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.

Bangladesh Election: In the Shadow of Power, Protest and External Pressures

Bangladesh’s forthcoming general election is taking place at an extraordinary political moment, shaped less by routine electoral competition and more by the aftershocks of mass unrest, institutional recalibration, and regional scrutiny. The vote is widely viewed as a test of whether the country can transition from prolonged political dominance to a more inclusive and credible democratic order.

The Bangladesh Army has emerged as a pivotal, though discreet, actor in this phase. During the upheaval that led to the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government, the military refrained from using force against protesters and facilitated the installation of an interim administration. Officially, the army insists it has no political ambitions. Yet its role in maintaining security and stabilizing state institutions gives it considerable behind-the-scenes influence over the transition.

Equally significant is the role of the student fraternity. What began as protests against unemployment, corruption, and governance failures evolved into a nationwide movement that altered the political landscape. Some leaders of these protests have now entered formal politics, signaling a rare shift from street agitation to electoral participation. Whether this energy translates into sustained political organization remains an open question.

The Awami League, long synonymous with power under Sheikh Hasina, finds itself on the margins. Legal proceedings against its leadership and its exclusion from the electoral process have sparked debate about political accountability versus inclusivity. While supporters argue the measures are necessary to reset governance, critics warn that sidelining a major party risk narrowing democratic choice.

The opposition space is largely occupied by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Following the death of former prime minister Khaleda Zia, leadership influence rests primarily with her son, Tarique Rahman, who continues to shape party strategy from abroad. The BNP faces the challenge of converting opportunity into coherence after years of political disruption.

Externally, India is closely watching developments, given its strategic, economic, and security interests in Bangladesh. The United States remains engaged through diplomatic pressure and advocacy for a transparent electoral process. By contrast, there is no credible evidence of direct Pakistani influence, despite occasional rhetorical references in domestic discourse.

Ultimately, this election is less about personalities and more about institutions. Bangladesh’s real challenge lies in whether power can be contested through ballots rather than barricades, and whether the promise of democratic renewal can outlast the politics of upheaval.

PSX: Geopolitics and internal security concerns mar performance

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PXS) trended upwards for most of the week before adjusting by 3,703 points on Friday’s session, wiping out earlier gains to close the benchmark index at 184,130pts, down 45 points or 0.02%WoW. The decline was triggered by escalating geopolitical tensions over US and Iran, alongside adverse domestic security developments.

Earlier in the week, sentiments were supported by Prime Minister’s industrial relief package, coupled with record high monthly exports of US$3.06 billion during January 2026, resulting in 7%YoY drop in trade deficit. Inflation reading during the month remained lower than expected at 5.8%YoY.

Cement sector’s offtakes hit 5-year high of 4.54 million tons, up 13%YoY, driven by higher sea-exports.

OMC offtakes also increased by 6%YoY to 1.35 million tons.

Banking sector deposits expanded by 0.7%WoW, providing a positive backdrop for the sector.

T-Bill and PIB yields rose by 15 to 40 bps, in the first auction following SBP’s decision to leave policy rate unchanged.

Despite improved sentiments, market participation weakened during the week, with average daily trading volume declining by 12%WoW to 1.2 billion shares, from 1.4 billion shares in the earlier week.

On the currency front, PKR appreciated by 0.02%WoW against the greenback during the week, closing the week at 279.71 PKR to a US$.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) UAE rolls over US$2 billion Pak loan for a month, 2) GoP requests Saudi Arabia for two-year extension in oil facility, 3) Barrick reviews Reko Diq project amid security concerns, 4) FBR collection rose 16%YoY to PKR1,015 billion in January 2026, and 5) Private sector credit expands by PKR 589 billion in FYTD.

Power Generation & Distribution, Jute, Leather & Tanneries, Inv. Banks/ Inv. Cos./ Securities Cos., and Real Estate Investment Trust were amongst the top performing sectors, while Chemical, Engineering, Tobacco, Oil & Gas Exploration Companies and Cement were amongst the laggards.

Major buying was recorded by Mutual Funds, Brokers, and Companies with an aggregate net buy of US$32 million. Banks and Foreigners were major sellers with net aggregate sell of US$25 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: KEL, ILP, SAZEW, HMB, and TRG, while laggards included LOTCHEM, PIBTL, PPL, GADT, and KTML.

AKD Securities foresees the positive momentum at PSX to continue due to improving macros and continuous focus on reforms amid political stability. The brokerage house forecasts the benchmark 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 are: OGDC, PPL, UBL, MEBL, HBL, FFC, ENGROH, PSO, LUCK, FCCL, INDU, ILP and SYS.

Trump’s Iran Posturing Is Not Diplomacy, but Coercion

Donald Trump’s latest threat to attack Iran unless Tehran submits to his demands is not diplomacy, it is coercion masquerading as negotiation. Washington claims the upcoming Oman talks focus on Iran’s nuclear program. In reality, Trump is exploiting military pressure and Iran’s recent domestic unrest to force sweeping political concessions. His warning that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei should be “very worried” reveals the real intent: intimidation, not engagement.

The starting point is simple. Trump himself tore up the 2015 nuclear agreement in 2018, despite Iran’s compliance verified by international inspectors. By walking away from an UN-backed deal, he forfeited any moral authority to dictate new terms. Having dismantled the framework, he now seeks to resurrect it with added demands — including Iran’s missile program, regional alliances, and internal policies. That is not renegotiation; it is strategic extortion.

If this were genuinely about uranium enrichment, talks would remain technical and narrow. Instead, US officials insist on expanding the agenda to missiles, proxy groups, and Iran’s domestic affairs. Tehran has rightly rejected this maximalist approach, agreeing only to discuss nuclear issues.

Trump’s reported preconditions — zero uranium enrichment, missile restrictions, and abandonment of regional partners — amount to demanding Iran’s strategic surrender. Zero enrichment alone violates Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which permits peaceful nuclear activity. Iranian officials have even signaled flexibility on enrichment levels, yet Washington insists on total prohibition.

Simultaneously, the US has deployed an aircraft carrier, warships, fighter jets, and thousands of troops to the region. Drones have been shot down, naval encounters are escalating, and oil prices are rising. This is classic gunboat diplomacy.

The irony is striking. Trump warns of nuclear danger while having destroyed the very inspection regime that restrained Iran’s program. He pressures Tehran under threat of airstrikes, while Israel — a non-NPT nuclear power — remains beyond scrutiny. The double standard is glaring.

Negotiations conducted under the shadow of missiles are not negotiations. They are ultimatums.

If Trump truly sought stability, he would rejoin the agreement he abandoned, remove preconditions, and restore inspections-based diplomacy. Instead, he is gambling with another Middle East conflict — one that could engulf the entire region.

This is not statesmanship. It is brinkmanship.

US$10 trillion a day global currency market becomes more volatile

The dollar, the world's No.1 reserve currency, is having a rocky ride as unpredictable White House policy moves and Federal Reserve independence concerns revive "Sell America" trades. While it is expected to weaken further, sudden rebounds in the greenback can catch traders out just as much as sudden sharp falls.

Having fallen almost 2% in one week in January to four-year lows, an index measuring the dollar's value against other major currencies then bounced back, causing metals market mayhem.

Here's a look at how dollar risks are rippling through world markets.

The dollar's rebound in the last two trading sessions, following US President Donald Trump's decision to nominate former Federal Reserve governor Kevin Warsh to replace outgoing Fed chief Jerome Powell has sparked a metals market meltdown.

Gold, which had notched up its best month in more than half a century in January, slumped 5% on Monday after its biggest daily fall since the early 1980s in the prior session - it regained some ground on Tuesday.

Traders had crowded into a popular currency debasement trade that relied on metals prices rising as Fed independence kept the dollar on a steady weakening path. That concept then dropped out of metals markets "at lightning speed," days, Societe Generale said in a client note.

US$10 trillion a day global currency market becomes more volatile.

A gauge of the most actively traded currency pair -- the euro/dollar exchange rate that measures expected volatility in three months' time, hit its highest since July last week.

According to Capital Economics, the dollar had become detached from traditional valuation metrics like the gap between US and Japanese or European interest rates.

Barclays has calculated a US policy risk premium for the dollar, meaning it is influenced by White House rhetoric and has become partly detached from the economic and growth forecasts that investors usually track. That could make stocks and bonds priced in dollars harder for foreign investors to hold and value.

While the indexes were lifted by gains in chipmakers, small caps also performed well, with the Russell 2000 jumping about 1%.

"The main question is whether people lose confidence in the US asset base," said Barclays global head of FX and EM macro strategy Themos Fiotakis.

Foreign investors own almost US$70 trillion worth of US assets, more than doubling their holdings in the last decade as Wall Street stocks boomed. European money managers are assessing their exposures.

A weaker dollar can boost US stocks by increasing the local currency value of companies' overseas earnings and often raises prices of Treasuries.

"But disorderly dollar decline could change this relationship," Bank of America analysts said in a note.

A disorderly drop would be a 5% monthly loss, BofA said, which could generate a "drastic sell-off of long-dated Treasuries," and tighten US financial conditions significantly.

A wider debasement trade, with the dollar falling in tandem with domestic assets, was also a risk, BofA said.

Courtesy: Reuters