — ensuring stable maritime traffic. Rather than diminishing Iran’s leverage, sustained economic and military posturing risks escalating incidents around the strait. Maritime advisories urging US-flagged vessels to stay as far as safely possible from Iranian waters reflect this unease.

If the United States wants unrestricted passage for its vessels, it must reckon with the paradox of demanding rights while applying relentless pressure that invites resistance. A sustainable solution demands not just naval escorts and sanctions, but a calibrated diplomatic engagement that acknowledges Iran’s legitimate security concerns without compromising global trade imperatives.

In a narrow channel where diplomacy and deterrence meet, rigidity will only make a bottleneck worse.

Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium?

Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes is grounded in international law, not ideological sympathy. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is legally entitled to develop nuclear technology for civilian uses such as medical isotopes, electricity generation, and scientific research, provided it remains under international safeguards. Tehran has consistently maintained that it does not seek nuclear weapons. Distrust alone cannot nullify a treaty-based right.

For nearly five decades, Iran has been subjected to economic sanctions, covert operations, cyber sabotage, and targeted killings of nuclear scientists. These measures, justified in the name of non-proliferation, have failed to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability. Instead, they have entrenched confrontation, weakened moderates, and institutionalized hostility as a policy tool.

Israel has played the most aggressive role in this strategy. Operating with implicit Western backing, it has repeatedly attacked Iranian assets and openly threatened pre-emptive strikes. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recurring warnings of unilateral military action reflect a dangerous mindset: one that treats force as a substitute for diplomacy and assumes escalation can be controlled. History suggests otherwise.

Any military adventurism against Iran would not remain a limited strike. It would provoke retaliation across the region, destabilize already fragile states, disrupt global energy supplies, and risk drawing major powers into a wider confrontation. The Middle East is already burdened by overlapping crises; igniting a new war over speculative threat perceptions would be an act of strategic recklessness.

If the objective is to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, coercion has proven ineffective. Verification, inspections, and negotiated limits offer far greater security than sanctions and bombs. The West must accept that peaceful enrichment under monitoring is safer than perpetual confrontation.

Equally important, Muslim countries must move beyond silence and ambiguity. Enabling or facilitating attacks on Iran, directly or indirectly, only accelerates regional self-destruction. Strategic autonomy demands collective restraint.

Enough is enough. Denying legal rights, normalizing aggression, and tolerating unilateral strikes will not bring stability. They will only push the Middle East closer to a conflict whose consequences no one—not even its architects—can control.

Targeting Pakistan’s Heart: Terror Beyond Sectarian Lines

The latest bomb blast at an Imam Bargah during Friday prayers must not be dismissed as yet another episode of sectarian violence. To frame it that way is misleading—and plays directly into the hands of those who seek to destabilize Pakistan. This was a strategic strike aimed at the state, social cohesion, and economic revival, not a spontaneous sectarian clash.

The choice of location is telling. An attack in or near the federal capital is a deliberate message: those entrusted with national security are being exposed as vulnerable. This is about demonstrating institutional weakness, not simply causing casualties.

Targeting Shias at a place of worship is tactically calculated to manufacture the illusion of sectarian conflict. Pakistan’s Shia and Sunni communities have coexisted for decades. By creating the perception of intra-Muslim hostility, the perpetrators hope to provoke mistrust, social fragmentation, and internal tension—classic tools to weaken a nation from within.

Timing is critical. After prolonged economic strain, Pakistan is showing early signs of recovery—stabilizing markets, cautious investor interest, and renewed trade activity. Terrorism at this juncture is meant to undermine confidence, discourage investment, and stall the revival.

The attack also feeds into the Afghan blame narrative. Linking violence to cross-border militancy or safe havens conveniently shifts attention from the real sponsors, strains Pakistan-Afghanistan relations, and disrupts the flow of Afghan transit trade—a vital lifeline for both economies.

To call this “sectarian killing” is to misdiagnose the problem. The reality is far more calculated: a foreign hand is striking at security credibility, social harmony, regional diplomacy, and economic momentum. The question is not who was killed, but who benefits. And the answer lies far beyond sectarian lines.

Pakistan cannot allow its narrative to be hijacked. Recognizing the true nature of these attacks is the first step toward ensuring that security, economic revival, and regional cooperation are not held hostage by external designs.