Iran advises crew to abandon tankers in Bahrain and Kuwait

According to Seatrade Maritime news, following strikes on five Iranian tankers by US forces, Iran has announced to strike commercial tankers in Bahrain and Kuwait. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) Navy issued what Iranian media described as an “urgent warning” in response to the US attacks.

The warning told all tanker crews in Bahraini and Kuwaiti to immediately abandon their vessels, whether at anchor or at berth in ports, as they would be targeted by the IRGC Navy.

Kuwait and Bahrain, hosting US military bases have come under consistent attack by Iran since the war with the US started at the end of February.

Maritime security firm Vanguard Tech said it assessed the warning as credible enough to require "immediate operational consideration", although an attack was not inevitable.

It noted the warning was unusually specific in terms of vessel type and location, it was consistent with past Iranian behaviour in terms of targeting Bahrain and Kuwait, and a widening of the rationale for attacks to cover vessels in particular port associated with the US military regardless of flag or ownership.

The threat to commercial tankers in Bahraini and Kuwaiti ports follows the US strikes on five Iranian owned or linked tankers which US Central Command described as having “destroyed the vessels” after crews were directed to abandon ship.

The Iranian-flagged NITC VLCC Derya was targeted near Kharg Island. US forces also fired on four vessels in the Gulf of Oman – the Aframaxes Kaviz and Riesco, the oil/ product tanker Charminar, and the LPG carrier Horizon 1. 

Video from US Central Command showed four of the vessels being struck towards the stern while the Riesco was shown with fires raging on its deck and around the accommodation block.

The strikes on the Iranian linked tankers were in response to two IRGC attacks on a US warship, which US Centcom said had failed.

The threat to commercial shipping in the region has ratcheted up significantly in recent weeks with the US striking eight Iranian owned or linked tankers and Iran attacking at least four commercial tankers in the Strait of Hormuz including the Bahri VLCC Sidr which resulted in the deaths of two Filipino seafarers and the Sinokor VLCC Senegal Prosperity which was abandoned and listing following an attack on August 30, 2026.

 

Oman postpones Hormuz talks with Iran and Gulf states

According to Eurasia Media Network, Oman has postponed a regional meeting scheduled for Monday in Salalah between Iran and several Gulf countries on the future of the Strait of Hormuz.

Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi said the gathering was delayed “in the interests of consensus” to allow conditions for constructive dialogue that could support regional stability.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry said the postponement came at the request of some regional countries and was a joint decision with Muscat. No new date has been set.

The talks were meant to discuss an Iran-Oman framework for managing shipping through the vital waterway, which carries a large share of the world’s oil and gas.

Iran has maintained restrictions on transit since the wider Middle East conflict began in late February.

Tehran has floated ideas including passage fees and revised routes. Bahrain had already said it would not attend until diplomatic ties with Iran were restored.

The delay comes amid continued disruption to energy flows, recent attacks on vessels, and high oil prices.

Oman, which borders the southern side of the strait, has been mediating for weeks. Officials in Muscat and Tehran said they remain committed to dialogue.

Pakistan Should Follow Indian FX Strategy

Reportedly, Indian foreign exchange reserves have reached a record US$785.7 billion. However, the more important lesson for Pakistan is not the size of India’s reserves, but the policy approach used to attract foreign currency. India has demonstrated that a country can actively mobilize foreign exchange through appropriate financial instruments instead of simply waiting for exports, remittances or external borrowing to increase reserves.

In June, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) introduced measures to encourage dollar inflows, including discounted hedging facilities for overseas borrowings by state-run companies and banks, as well as free-of-cost hedging facilities for banks raising foreign-currency deposits from abroad.

The response was significant. Between June 5 and August 31, India received US$136.3 billion through these schemes, including US$127 billion in non-resident Indian deposits—far above initial expectations. Foreign exchange reserves subsequently increased by almost US$120 billion over ten consecutive weeks. The latest weekly increase alone was nearly US$45 billion.

The Indian experience raises an important question for Pakistan: can we develop a similar policy framework to mobilize foreign exchange rather than repeatedly seeking emergency financing?

Pakistan already has an important foundation through Roshan Digital Accounts and its large overseas Pakistani community. Millions of Pakistanis living abroad have strong economic and emotional links with the country. Yet the potential of this community as a stable source of foreign exchange remains considerably underutilized.

What is required is a more ambitious and coordinated foreign-exchange mobilization strategy.

First, overseas Pakistanis should be offered more attractive foreign-currency deposit and investment products, supported by competitive returns, predictable taxation and greater confidence in the financial system. The objective should be to encourage longer-term savings rather than merely short-term remittances.

Second, the banking sector could be provided carefully designed hedging facilities to attract longer-term foreign-currency deposits while managing exchange-rate risks. Such facilities should be transparent and market-oriented rather than creating an open-ended burden for the central bank.

Third, exporters should be encouraged to repatriate and retain a greater proportion of their foreign-exchange earnings within Pakistan. Export competitiveness should remain the priority, but the financial system can provide incentives for exporters to keep and invest their foreign-currency earnings domestically.

Fourth, financially sound Pakistani companies, banks and state-owned enterprises could be facilitated in raising foreign currency through international markets. A credible regulatory framework, stronger corporate governance and transparent disclosure would be essential to attract investors.

Pakistan could also explore mechanisms to channel part of its substantial diaspora wealth into infrastructure, energy, agriculture, technology and export-oriented industries. This would transform foreign exchange from a short-term financing source into productive capital.

Pakistan must avoid creating the appearance of stronger reserves through excessive short-term borrowing. The composition, maturity and sustainability of foreign-exchange inflows matter as much as the headline reserve figure. Borrowed dollars can provide temporary relief but cannot substitute for sustainable external earnings.

India’s experience demonstrates that foreign exchange does not always have to be passively accumulated. Appropriate incentives, financial instruments and institutional confidence can actively mobilize it.

The real question is no longer whether Pakistan needs more dollars. It is whether Pakistan is prepared to design a policy that makes those dollars come to Pakistan—and stay productively invested in the country.

 

BRICS Members Move to Reduce Reliance on the US Dollar

BRICS leaders have called for reforms to the global governance system, condemned unilateral tariffs and “acts of war”, and backed greater representation for developing countries at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The positions were outlined in the New Delhi Declaration adopted on September 12 at the BRICS Summit in the Indian capital. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the changing world could not be governed through outdated institutions and stressed the need for reforms in representation, responsiveness and rule-making.

The declaration called for a “structural update” of the UNSC, with greater representation for developing countries from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. China and Russia reiterated support for Brazil and India seeking a greater role at the United Nations, including on the Security Council.

A particularly significant development was the call for BRICS members to increase the use of local currencies in trade among themselves, reducing reliance on the US dollar. This reflects a broader effort to diversify international trade and financial transactions and gradually reduce dependence on the dollar-dominated global system.

BRICS also criticized unilateral tariffs and other trade restrictions, warning that they could disrupt supply chains, hamper global trade and deepen economic disparities. The bloc reaffirmed support for reforming the World Trade Organization to better address the needs of emerging and developing economies.

The declaration strongly condemned terrorism in all its forms and rejected attempts to associate terrorism with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group. It also denounced “unilateral acts of war” and emphasized the protection of seafarers and commercial navigation amid continuing military tensions in the Middle East.

The expanding BRICS platform increasingly reflects the aspirations of the Global South for a more representative and multipolar international order.

Is Saudi Arabia Being Attacked to Recognize Israel

The growing friction between US President Donald Trump and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) surfaced when Washington sought to pressure Riyadh over the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Although the issue was eventually hushed up, US pressure on MBS continued, with Washington increasingly seeking Saudi recognition of Israel.

Israel's devastating military campaign in Gaza, however, complicated the American strategy. For MBS, moving toward normalization with Israel became politically difficult while Palestinians continued to suffer. Riyadh instead maintained that recognition must be linked to Palestinian statehood and a credible two-state solution.

China's mediation of the Saudi-Iran rapprochement delivered another strategic message to Washington. If two traditional regional rivals could overcome decades of hostility through Chinese diplomacy, America's traditional dominance in the Middle East could gradually weaken. The development also demonstrated that Saudi Arabia had alternatives to exclusive dependence on Washington.

When the US-Israeli war against Iran began on February 28, 2026, the regional equation changed dramatically. As Trump decided to escalate the conflict, Iranian retaliation against American military installations and interests across the Gulf became increasingly predictable. Saudi Arabia, with its enormous energy infrastructure and strategic importance, was inevitably exposed.

The US blockade of the Strait of Hormuz also threatened oil and gas exports from Gulf Arab states. Attempts to reroute Saudi oil through the Red Sea created additional vulnerabilities, particularly as attacks attributed to the Houthis increased. Drone attacks and threats to oil infrastructure have further complicated Saudi Arabia's security environment.

The conventional explanation is that Iran and its allies are responsible for these attacks. But another question deserves serious examination, who ultimately benefits from keeping Saudi Arabia under sustained security pressure?

Could regional proxy groups be operating in ways that serve a broader strategic objective? The purpose would not necessarily be to destabilize Saudi Arabia, but to increase its dependence on American security guarantees and make closer alignment with Washington appear unavoidable.

The United States has long sought normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel. If Riyadh is repeatedly confronted with threats to its oil infrastructure, maritime routes and national security, pressure for a strategic accommodation with Israel could become stronger.

The crucial question, therefore, is not simply who is attacking Saudi Arabia. It is whether insecurity itself is being exploited to influence Riyadh's strategic choices.

Is Saudi Arabia being attacked because of its rivalry with Iran—or is the pressure ultimately intended to push the Kingdom toward recognizing Israel?

Linking Iran with 9/11: A Badly Woven Story

This morning, I burst into laughter when I read a report in The Hill quoting President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth linking the Iran war to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. What an extraordinary attempt to rewrite history!

For nearly a quarter of a century, the world has been told that Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national, and his al-Qaeda accomplices masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Yet the Trump administration now appears to be drawing Iran into that narrative by suggesting that the Islamic Republic’s hostility toward America is somehow a continuation of the war launched after 9/11.

Hegseth reportedly said that the United States has fought an Islamic theocracy that “cheered on 9/11.” Such a sweeping assertion demands evidence. Hostility toward the United States is not evidence of responsibility for an attack carried out by al-Qaeda. Nor does opposition to American foreign policy establish Iranian involvement in 9/11.

For those born after 9/11, a reminder of history is important. The United States imposed sanctions on Iran soon after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and subsequently supported Iraq during its nearly eight-year war against Iran. For decades, Washington maintained pressure on Tehran through sanctions, diplomatic isolation and military deployments, while Israel repeatedly targeted Iranian strategic installations and Iranian nuclear scientists.

Iran has therefore remained in Washington’s crosshairs for nearly half a century. But transforming this long-running confrontation into an extension of the 9/11 war is an entirely different matter.

The timing is equally revealing. Trump has indicated that the war with Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, could continue until the November midterm elections and then “end immediately.” This inevitably raises questions about the political utility of prolonged warfare.

The world should be extremely cautious about historical revisionism. The 9/11 tragedy was used to launch America’s “war on terror,” which lasted nearly two decades. Attempting now to rhetorically associate Iran with that tragedy, without presenting credible evidence of Iranian responsibility, risks turning history into a political instrument.

This is not merely an inaccurate narrative. It is a badly concocted story that deserves scrutiny rather than applause.

PSX benchmark index declines 2.7%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained under pressure during the week ended on September 11, 2026. The benchmark Index declined 4,817 points or 2.7%WoW to close at 170,512 level. Market activity also weakened, with average daily trading volume declining by 17.5%WoW to 801 million shares.

Escalating attacks along key shipping routes by both US and Iran and Houthis targeting Saudi energy facilities, raised concerns about energy supplies and pushed global oil prices higher. Domestically, fuel prices also increased.

On a positive note, Moody’s highlighted that Pakistan absorbed the current conflict shock better than the 2022 crisis, supported by improved macroeconomic indicators.

The Workers’ Remittances in August 2026 rose by 17%YoY to US$3.7 billion.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) rose to US$18.3 billion as of September 4, 2026.

The Prime Minister approved the draft auto policy for FY27-31, although IMF approval remains pending.

RDA inflows rose 58%YoY to US$259 million in August 2026.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) IMF review talks scheduled to start on September 22, 2026, 2) Qatari LNG cargo bound for Pakistan cleared Strait of Hormuz, 3) GoP cuts HSD refining margin cap to US$30/ bbl, 4) Pakistan signs cybersecurity cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, and 5) Pakistan- Australia likely to finalize investment agreement soon.

Major selling was recorded by Foreigners (US$7.2 million) and Mutual Funds (US$5.3 million), while the major buyers were Individuals (US$10.8 million) and Companies (US$5.5 million).

Top performing scrips were: PSEL, AICL, and LCI, while the laggards included: PGLC, SSGC, and CHCC.

AKD Securities expects the market to improve on the back of strengthening economic indicators.

Upcoming IMF review and monetary policy announcement to remain key near-term catalysts.

A potential US-Iran deal could moderate international oil prices from current elevated levels.

Market continues to trade at attractive valuations. The brokerage house forecasts the Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2026.

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

 

Trump’s Imprudent Policies Are Making Iran a Bigger Phantom

The latest US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, appears to have produced an outcome very different from what Washington may have anticipated. Despite intense military and economic pressure, Iran has not capitulated. Instead, the conflict seems to have reinforced national cohesion and strengthened Tehran’s determination to resist external coercion.

Iran’s economy has certainly suffered. Years of sanctions have produced weak growth and high inflation, while the war has damaged critical industrial facilities and disrupted trade through the Strait of Hormuz. The IMF has estimated a sharp contraction in Iranian GDP, while inflation and currency depreciation have reached alarming levels. Yet economic pain has not translated into political surrender. Iranian businesses have spent years adapting to sanctions, maintaining substantial inventories and developing alternative trade channels. These practices have provided a degree of resilience even as supply chains and maritime trade have come under severe pressure.

Trump’s repeated appeals to Iranians to rise against their government may also be producing the opposite effect. External pressure can deepen public grievances, but it can simultaneously strengthen nationalist sentiment and resistance to perceived foreign interference. Iran’s leadership has demonstrated an ability to transfer much of the economic burden onto ordinary citizens while preserving the state’s capacity to resist.

There is another, potentially more consequential, dimension. Iranian attacks on US military facilities in Gulf countries have forced Arab states to reconsider the assumptions underlying their security arrangements. If the American military presence cannot prevent attacks on regional assets, questions naturally arise over whether Washington’s security architecture primarily serves Arab interests or Israel.

The Strait of Hormuz presents an equally serious dilemma. Disruptions may constrain Iranian oil exports, but Arab economies are also exposed through attacks on energy infrastructure, US-linked assets and reduced energy exports. A wider disruption extending toward the Red Sea, particularly through Houthi action, could impose an even heavier cost on regional economies.

The paradox is becoming increasingly clear - Washington may be capable of inflicting enormous pain on Iran, but pain alone has not delivered submission. Donald Trump’s imprudent policies may therefore be making Iran a “Bigger Phantom”—not necessarily more powerful, but more resilient, more unpredictable and increasingly costly to contain.

 

Xi’s Washington Visit: A Changing Balance of Power

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s upcoming visit to Washington for a summit with US President Donald Trump on September 24 comes at a critical juncture in global geopolitics. More than a bilateral engagement, the meeting could provide an insight into the changing balance of diplomatic influence between the world’s two largest economies.

Xi is arriving in Washington after an intensive diplomatic outreach covering the SCO, the Middle East and the wider Global South. His message is becoming increasingly clear - China’s foreign relations do not revolve around Washington. Beijing is building partnerships and expanding its diplomatic space while presenting itself as an advocate of dialogue, multilateralism and economic cooperation. The contrast with Washington is striking.

Trump has imposed punitive tariffs on a wide range of US trading partners, including traditional allies. These measures have generated retaliation, uncertainty and diplomatic friction rather than producing a corresponding surge in US exports. The broader issue is that unilateral tariff measures have also been challenged on grounds of their compatibility with the rules-based multilateral trading system.

Trump’s military confrontation with Iran has further complicated America’s international standing. The conflict has disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy arteries. The resulting disruption has affected oil and gas supplies, raised energy prices and created serious risks for commercial shipping and seafarers.

The crisis has also strained Washington’s relations with its traditional Middle Eastern partners. The China-brokered Saudi-Iran rapprochement had offered an opportunity to reduce regional confrontation. Renewed hostilities have undermined that spirit, leaving regional countries to reassess their dependence on Washington.

Meanwhile, Xi is using diplomacy to demonstrate that China has alternatives. His recent engagement with Egypt, alongside wider relations across Eurasia and the Global South, reinforces Beijing’s claim to a more multipolar international order.

This does not mean China has replaced the United States. America remains a formidable economic, technological and military power. But diplomatic influence cannot be sustained indefinitely through tariffs, pressure and military confrontation.

The Trump-Xi summit is being watched not merely for trade agreements, but for what it reveals about the future architecture of global power. One point is crystal clear; Donald Trump has antagonized relations with most of the countries around the world.

BRICS in Search of Purpose

When Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa expanded BRICS in the 2020s, the grouping appeared poised to become a major pillar of an emerging multipolar order. Today, with 11 full members and 10 partner countries, BRICS has considerable demographic, economic and diplomatic weight. Yet expansion has exposed a fundamental weakness - BRICS is better at expressing dissatisfaction with the existing international system than agreeing on what should replace it.

BRICS is not collapsing. It continues to attract countries seeking greater international influence, diversified partnerships and alternatives—or supplements—to Western-dominated institutions. The real question is whether its expanded membership can be converted into practical influence or whether internal rivalries and geopolitical contradictions will gradually erode its momentum.

The grouping contains democracies, monarchies and authoritarian states; energy exporters and importers; sanctioned countries and close Western partners. India and China remain strategic competitors, while Russia’s war in Ukraine and Iran’s confrontation with Israel and the United States complicate efforts to establish common security positions. BRICS has neither a collective defence commitment nor an effective mechanism for resolving disputes among its members.

This does not make BRICS irrelevant. Its greater value may lie in functioning as a consultative platform for countries that disagree on major geopolitical issues but cannot afford to ignore one another.

Under India’s 2026 presidency, security has moved higher on the agenda, including terrorism, cybersecurity, critical infrastructure, emerging technologies and other non-traditional threats. These areas offer greater scope for practical cooperation than contentious questions surrounding Ukraine, Gaza or US strategic power. Protecting ports, energy supplies, food systems and digital infrastructure can produce tangible benefits without requiring political unanimity.

Economic cooperation offers another opportunity. Despite years of talk about de-dollarization, a common BRICS currency remains unrealistic given members’ divergent monetary systems and political priorities. More achievable goals include expanding local-currency trade, improving cross-border payment systems and strengthening the New Development Bank.

BRICS should also clarify membership rules, distinguish the rights and responsibilities of full members and partners, and streamline decision-making. Consensus can remain essential for major declarations, while willing members should be allowed to pursue voluntary initiatives in infrastructure, food and energy security, climate adaptation, public health, cybersecurity and trade facilitation.

Ultimately, BRICS will not gain relevance simply by expanding or opposing Western dominance. Its longevity will depend on whether it can build institutions and deliver tangible benefits. Institutions do not last because of what they oppose; they last because of what they build.

Strait of Hormuz: Release the Seafarers Held Hostage

For months, entry and exit of merchant ships into/ from the Strait of Hormuz has remained at the lowest level due to the US blockade, though President Trump holds Iran responsible for this blockade.

The biggest losers are shipping companies because these ships are stuck and cannot be deployed on any other voyage. But even worse hit are the seafarers, who are stranded at sea for months, separated from their families and uncertain about when they will be able to return home.

The scale of this humanitarian crisis is staggering. According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), around 6,000 seafarers remain stranded aboard vessels unable to leave the Persian Gulf safely. The UN human-rights office has reported that at least 6,000 seafarers aboard some 400 vessels remain stranded in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

These 6,000 people are not soldiers. They are not combatants. They are ordinary men and women doing their jobs to keep global trade moving. Yet they have become innocent victims of a geopolitical confrontation in which they have no stake.

These seafarers, stranded at sea, face disruption in food supplies, drinking water, medicines and other essential items. Prolonged confinement, uncertainty and separation from their families are placing an enormous psychological and physical burden on them.

A conclusion can be drawn that these ships and seafarers have been held “hostage” by the United States.

Iran, suffering from economic sanctions, has offered safe exit to these ships if they pay a toll. It is believed that shipping companies were willing to pay the toll for safe exit, but the US Navy denies exit even after payment of the toll.

Many analysts term US attacks on Iran illegal and the detention of ships and seafarers tantamount to “Maritime Terrorism.”

Whatever the legal or political arguments, one fact should concern the entire world - approximately 6,000 human beings are trapped at sea. They have families waiting for them. They have homes to return to. They have done nothing to become victims of this conflict.

The international community cannot remain silent while thousands of seafarers spend months trapped aboard ships.

May be the time has come for shipping companies to stop delivering cargo to, or taking cargo from, US ports unless the ships stranded at the Strait of Hormuz are allowed safe exit.

This is no longer merely a dispute between the United States and Iran. It is a humanitarian crisis.

All stakeholders - the US administration, Iran, shipping companies, maritime organizations, seafarers' unions and the international community—are requested to join hands for the immediate release and safe passage of these seafarers.

Political differences can wait. Economic disputes can wait. But human beings cannot wait indefinitely. The world must raise its voice for those who have no voice.

Release the ships. Release the seafarers.

OPEC Plus keeps oil output policy unchanged

OPEC Plus kept its oil output policy unchanged for ‌October at a meeting on Sunday, as the producer group needs to agree new quotas before deciding its next output steps.

The meeting of seven core OPEC+ members — Saudi Arabia, ​Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Algeria, Kazakhstan and Oman — comes as the US-Israel war on Iran continues to ​disrupt oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, limiting OPEC+'s influence over prices ⁠and market share.

In August, OPEC+ agreed its production boost for September, completing a phased rollback ​of a 1.65 million barrel per day supply cut first agreed in 2023.

Despite the agreed production increases, ​the group made up of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies, including Russia, still produces far below its targets because of the war.

"OPEC+ currently has ​very limited power over the physical oil market," said Jorge Leon of Rystad Energy. "The group ​can change production targets on paper, but it cannot guarantee that those barrels will be produced or ‌actually ⁠reach the market."

"The focus now shifts away from monthly production adjustments and towards the much more consequential debate over 2027."

OPEC+ still has another layer of production cuts in place, covering most members of the 21-country group until the end of 2026. Before the group decides ​how to unwind the ​cuts and return production ⁠to the market, it needs to review members' oil production capacity to set 2027 output baselines, which form the basis for quotas.

This ​debate will likely happen later in 2026 and hence OPEC+ is ​likely to pause ⁠its output increases for the fourth quarter, sources earlier told Reuters. The statement on Sunday made no mention of policy beyond October.

Only the seven OPEC+ members who met on Sunday, plus ⁠the United ​Arab Emirates until it left OPEC in May, have ​been involved in monthly output decisions in recent years.

From Seven Sisters to Magnificent Seven: Is America’s Supremacy Changing?

The emergence of United States as the world’s economic superpower was closely intertwined with oil. For much of the 20th century, the global petroleum industry was dominated by the “Seven Sisters”—five American companies and two European majors. Their influence extended far beyond their home countries. They controlled substantial portions of exploration, production, transportation, refining and marketing, particularly in the Middle East.

Oil was therefore much more than a commodity. Control over its production and supply gave the West enormous economic and geopolitical leverage—and helped underpin American supremacy, but the source of power is changing.

In 2026, the United States still possesses unparalleled military capabilities. Yet its confrontation with Iran has highlighted a new reality - military superiority does not automatically translate into absolute strategic dominance. Iran’s ability to employ relatively inexpensive missiles and drones demonstrates how cost asymmetry can challenge even the most sophisticated and expensive military systems.

Meanwhile, another group of seven American companies has emerged as symbols of a new economic era - Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Tesla—the “Magnificent Seven.”

Their power is fundamentally different from that of the Seven Sisters. These entities dominate artificial intelligence, semiconductors, software, cloud computing, data, digital platforms and other technologies that increasingly determine economic competitiveness, yet there is an important contradiction.

While Wall Street provides these corporations with enormous access to capital and valuation, their physical production and supply chains are global. Critical components, manufacturing capacity and rare-earth processing remain heavily dependent on other countries. A country can therefore lead the technological revolution while remaining dependent on foreign ecosystems for some of its physical foundations.

This raises a serious question, is America moving from an age of controlling the world’s most important commodity to an age of controlling its most important technologies—without necessarily controlling everything those technologies require?

The United States may remain the world’s most powerful nation. But perhaps the era of absolute American supremacy is giving way to an era of shared supremacy, in which China, Japan and other major powers increasingly possess the resources, manufacturing capabilities and technologies needed to shape the global order.

The Seven Sisters built an oil-powered America. The Magnificent Seven may be building a technology-powered America, but unlike oil, technology cannot be controlled in isolation.

Trump Sinking Deeper into the Marsh

Donald Trump may have entered the war against Iran believing that overwhelming American and Israeli military power would deliver a quick and decisive victory. Instead, he appears to be sinking deeper into a strategic marsh. The more he struggles to secure the outcome he expected, the more complicated the consequences seem to become.

The first problem is that Trump joined Israel in a war against Iran without a sufficiently broad coalition of trusted American allies. What may have been conceived as an assertion of American power has increasingly exposed the limitations of unilateral action. Iran has suffered enormous damage, but it has also demonstrated a resilience that appears to have exceeded Washington’s expectations.

The second—and perhaps more serious—problem is Trump’s mindset. He appears reluctant to consider that his original assumptions may have been wrong. If Iran cannot be forced into submission, continuing the war carries mounting costs; yet accepting this reality could require Trump to acknowledge a strategic miscalculation.

The regional consequences are equally troubling. Arab governments may increasingly perceive that, when American and Arab interests diverge, Israel remains Washington’s first choice for protection. The confrontation around the Strait of Hormuz adds another layer of resentment. Gulf economies depend heavily on uninterrupted crude exports, and restrictions on shipping threaten their interests even when they are not parties to the conflict.

Meanwhile, Iran is not isolated. Israel’s claim that China is providing technical expertise to Tehran points to an increasingly important dimension of the conflict - America may be pushing Iran closer to a powerful strategic partner.

The consequences are spreading beyond the Middle East. The withdrawal of American aircraft carriers from the South China Sea has weakened Washington’s immediate naval posture in an area where China is the principal challenger.

At the same time, depleted US arsenals, after years of support for Ukraine and the demands of the Iran conflict, could constrain Washington’s ability to respond elsewhere.

Then comes oil. Despite the disruption surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, crude prices have not reached the dramatic US$200-per-barrel level that would have transformed the economic equation in America’s favor.

Trump therefore faces an increasingly difficult choice: continue the war and risk sinking deeper, or seek an exit that could be portrayed as retreat.

The marsh may no longer be Iran. It may be Trump’s own conviction that admitting a mistake is more dangerous than continuing to struggle.

PSX average daily trading volume declines by 26%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained subdued during this past week, with the escalation of the US-Iran conflict, now in its seventh month, being the primary headwind, following US strikes on Iran and subsequent Iranian retaliatory strikes on US air bases in the region. Market activity also weakened, with average daily trading volume declining by 26%WoW to 971 million shares.

Consequently, Brent crude surged to a six-week high of US$97.6/ bbl during the week, while the benchmark Index declined 2,368 points, down 1.3%WoW to close at 175,329.

However, negative sentiments were partially offset by Pakistan’s record US$3 billion dual-tranche Eurobond issuance, which achieved the lowest spreads over US Treasuries in two decades and marked the country’s largest-ever international capital market transaction.

Trade deficit widened 10%YoY to US$3.2 billion in August 2026, although it narrowed 20%MoM despite higher international oil prices.

CPI for August 2026 accelerated to 11.1%YoY (9.2%YoY in June 2026) on higher Transport and Food prices.

FBR surpassed its 2MFY27 revenue target by PKR12 billion, while the government raised PKR657 billion through T-Bill auctions, with yields ranging between 11.39% and 11.99% across tenors.

Cement dispatches edged down 0.7%YoY to 4.0 million tons amid monsoon rains, while petroleum offtakes declined 3%YoY to 1.3 million tons due to transporters strikes.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan to head joint defence secretariat under Makkah Defence Alliance, 2) GoP made record PKR1.2 trillion early repayment of central bank debt, 3) IMF cites Pakistan as model for debt, growth and reform drive, 4) Cotton arrivals rose 27%YoY to 1.7 million bales in August 2026, and 5) foreign exchange reserves held by SBP rose modestly to US$17.1 billion as of August 28, 2026.

Top performing sectors were Textile Composites and Refineries, while the laggards included Banks, Pharmaceuticals, and Technology.

Major selling was recorded by Mutual Funds (US$18.1 million) and Foreigners (US$7.4 million). Net buyers were Individuals with US$16.6 million.

Top performing scrips were: PGLC, THALL, EFERT, TPLRF1, and ILP, while laggards included: PSEL, SCBPL, SRVI, KOHC, and BAHL.

AKD Securities expects the market to improve on the back of strengthening economic indicators and a strong fiscal position, while moderating inflation should increase the likelihood of interest rates returning to single digits by year-end.

Additionally, a potential US Iran deal could moderate international oil prices towards pre-conflict levels. Market continues to trade at attractive valuations.

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

USS Abraham Lincoln: A Metaphor for a Depleted America

The arrival of the USS Abraham Lincoln in Thailand should prompt more than curiosity about the rusty appearance of an American supercarrier. It offers a striking metaphor for the condition of the United States itself.

The almost 1,100-foot-long carrier arrived at Laem Chabang after an extraordinary 286 days without a full rest-and-relaxation port call. Much of that period was reportedly spent conducting grueling combat operations against Iran. Its heavily rusted hull tells the story of prolonged deployment, while reports of supply shortages and morale problems raise questions about the condition of its crew.

To be fair, rust on a warship after prolonged deployment is not unusual. Naval experts say removing it requires substantial maintenance that cannot easily be undertaken during combat operations. The issue, therefore, is not simply the rust. It is the prolonged deployment that produced it.

That distinction carries a much larger message.

The United States appears to be confronting a similar problem - too many commitments, enormous financial burdens and insufficient time to replenish the resources consumed by sustained military operations.

Federal debt has climbed to around US$40 trillion, while prolonged conflicts and military commitments have placed extraordinary demands on defense resources. Concerns about ammunition stocks and replenishment have further exposed the limits of maintaining high-intensity operations indefinitely.

But the deeper problem is strategic rather than physical or financial. The real test of a superpower is not how much it can spend or how many weapons it possesses, but whether it can translate overwhelming capabilities into clearly defined and achievable political objectives.

This is where the contrast with Donald Trump's promise of “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) becomes uncomfortable.

Greatness cannot be measured merely by bigger ships, larger defense budgets or louder rhetoric. It requires a resilient economy, sustainable military power, sound strategy and the ability to achieve stated objectives without exhausting the resources needed for tomorrow.

The USS Abraham Lincoln may simply need maintenance after an unusually long deployment. But as a metaphor, it raises a more consequential question, is America replenishing its power—or exhausting it?

MAGA promised to make America great again. The rust on the Lincoln suggests that, before greatness can be restored, America may first need to repair, replenish and rethink the way it exercises its power.

 

Trump Has Weakened the United States

Make America Great Again (MAGA) was sold to Americans as a promise to restore the United States to a golden age—greater economic vitality, stronger sovereignty and renewed global influence. But as Donald Trump's second term approaches its midpoint, the record increasingly suggests the opposite - America may be becoming more powerful in rhetoric, but weaker in substance.

Trump is undoubtedly one of the most consequential presidents in modern American history. The problem is that many of the consequences of his policies have been damaging not only to American society but also to the country's relative power and standing in the world.

America's greatest strength has never rested solely on its military or economic might. It has also depended on the credibility of its commitments. Allies cooperate with Washington because they believe its promises will endure beyond the next political cycle. Trump's repeated threats against NATO, public attacks on allies and abrupt shifts in foreign policy have weakened that confidence while creating opportunities for adversaries.

His transactional approach to diplomacy has produced another cost, unpredictability. Tariff threats, sudden policy reversals and pressure on partners have made it increasingly difficult for governments to know where Washington will stand tomorrow. Trade wars have also imposed costs on American consumers, farmers and manufacturers while inviting retaliation.

At home, the damage is equally consequential. Persistent attacks on the judiciary, media, intelligence agencies and electoral institutions have deepened political polarization and eroded public trust. A democracy that increasingly doubts its own institutions cannot project the same confidence abroad.

The consequences extend to America's fiscal position and long-term resilience. Large deficits, rising debt, weakened climate preparedness and politicization of national-security decisions constrain the country's ability to respond effectively to future crises.

MAGA promised to make America great again. Yet greatness is not measured by how loudly a nation asserts its power, but by how effectively it converts economic strength, democratic institutions, alliances and international trust into lasting influence.

Trump may have strengthened the politics of grievance, but he has weakened the foundations of American power. In seeking to put America first, he risks leaving the United States more divided at home, less trusted abroad and, ultimately, weaker.

Sinokor VLCC abandoned

The crew of the VLCC Senegal Prosperity have been evacuated leaving the tanker abandoned and listing in the Strait of Hormuz. The Liberian-registered 320,780 dwt Senegal Prosperity was struck three times by what were described in security reports as “rockets” while transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The tanker was struck on its port side, engine room, and ballast tank.

According to an update from the Joint Maritime Information Center (JMIC) the Senegal Prosperity was southbound exiting the Strait to the Gulf of Oman and was 4 nm from the Oman coast at the time of the incident on 22:00hrs UTC on 30 August.

JMIC said the Company Security Officer (CSO) reported that all communications were lost with the vessel following the attack and it was dead in the water and listing to port.

The VLCC dropped anchor at position 2619N 05633E. The crew of the vessels were evacuated by the local authorities leaving it abandoned in the Strait of Hormuz off the Omani coast. There no casualties among the crew.

The tanker's last broadcast AIS position was two days ago offshore from Ju Aymah Oil Terminal in Saudi Arabia, in a laden condition on 28 August, according to data from Pole Star Global.

Meanwhile US forces undertook further strikes on 1 September on Iranian military targets bordering the Strait.

“US forces struck Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) targets including air defense sites, radar systems, maritime assets and facilities, mine laying capabilities, and communications sites,” US Central Command said.

“The strikes follow recent attempted attacks by the IRGC against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and against American service members.”

Courtesy: Seatrade Maritime News

 

Egypt–China: Is China Rewriting the Strategic Equation?

For decades, Egypt has been regarded as one of Washington’s most important partners in the Middle East. It was the first Arab state to establish diplomatic relations with Israel following the Camp David Accords and has remained a major recipient of US military assistance. Yet the strategic landscape appears to be changing.

The ongoing US-Iran war has forced countries across the Middle East to reassess their security and economic relationships. Against this backdrop, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s return to Egypt after a decade is more than a ceremonial visit. It comes as Beijing and Cairo celebrate 70 years of diplomatic relations and deepen cooperation in trade, investment, defence and technology.

The question, therefore, is not simply whether Egypt is moving away from Washington. Is China gradually rewriting Egypt’s strategic equation—and using Cairo as a gateway to a broader Middle Eastern and African presence?

Egypt occupies a unique geopolitical position. It connects the Arab world with Africa, the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, while the Suez Canal remains a critical artery of global commerce. Chinese investment around the canal has transformed this geography into a major industrial opportunity.

The relationship is also extending beyond economics. Joint military exercises and expanding defence cooperation indicate that Cairo is diversifying its strategic partnerships. At the same time, China’s growing engagement with Egypt reflects Beijing’s preference for influence through investment, infrastructure, technology and diplomacy rather than a conventional military footprint.

This does not necessarily mean Egypt is choosing China over America. Cairo may simply be seeking greater strategic autonomy at a time when regional countries are increasingly reluctant to depend exclusively on any single power, that may be the more significant development.

For decades, the Middle East operated largely within an American-led strategic framework. Today, China is emerging as an economic, diplomatic and technological alternative, while regional states appear increasingly comfortable cultivating relationships with multiple powers.

Perhaps, therefore, the real story is not Egypt moving from Washington to Beijing. It is the Middle East moving towards a new strategic equilibrium.

If so, the US-Iran war may ultimately be remembered not merely as another regional conflict, but as a catalyst that accelerated the transition from an old paradigm to a new one.

Even Trump Is Subservient to the Syndicate

The US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, has entered its seventh month without a decisive outcome or a credible exit strategy. This raises an uncomfortable question: is the war being fought purely for strategic objectives—or are powerful vested interests benefiting from perpetual uncertainty?

I call these interests “The Syndicate”—an informal alignment of the military-industrial complex, oil and gas companies, Wall Street participants and media houses. Their interests may differ, but uncertainty serves them all. Prolonged conflict means more weapons orders, volatile energy prices, speculative opportunities and a continuous supply of headlines.

In this equation, President Donald Trump increasingly appears less like the sole architect of American policy and more like an “Operator”—a political leader who converts confrontation into leverage while powerful economic interests benefit from its consequences.

The circumstances surrounding the war are particularly revealing. Washington launched military action without securing the full backing of its European allies. For months, US military installations across the Gulf faced Iranian retaliation, while Israel received extensive American military and diplomatic protection. Yet the conflict continued, with no clear political settlement in sight.

More alarming is speculation that Washington could eventually consider using nuclear weapons if conventional military options become exhausted. Even without accepting such speculation as fact, its emergence illustrates how dangerously far the escalation has travelled.

America’s political system is formally accountable to voters, but money exercises enormous influence over elections and policymaking. Corporations and wealthy individuals spend billions seeking access and influence, raising an uncomfortable question - does political power ultimately serve voters—or those capable of financing it?

Trump continues to command strong support among America’s wealthiest constituencies. If that political-economic alliance remains intact, attempts to remove him may continue to falter, while his political future could remain far stronger than public sentiment suggests.

Perhaps the real question is not who controls Trump, but who benefits from endless uncertainty?

The answer may explain why, even in the world’s most powerful democracy, US president Trump himself could be subservient to the Syndicate.

Nepal Floods: A Natural Disaster with a Human Fingerprint

Nature does not negotiate with governments. It does not respect borders or development targets.

The horrifying images of floods devastating Nepal’s border region and Tibet are not merely scenes of a natural calamity. These are a warning that when human intervention collides with nature’s power, the consequences can be catastrophic.

The immediate question is not simply what happened, but whether human actions helped turn a natural disaster into a far greater catastrophe.

Brahma Chellaney argues that the Himalayan floods were triggered by nature but intensified by human intervention. Chinese construction has narrowed river corridors, generated dangerous debris and created bottlenecks that may have produced secondary flood surges. If development projects alter natural waterways and fragile mountain landscapes without adequate environmental safeguards, they can magnify the destructive power of extreme weather.

This warning is particularly relevant as Southeast Asia confronts another looming threat: a major El Niño event. Florian Krampe and Mely Caballero-Anthony warn that it could bring drought, wildfires, food shortages and widespread supply-chain disruption.

The irony is that governments are not entirely unprepared. ASEAN already has forecasting mechanisms and disaster-financing instruments. Yet these remain inadequately funded and poorly coordinated. The problem, therefore, is not the absence of knowledge or tools, but the lack of political will and financial commitment to deploy them effectively.

The consequences could extend far beyond disaster zones. Drought can devastate agricultural production, food shortages can fuel inflation and social tensions, wildfires can disrupt economic activity, and damaged infrastructure can cripple supply chains across national borders.

The Himalayan floods also expose a dangerous contradiction in the pursuit of development. Roads, dams, hydropower projects and expanding settlements may deliver economic benefits, but when these disregard rivers, forests and fragile ecosystems, these can magnify the risks they are intended to overcome.

The Nepal floods should therefore be treated as a wake-up call. Natural disasters may be unavoidable, but their devastation is not always inevitable. When environmental safeguards are sacrificed for development, nature can leave a human fingerprint on a natural disaster.

US-Israel war on Iran: No End in Sight

The US-Israel war on Iran, launched on February 28, 2026, has completed six months—far longer than President Donald Trump’s initial claim that the conflict would be over within weeks. More troublingly, there is still no credible indication that the war is nearing an end.

A Washington Post report marking the six-month anniversary noted that Trump’s ability to achieve a decisive victory has declined sharply. Iran has demonstrated that it can withstand sustained bombardment while imposing significant costs on the world’s most powerful military through relatively inexpensive mines and drones.

Iran’s most potent weapon, however, has been its ability to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global energy artery. Since the war began, oil and gas prices have surged, reportedly costing US consumers an estimated US$71.5 billion more at the pump than they otherwise would have paid.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that the Strait has been reopened. Yet the Post, citing Kpler, a commodities and shipping tracker, reported that more than 100 ships crossed the Strait daily before the war, compared with just five on one day this week. The stark difference between presidential claims and reality underscores the difficulty Washington faces in restoring normal shipping.

The Associated Press has highlighted another significant shift: Washington is increasingly relying on sanctions rather than military force to pressure Tehran. The move reportedly reflects concerns over dwindling US munitions and the potential impact of a prolonged conflict on American military readiness elsewhere.

Trump’s rhetoric has also changed. The president who once promised a quick victory now says he is “not in a hurry” to end the campaign.

Former US Defense Intelligence Agency officer Harrison Mann has argued that Trump has “lost the Iran War in every way possible,” citing failures to force regime change, ignite a Kurdish uprising and restore normal traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Six months of war have produced an outcome dramatically different from Washington’s expectations. Iran has survived the assault and strengthened its strategic leverage, while the US faces mounting economic, military and diplomatic costs.

With neither side appearing ready to concede and no clear political settlement in sight, the most sobering conclusion is simple, “The Iran war has entered its seventh month with no end in sight.”

PSX Benchmark Index Posts Paltry 0.3%WoW Gain

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained range bound during the week ended on August 28, 2026.The benchmark Index posted 0.3%WoW gain to close at 177,697 points. Market activity improved, with the average daily traded volume rising by 24.7%WoW to 1.3 billion shares, as compared to 1.1 billion in the previous week.

Moody’s one-notch upgrade of Pakistan’s sovereign rating to B3 due to improvements in governance, provided a modest boost to investors’ sentiment.

The US-Iran situation remained under control, keeping oil prices below US$90/ bbl on Friday’s close, as Iran continued separate discussions with Oman and Qatar aimed at facilitating the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) rose modestly to US$17.1 billion as of August 21, 2026.

Central bank transferred PKR1.9 trillion in profits to the Federal Government, PKR496 billion higher than the budgeted transfer.

Banking sector deposits rose by 14% YoY to PkR39.1 trillion as of end July 2026.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Saudi team and Prime Minister discuss investment in agriculture, real estate, energy and IT, 2) new SPV established for the privatization of three Discos, 3) Refineries to sign upgrade deals within 10 days, 4) Pakistan received US$763 million loans, grants in July this year, and 5) Government. introduces a performance based rebate on incremental exports.

Top performing sectors were: Textile Composite, FMCG, and Power, while sectors that lagged the most were: OMCs, Inv. Cos., and Technology.

Major net buying was recorded by Mutual Funds (US$6.2 million) and Companies with (US$4.3 million). Major net sellers were Foreigners with US$10.6 million.

Top performing scrips were: AICL, THALL, KTML, POWER, and ABOT, while laggards included: PGLC, SRVI, TRG, NBP, and HMB.

AKD Securities expects market to improve on strengthening economic indicators amid easing geopolitical tensions. A potential US-Iran deal could moderate international oil prices. Market continues to trade at attractive valuations.

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

United States: A Morally and Financially Bankrupt Superpower

The United States may claim to be the world's most powerful military and economic power. Yet its confrontation with Iran raises a fundamental question, what happens when a superpower possessing overwhelming military strength fails to convert that strength into sustainable political outcomes?

Iran provides a compelling test, for nearly half a century, the country has endured American sanctions, diplomatic isolation, covert operations and successive campaigns of economic pressure. Washington's "maximum pressure" policy inflicted severe economic pain, but failed to bring Iran to its knees or force the political transformation sought by successive US administrations.

The February 28, 2026 US-Israeli attack represented a dramatic escalation. The killing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and senior Iranian officials demonstrated America's extraordinary military reach. But eliminating a leader is not the same as defeating a nation. Iran's state structure survived, its political system remained functional and regime change did not materialize.

Indeed, the war may have produced the opposite of its intended political effect. External aggression can suppress internal differences and strengthen national cohesion. While it would be excessive to claim that every Iranian rallied behind the government, the attack appears to have reinforced the perception that Iran's sovereignty was under direct threat. The policy intended to weaken Iran, has strengthened Iranian nationalism and resistance.

This raises a crucial question, if military pressure has failed to deliver political submission, what explains its persistence?

Energy is an important part of the answer. Restricting Iranian oil exports, limiting China's access to Iranian crude and preserving America's influence over global energy markets have clear strategic and economic implications. Yet Washington faces a fundamental contradiction: it can pressure Iran, but confronting China, the principal destination for Iranian oil, would risk transforming the Iranian conflict into a much broader geopolitical confrontation.

The financial dimension is even more troubling. America's national debt has crossed US$40 trillion, while interest payments are becoming an increasingly heavy burden on the federal budget.

The United States may not be bankrupt in the conventional sense because it issues the world's principal reserve currency and borrows in its own currency. The combination of enormous debt, rising interest costs and an expansive global military footprint raises serious questions about the sustainability of American power.

The moral contradiction is equally profound. America has long presented itself as a defender of democracy, human rights, sovereignty and a rules-based international order. Yet prolonged sanctions, military intervention and attempts to engineer political change abroad inevitably raise questions about the consistency between America's proclaimed values and its actions.

The real issue is therefore not whether the United States possesses sufficient power to destroy its adversaries. It plainly does. The question is whether it can translate that power into durable political success without exhausting its financial resources and moral authority.

Iran has survived nearly five decades of sanctions, maximum pressure and military intervention. America, meanwhile, carries more than US$40 trillion in debt while sustaining an increasingly costly global strategic posture.

A country that repeatedly fails to achieve its political objectives through overwhelming force, accumulates extraordinary financial obligations and compromises the moral principles it claims to defend is confronting more than strategic overstretch.

The United States may still possess unparalleled military power and the world's dominant currency, but the widening gap between its ambitions, achievements, finances and proclaimed values points toward an uncomfortable conclusion: America is becoming a morally and financially bankrupt superpower.

 

Ships stranded in Strait of Hormuz could trigger biological invasions

More than 1,500 large commercial vessels stranded in the Strait of Hormuz following its closure amid tensions between the US and Iran could trigger a global wave of biological invasions, researchers have warned.

A study published in the journal "Biological Invasions" says marine organisms accumulating on ship hulls during extended stationary periods may be transported to ports worldwide once traffic resumes, potentially creating a "super-spreader" effect for invasive species.

The study found that biofouling, consisting of marine microorganisms, algae, and invertebrates, can rapidly develop on the hulls of ships that remain stationary for extended periods.

According to the study, more than 1,500 large commercial vessels have becomes stranded following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz on February 28, 2026.

The prolonged presence of these ships in the region allows local organisms to colonize their hulls, while also bringing together communities of organisms from different parts of the world on the same vessels.

Professor Mario Tamburri of the University of Maryland, the study's lead author, described the current situation as a "worst-case scenario" compared to previous shipping disruptions.

The risk is amplified by several converging factors: the unprecedented number and size of stranded vessels, combined with the fact that the closure coincides with spring and summer—peak seasons for marine organism growth and reproduction.

Organisms native to the Gulf, already adapted to extreme temperatures and high salinity, may prove particularly resilient when introduced to new environments.

Tamburri said the length of time a vessel remains stationary is critical in determining the amount and diversity of biofouling.

“The longer they remain stationary during periods of productive growth and reproduction, the more extensive and diverse the biofouling on the ships becomes,” he said.

The study stresses that vessels in the Gulf have remained stationary far longer than normal port waiting periods, creating favorable conditions for invasive species to reproduce on their hulls and be transported to other regions.

Tamburri said it is difficult to predict with certainty which species will be spread by ships, as the risk depends on numerous variables involving both the species and the environmental conditions to which they are transported.

The study also notes that species transported through biofouling can affect not only ecosystems but also economic activities, while certain parasites and pathogens may threaten commercially important species.

The study emphasizes that the first ports visited by ships departing the Strait of Hormuz are particularly important for the establishment of invasive species.

The researchers recommend cleaning the biofouling from ships’ hulls before they leave the Gulf as the ideal solution.

However, they note that applying this measure to every vessel would be difficult because the region has limited capacity for such operations and ships may need to leave quickly for security, logistical, and operational reasons.

The study identifies specific ports facing elevated invasion risks due to short voyage times and similar environmental conditions. Jeddah, Mumbai, Colombo, Singapore, Alexandria, Piraeus, Algeciras, and Rotterdam are highlighted as particularly vulnerable first destinations.

The Asian green mussel, native to the Gulf, serves as a cautionary example—having already established itself in Florida, the Caribbean, Australia, and South America, where it competes with native species and clogs industrial infrastructure.

Researchers warn that the international maritime community remains ill-prepared for this biosecurity threat. While regulations are being developed through the International Maritime Organization (IMO), they will take years to finalize.

The study recommends implementing early-warning and rapid-response systems at first ports of call, alongside coordinated international efforts bridging biological invasion science, maritime logistics, and regulation.

 

PSX index remains under pressure

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained under pressure during the week ended on August 21, 2026. The benchmark Index closed at 177,167. Total Market capitalization also contracted to US$71.6 billion from US$72.5 billion last week.

The average daily trading volume edged up marginally by 0.3%WoW to 1,053.4 million shares, as compared to 1,050.5 million shares in the previous week.

The dominant driver remained the unresolved US-Iran conflict, now approaching six months since first strikes began on February 28.

Brent crude posted its second consecutive weekly gain, up over 6%WoW to US$94.2/ bbl, with neither side making any effort to restart talks after the 60-day ceasefire expired.

The current account deficit narrowed to US$328 million in July 2026, down 38%YoY, aided by rebound in goods exports and strong remittance flows.

State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) raised PKR518 billion through T-Bills, with yields ranging between 11.47%-11.99% across all tenors.

On the sectoral front, Urea offtakes declined 5%YoY and DAP 10%YoY in July 2026, while IT exports recorded 18%YoY increase to US$417 million.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan scrambles to secure Qatar LNG cargo by August, 25 as spot prices surged, 2) LSM index rose 5%YoY in FY26, 3) Pakistan pushes China B2B deals from MoUs to investments & exports, 4) Circular debt jumps by PKR364 billion in FY26, and 5) Pakistan, Norway agree to enhance ties in various sectors.

Top performing sectors were: Refinery, OMC, and E&P, while Banks, Power, and Textile Composite were the laggards.

Major selling was recorded by Banks and Mutual Funds with US$14.5 million and US$10.6 million, respectively. Major buyers were Individuals with US$17.5 million.

Top performing scrips were: PGLC, ATRL, PSO, INIL, and CNERGY, while laggards included THALL, CHCC, TGL, PABC, and PAEL.

AKD Securities expects the market to improve on strengthening economic indicators amid easing geopolitical tensions, along with favorable financial results for June 2026.

Additionally, a potential US-Iran deal could moderate international oil prices towards pre-conflict levels.

Market continues to trade at attractive valuations.

The brokerage house forecasts the Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2026.

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