Russia emerges true winner of US war on Iran

The world's attention is fixed on the Persian Gulf, where the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz has become the epicenter of a brewing energy shock. With roughly 80% of crude oil moving through the waterway normally heading to Asia, the region is uniquely exposed.

At first glance, the fallout looks familiar: Rising tensions between the duo US-Israel and Iran are threatening supply chains and stoking fears of another oil spike. But the story quickly takes a less obvious turn. As Ritesh Kumar Singh argues, "Amid the focus on the most obvious losers, the energy-dependent economies of Asia and the exporters of the Persian Gulf, another country stands to gain from the turmoil, Russia."

When Hormuz becomes unstable, "global oil logistics shift rapidly," and Russia's export routes -- spanning the Baltic and Pacific gain fresh strategic weight. In this environment, Russia's export geography suddenly becomes one of the most valuable assets in global energy markets, offering buyers the increasingly scarce asset of reliability.

"For Russia ... higher global oil prices translate directly into stronger export revenues and greater fiscal resilience. In a prolonged geopolitical contest where economic stability matters as much as battlefield outcomes, that dynamic strengthens Moscow's hand," Singh writes. "The result is a paradox. A conflict intended to weaken Iran may ultimately redraw the global energy map in ways that favor Russia."

Even Washington's closest allies are hedging. Japan and South Korea have "refrained from openly endorsing US military action," favoring quiet coordination over public backing. For two treaty allies at the core of US strategy in Asia, the instinct now is careful calibration, not automatic alignment.

Across the region, positions diverge further. China has condemned the strikes while casting itself as a stabilizer, Taiwan has voiced support framed around "freedom and democracy," and much of Southeast and South Asia has leaned into neutrality, emphasizing restraint and flexibility amid energy risks and domestic pressures.

Indo-Pacific responses reflect "layered calculations about alliance management, energy security, domestic politics, ideological orientation and economic vulnerability," Grossman writes.

"That diversity may frustrate policymakers in Washington seeking unified backing if the conflict intensifies and requires additional support. Yet it also reflects a deeper strategic reality: Alignment in the Indo-Pacific varies widely, and even America's closest partners carefully weigh their own interests when distant conflicts threaten to expand."

Courtesy: Nikkei Asia

Sanctions as Theatre: Washington’s War on Iran Funds Itself

 This is hypocrisy and outright strategic farce

A report by The Hill reveals that the administration of Donald Trump has authorized the release of roughly 140 million barrels of Iranian oil stranded at sea. While Washington claims to be tightening the noose around Iran, which is it—economic warfare or economic relief?

For decades, US sanctions have been designed to suffocate Iran’s revenues. Yet at a moment of heightened confrontation, Washington has chosen to unlock one of Tehran’s largest oil stockpiles and push it into global markets. This is not tactical flexibility; it is policy contradiction at its most blatant.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claims Iran will struggle to access the proceeds. That argument is deeply misleading. Oil, once sold, creates economic space—whether through direct revenue, indirect trade channels, or geopolitical leverage. Sanctions diluted at convenience cease to be sanctions at all.

More telling is Washington’s own admission Iranian oil is being used to suppress global prices. In effect, the US is leveraging Iranian crude to cushion its own economy from a crisis it is helping sustain.

This is not pressure—it is dependence.

Criticism from Richard Blumenthal and analyst Victoria Taylor exposes the deeper flaw. You cannot claim to isolate an adversary while facilitating its core export. Such a policy erodes credibility, weakens deterrence, and signals that pressure is negotiable.

The message to Tehran is unmistakable - hold firm, and the system bends.

If sanctions can be lifted when oil prices rise, then they are not instruments of strategy—they are tools of convenience. And a policy built on convenience cannot sustain a war of pressure.

Washington may call this a temporary measure. In reality, it is a revealing one.

Because in trying to weaken Iran, the United States has once again proven how indispensable it remains.

Trump faces fate worse than Bush faced in Iraq

On March 17, 2026, I posted a blog titled “Washington’s Miscalculation: War It Can't Win”. Its opening paragraph was, I quote “Since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has pursued not coexistence with Iran, but its submission. Nearly five decades of sanctions, covert operations, and proxy confrontations have produced results Washington resists admitting - Iran has not weakened — it has adapted, and in many respects, hardened”. Today, March 21, 2026 Reuters ran a story with a caption “How Trump's stated reasons, goals and timeline for Iran war have shifted”.

 According to the report, President Donald Trump and his top officials have offered shifting objectives and reasons for the US-Israeli war on Iran, which critics say shows a lack of planning for the conflict and its aftermath.

Stated objectives and expected timeline have varied, including toppling Iran's government, weakening Iran's military, security and nuclear capabilities and its regional influence, as well as supporting Israeli interests.

Here is how Trump described his ​war goals and timeline:

FEBRUARY 28: CALLS FOR IRANIANS TO TOPPLE THEIR GOVERNMENT

The Iranian people should "take over" governance of their country, Trump said in a video on ‌social media as the US and Israel launched their attacks. "It will be yours to take," he added. "This will be probably your only chance for generations."

Trump described the attacks as "major combat operations."

FEBRUARY 28: WEAKEN IRAN'S MILITARY, INFLUENCE

Trump said Washington would deny Iran the ability to have a nuclear weapon, although Tehran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Iran does not have nuclear weapons while the United States does. Israel is also widely believed to ​be the only Middle Eastern country with nuclear weapons.

Trump insisted he would end what he described as Tehran's ballistic missile threat. "We're going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile ​industry to the ground," he said. "We're going to annihilate their navy."

Trump claimed Iran's long range missiles "can now threaten our very good friends and allies ⁠in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland."

His remarks echoed the case of President George W. Bush for the Iraq war, which had false claims. Neither experts nor ​US intelligence support Trump's assertions and both assess that Iran's ballistic missile program was years from threatening the US homeland.

MARCH 2: SHIFTING TIMELINE

Trump said the war was projected to last four to five ​weeks but could go on longer.

"We're already substantially ahead of our time projections. But whatever the time is, it's okay. Whatever it takes," Trump said at the White House. In a social media post, Trump said there was a "virtually unlimited supply" of US munitions and that "wars can be fought 'forever,' and very successfully, using just these supplies."

In a notification to Congress, Trump provided no timeline. Trump earlier told the Daily Mail the war could take "four weeks, ​or less," then told The New York Times four to five weeks and subsequently said it could take longer.

MARCH 2: RUBIO SAYS US ATTACKED IRAN BECAUSE ISRAEL DID

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told ​reporters Israel's determination to attack Iran forced Washington to strike.

"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if ‌we didn't preemptively ⁠go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties," Rubio said.

MARCH 3: TRUMP CONTRADICTS RUBIO

Trump said he ordered US forces to join Israel's attack on Iran because he believed Iran was about to strike first.

"I might have forced their (Israel's) hand," Trump said. "If we didn't do it, they (Iran) were going to attack first."

MARCH 04: CALL TO 'DESTROY' SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said the goal was to "destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure."

MARCH 06: 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' CALL

"There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER," Trump wrote on social ​media.

MARCH 8-11: JUST THE START BUT ALSO 'PRETTY MUCH ​COMPLETE'

Hegseth told CBS News in an interview aired ⁠March 08 strikes on Iran were "only just the beginning."

A day later, Trump told the same network "I think the war is very complete, pretty much."

"We've already won in many ways, but we haven't won enough," Trump told reporters later on the same day. When asked if the war was beginning ​or complete, he said: "Well, I think you could say both."

On March 11, Trump again said he thought the US had won but: "We've got ​to finish the job."

MARCH 13: ⁠SOFTENS CALL FOR INTERNAL UPRISING

In a March 13 interview, Trump told Fox News the war will end "when I feel it in my bones."

Trump softened his call for Iranians to topple their government. "So I really think that's a big hurdle to climb for people that don't have weapons," Trump said.

MARCH 19: HEGSETH SAYS NO TIME FRAME

Hegseth said Washington was not setting a time frame for the war and Trump would ⁠decide when to ​stop.

"We wouldn't want to set a definitive time frame," the Pentagon chief said. "It will be at the president's choosing, ​ultimately, where we say, 'Hey, we've achieved what we need to.'"

MARCH 20: TRUMP CONSIDERS WINDING DOWN BUT NO CEASEFIRE

Trump posted on Truth Social, "we are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts" in ​the Iran war. Earlier in the day, Trump told reporters "I don't want to do a ceasefire" when asked about the war.

 

Riyadh Returns to Iran Threat Narrative

In the aftermath of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the United States recalibrated its regional strategy, increasingly presenting Tehran as the principal source of instability in the Middle East. Over time, this framing found resonance in several Arab capitals, particularly in Saudi Arabia, shaping a security outlook that continues to influence regional policy choices.

This perception was reinforced through tangible measures. The expansion of US military infrastructure across the Gulf—most prominently in Qatar—was justified largely on the premise of countering Iranian influence. Simultaneously, Washington sustained economic pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program, despite Iran’s status as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in contrast to Israel’s longstanding ambiguity.

Historical episodes added further complexity. The Iran-Iraq war entrenched regional rivalries, while later diplomatic efforts—including the nuclear agreement under President Barack Obama and the China-brokered rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran—offered brief openings for recalibration. Yet such initiatives have struggled to overcome deeply embedded mistrust, particularly amid shifting US policies and competing geopolitical interests.

Recent remarks by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan reflect a return to a more cautious, if not hardened, posture. His assertion that trust in Iran has been “completely shattered,” alongside allegations of destabilizing activities across the region, underscores Riyadh’s growing concerns about security and sovereignty. These claims are rooted in reported attacks on energy infrastructure and maritime navigation, which Saudi Arabia and its partners attribute to Iran.

Tehran, however, has consistently rejected such accusations, framing its actions as defensive and, at times, suggesting that regional escalations are shaped by broader geopolitical contestation. Independent verification of specific incidents remains contested, contributing to a narrative environment marked as much by perception as by provable fact.

What emerges is not merely a dispute over actions, but over interpretation. Saudi Arabia’s current stance appears closely aligned with a long-standing US strategic framing that positions Iran as the central regional threat. While this perspective reflects genuine security concerns, it also risks narrowing the analytical lens through which complex regional dynamics are understood.

The persistence of this narrative suggests that, despite episodic diplomacy and shifting alliances, foundational perceptions remain largely intact. In effect, Riyadh’s position today echoes a familiar refrain—one shaped over decades—where Iran continues to be viewed as the primary challenge to regional stability.

Motives Behind Strait of Hormuz Escalation

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran is being widely blamed for the emerging shortages and surge in global oil and gas prices. However, this represents only one side of a far more complex narrative—one that is being actively shaped by the United States and amplified by sections of the Western media.

At a time when President Donald Trump is reportedly seeking an allocation of US$200 billion, the intent appears less about de-escalation and more about intensifying and prolonging the conflict. This raises a fundamental question, what is the real motive behind what is being portrayed as a response, but increasingly resembles a calculated escalation?

In my assessment, the United States has aligned itself closely with Israel, whose strategic objective remains the neutralization—if not outright elimination—of Iran as a regional rival. The broader vision often discussed in this context is the restructuring of the Middle East’s geopolitical order to suit their long-term strategic interests.

Both Washington and Tel Aviv were fully aware that any Iranian retaliation—particularly against Arab states hosting US military bases—would reinforce a long-standing narrative: portraying Iran as the principal threat to regional stability, thereby diverting scrutiny away from Israel’s own role.

There is also a significant economic dimension. A wider conflict risks damaging oil and gas infrastructure across key producing Muslim countries. Such a disruption could potentially reposition the United States and its allies to exert greater influence over global energy markets, enabling them to dictate supply dynamics and pricing.

A particularly telling signal is the reported statement attributed to Donald Trump regarding Kharg Island—not to destroy it, but to capture it. This underscores a strategic interest that extends beyond military objectives to direct control over critical energy assets.

The demand by the United States and Israel for Iran’s unconditional surrender must also be viewed through this broader lens. Both countries seek to consolidate their dominance in the Middle East. Israel benefits from geographical proximity, while leveraging the United States as a force multiplier in advancing shared strategic goals.

At the same time, influence over key global sectors—including defense industries, energy corporations, financial markets, and media platforms—plays a crucial role in shaping both policy and perception. The ongoing deliberations in Washington over massive military funding further reinforce the scale and seriousness of these ambitions.

It is also important to note how the justification for targeting Iran has evolved over time. What began as concerns over its nuclear program gradually expanded to include its missile capabilities, and eventually shifted toward calls for regime change under the banner of restoring democracy. Yet, beneath these shifting narratives, a more enduring objective appears to persist: gaining control over Iran’s vast oil and gas reserves.

PSX benchmark index down 0.70%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile throughout the week, amid persistent Middle East military conflict driving volatility in international oil prices. The benchmark index lost 1,126 points or 0.7% during the week to close at 152,740 on Thursday, March 19, 2026, the last trading day before Eid Holidays.

Market participation remained lackluster during the week, with average daily traded volume declining to 418 million shares, from 548 million shares in the prior week. Developments on the economic front remained encouraging, as the country posted Current Account surplus of US$427 million in February 2026, against a deficit of US$85 million during the same period last year, primarily driven by higher workers’ remittances.

Industrial activity (LSMI) expanded by 10.5%YoY in January 2026, led by growth in the automobile and textile sectors.

Power generation increased by 11%YoY in February 2026, supported by lower tariffs and a shift of industrial consumers towards national grid.

Urea offtakes declined by 28%YoY during February 2026 due to elevated channel inventory following advance procurement in December 2025. offtakes rose 2.5x YoY over the same period.

T-Bill yields rose by 51 to 100bps in the first auction following SBP decision to leave policy rate unchanged.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan secures alternative fuel supply from Gulf amid regional tensions, 2) ADB unveils US$10 billion financing strategy for Pakistan, 3) IT exports rise 20%YoY to US$365 million, 4) REER drops to 102.5 in February 2026, and 5) GoP considering to hold fuel price till 31st March, 2026.

Woollen, Synthetic & Rayon and Close-End Mutual Fund were amongst the top performing sectors, while Leather & Tanneries, Commercial Banks and Miscellaneous were amongst the laggards.

Major selling was recorded by Foreigners and Mutual Funds with a net sell of US$9.3 million and US$4.5 million, respectively.

Banks and Individuals absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$10.3million and US$7.4 million, respectively.

Top performing scrips of the week were: PKGP, ABOT, IBFL, BNWM, and KOHC, while laggards included: NBP, AICL, PABC, UNITY, and SRVI.

Going forward, AKD Believes market sentiment will hinge on the developments in the Middle East conflict. At the same time, investor focus will remain on the government’s energy conservation measures, diversification of fuel imports, and progress on the IMF review.

Over the medium term, any de -escalation in the conflict could spark a strong market rebound, as recent corrections have made valuations attractive.

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

Targets by Choice: They Can’t Have It Both Ways

The escalating confrontation between the United States fully supported Israel against Iran has exposed a fundamental contradiction in the posture of Arab Gulf states. Governments hosting US military bases have condemned Iranian strikes on these installations as violations of sovereignty. Yet this claim collapses under the weight of their own strategic choices.

US bases in the Gulf are not passive or symbolic presences. They are active components of a broader military architecture directed against Iran. These facilities support operations ranging from intelligence gathering to force projection. In any conflict, such installations are not neutral—they are legitimate military targets.

Iran’s response must be understood within this context. Lacking the capacity to strike the US mainland, Tehran has chosen to target the physical infrastructure through which US power is exercised in the region. This includes bases located in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. These locations are not incidental; they are central to the operational reach of the United States in the Gulf.

The assertion that such strikes amount to attacks on Arab states themselves is misleading. These bases, while geographically situated within sovereign territory, function as extensions of US military capability. Targeting them is not an assault on the host nation in the conventional sense, but a calculated effort to degrade an adversary’s war-making capacity.

More importantly, the argument of violated sovereignty overlooks a prior reality: sovereignty was effectively diluted when these states permitted foreign military infrastructure on their soil. Hosting bases that are actively engaged in conflict is not a neutral act—it is a strategic alignment. That alignment carries consequences.

The current situation is therefore not an unexpected escalation, but a predictable outcome. By embedding themselves within the operational framework of US military strategy, these states have assumed the risks associated with it. Their territories have, in effect, become extensions of a conflict in which they claim no direct role.

Protesting Iranian retaliation while continuing to host these bases reflects a fundamental inconsistency. It suggests an attempt to benefit from security arrangements without accepting the vulnerabilities they create. In geopolitical terms, this is not a sustainable position.

If these states seek genuine insulation from regional conflict, the solution is neither diplomatic protest nor rhetorical positioning. It is structural. Removing foreign military bases would reduce their exposure and reassert control over their own security environment. Anything less leaves them entangled in a conflict they cannot fully control, yet cannot credibly distance themselves from.

The reality is stark. By hosting US military infrastructure, these states have made themselves part of the battlefield. What they face today is not an unjust imposition, but the direct consequence of deliberate policy choices.

Why Is Washington Pursuing a War It Cannot Win?

Plans to seize Iran’s strategic assets risk triggering a wider conflict that could spiral beyond American control

Washington is no longer debating whether to escalate its conflict with Iran—it is moving steadily toward a war it cannot win. The real question is not capability, but judgment: why pursue a course whose consequences are both predictable and uncontrollable?

Deliberations within the administration of Donald Trump over deploying ground forces—whether to secure Kharg Island or to take control of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpiles—reflect a dangerous misreading of both history and reality.

Such objectives may appear decisive in military briefings, but they are strategically unsound. Airstrikes and targeted operations create an illusion of dominance; they do not translate into sustainable control. The moment U.S. troops set foot on Iranian soil, the conflict will cease to be limited. It will become a full-scale national resistance.

Iran is not comparable to past theaters like Libya or Afghanistan, where fragmented internal dynamics shaped outcomes. It is a cohesive state with deep-rooted national identity and an established capacity for asymmetric warfare. There will be no local cooperation—only organized, ideological resistance.

History has already delivered a clear warning. The failure of Operation Eagle Claw was not merely operational; it exposed the limits of American power in unfamiliar terrain. It is telling that successive U.S. administrations, despite sustained hostility, avoided direct military engagement inside Iran.

Equally flawed is the belief that eliminating leadership structures weakens Tehran. It does the opposite. Each strike reinforces a narrative of resistance, radicalizes the population, and strengthens long-term resolve against U.S. presence in the region.

Even the objective of securing the Strait of Hormuz cannot justify such escalation. A ground presence in Iran would invite retaliation across multiple fronts—military, economic, and geopolitical—far beyond Washington’s ability to contain.

The United States must confront a fundamental reality: overwhelming power does not guarantee strategic success. Entering Iran militarily would not demonstrate strength—it would expose vulnerability. The wiser course is not escalation, but restraint—because once this line is crossed, there may be no way back.

Washington’s Miscalculation: War It Can't Win

Since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has pursued not coexistence with Iran, but its submission. Nearly five decades of sanctions, covert operations, and proxy confrontations have produced a results Washington resists admitting - Iran has not weakened — it has adapted, and in many respects, hardened.

This is not an isolated miscalculation. From Iraq to Libya, the assumption that external force can re-engineer political systems has repeatedly collapsed. Iran is proving no exception, exposing once again the limits of military and economic coercion as instruments of political change.

The effort to portray Iran as the region’s central threat—overshadowing Israel—has long served as the foundation of US policy in the Gulf. It justified massive arms sales, entrenched military bases, and culminated in the Abraham Accords. What was presented as a pathway to stability now appears increasingly as a framework of managed dependency.

That framework is beginning to fracture. The devastation in Gaza has reshaped public opinion across the Arab world, exposing the disconnect between state policy and societal sentiment. Governments that once moved toward normalization now find themselves under growing domestic pressure to reassess those alignments.

The latest confrontation has further dismantled the illusion of quick victories. Even the assassination of Ali Khamenei — an act calculated to destabilize Iran’s leadership — has failed to produce systemic collapse. Instead, it has reinforced internal cohesion, underscoring a consistent lesson - external aggression often strengthens, rather than weakens, entrenched systems.

Meanwhile, the economic consequences are no longer theoretical. Disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have constrained oil flows, placing Gulf economies under mounting strain. The reluctance of European allies to engage militarily signals a quiet but significant lack of confidence in both the strategy and its endgame.

What is unfolding is not a temporary crisis but a structural failure of policy. The belief that Iran can be coerced into submission—or reshaped through force—rests less on evidence and more on the persistence of outdated assumptions.

This war is not merely unwinnable; it is strategically irrational. It undermines regional stability, weakens alliances, and imposes escalating economic costs on those it claims to protect.

The question is no longer whether this approach will fail, but how much damage will be inflicted before it is finally abandoned.

A War Without Allies: Trump’s Iran Gamble

The escalating confrontation between the United States and Iran is exposing an uncomfortable geopolitical reality for President Donald Trump - the war he initiated is attracting few allies. Despite Washington’s overwhelming military power and close coordination with Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israel, the conflict has so far failed to generate the kind of international coalition that has historically accompanied major US military campaigns.

At the center of the crisis lies the disruption of shipping through the vital Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply normally passes. Iran’s response to US and Israeli strikes has been calculated and asymmetric. Rather than confronting American forces directly, Tehran has leveraged geography and targeted regional oil interests, pushing global energy prices higher and unsettling markets worldwide.

This escalation has created a difficult dilemma for Washington. While the United States may possess unmatched military capabilities, restoring stability in such a sensitive maritime corridor ideally requires international cooperation. Yet when the Trump administration sought support from its traditional partners, the response from Europe ranged from cautious hesitation to outright refusal.

European capitals appear determined to avoid being drawn into a conflict they neither initiated nor fully support. In Britain, Prime Minister Keir Starmer faces the prospect of significant domestic backlash if London becomes directly involved. German leaders have been even more explicit. Defense Minister Boris Pistorius bluntly stated that the conflict “is not our war,” while Chancellor Friedrich Merz ruled out German military involvement. Similarly, European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas acknowledged that there is little appetite among EU member states to expand naval missions into the Gulf.

Part of this reluctance reflects a deeper diplomatic context. For years, Trump has openly criticized NATO allies and questioned the value of longstanding partnerships. Having spent considerable political capital challenging allied governments, Washington now finds that calls for solidarity are being met with caution.

Another factor shaping global perceptions is the widespread belief that Israel’s security calculations played a major role in pushing the United States toward confrontation with Iran. While Israeli and American strikes may inflict significant damage on Iranian capabilities, few analysts believe they can easily force Tehran into submission.

For now, the war looks less like a Western coalition and more like a strategic gamble by Washington and Tel Aviv. The hesitation of allies underscores a simple lesson of geopolitics - wars launched without consensus rarely attract coalitions afterward.

Unlocking The Strait of Hormuz Requires Diplomacy, Not Escalation

The latest confrontation in the Gulf has pushed the region into one of its most dangerous moments in recent decades. The joint military assault by the United States and Israel on Iran—reportedly carried out while negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear program were still underway—has dramatically escalated tensions. Matters deteriorated further after the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, an event Tehran considers an unprecedented attack on its sovereignty and political system.

Iran’s retaliation was swift and calculated. It launched strikes against American military installations located in neighboring Arab states and moved to restrict shipping through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz. This narrow waterway remains one of the most critical arteries of global energy trade, with a substantial portion of the world’s oil shipments passing through it every day. By tightening control over this chokepoint, Tehran has effectively reminded the world that instability in the Gulf carries immediate and significant global economic consequences.

The debate now dominating diplomatic circles is simple: how can the Strait of Hormuz be unlocked?

The answer lies less in military maneuvering and more in political realism. History repeatedly demonstrates that escalating force in the Middle East rarely produces lasting stability. Instead, it deepens mistrust and widens the scope of conflict. Continued military pressure on Iran will likely provoke further retaliation, potentially dragging the entire region into a broader confrontation.

A more pragmatic path is available. The United States and Israel should immediately halt further assaults on Iranian territory and create space for diplomatic engagement. Reviving negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program could provide the first step toward rebuilding communication channels that have now been severely damaged.

Equally important is a removal of the sanctions imposed on Iran. Immediate withdrawal of some of the sanctions could offer incentives for de-escalation while restoring confidence in the diplomatic process.

Ultimately, reopening the Strait of Hormuz will not be achieved through warships or airstrikes. It requires restraint, dialogue, and a recognition that enduring security in the Gulf can only emerge from diplomacy rather than confrontation.

War with Iran and the Question of America’s Global Power

As the United States–Israel war against Iran enters its third week, the expanding scope of the conflict is forcing the world to reassess the role of the United States in shaping the international order. What began as a military confrontation is increasingly being interpreted as part of a broader geopolitical strategy — one that echoes patterns seen in earlier American interventions.

The latest signal came when the administration of Donald Trump announced a US$10 million bounty for information on Mojtaba Khamenei, Iran’s newly elevated supreme leader. The reward, issued through Washington’s “Rewards for Justice” program, targets individuals whom the United States accuses of involvement in militant activities.

Such a move is unusual in modern diplomacy. Publicly placing a bounty on a serving leader of a sovereign state sends a strong political message and inevitably raises questions about Washington’s long-term objectives in the conflict. Critics argue that the step suggests the war may extend beyond military confrontation and could ultimately aim at weakening or reshaping Iran’s leadership.

The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of intense global criticism of Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The war there has produced devastating humanitarian consequences, with tens of thousands reported dead, many of them civilians. For much of the world, the expansion of conflict toward Iran reinforces the perception that the United States and Israel are pursuing a broader strategic agenda across the Middle East.

Historically, American interventions have frequently been framed in the language of security, democracy, or counter-terrorism. Yet several precedents are often cited by critics as examples where these interventions eventually evolved into attempts to alter political leadership. The invasion of Iraq in 2003, the NATO intervention in Libya in 2011, and sustained political pressure on governments in Venezuela are commonly referenced in this debate.

These precedents also revive a deeper question about the effectiveness of global governance institutions. The United Nations was established after the Second World War to prevent unilateral wars and protect the sovereignty of states. However, the structure of the Security Council — where the United States holds veto power — often limits the organization’s ability to act decisively when Washington itself is directly involved in a conflict.

This structural imbalance has created a persistent credibility dilemma. While the United Nations remains the central forum for international diplomacy, critics increasingly argue that its capacity to restrain the strategic ambitions of major powers remains limited.

As the war with Iran unfolds, the debate is no longer confined to the future of the Middle East alone. It now touches the credibility of the international system itself — and whether the global order is governed by collective rules or ultimately shaped by the interests of its most powerful states.

Trump’s Iran War: Rising Costs and Political Risks

President Donald Trump is confronting growing political pressure after authorizing military strikes against Iran. While the battlefield dynamics appear to favor the combined military strength of the United States and Israel, the more immediate challenge for the White House may lie at home, where the economic consequences of the conflict are beginning to unsettle voters.

The most visible pressure point is energy prices. Tensions around the Strait of Hormuz — a narrow maritime corridor through which nearly one-fifth of the world’s oil supply normally passes — have triggered sharp volatility in global markets. The price of Brent crude oil has climbed above US$100 per barrel, swinging as traders react to shifting signals from the conflict.

American consumers are already feeling the impact. The national average price for gasoline has jumped from about US$2.90 per gallon before the hostilities to around US$3.61. Although Trump has argued that higher oil prices benefit the United States because of its status as a major energy producer, that argument may carry limited political weight at a time when voters remain deeply concerned about inflation and the overall cost of living.

Public skepticism toward the war is also evident in opinion polls. A recent survey conducted by The Economist in partnership with YouGov found that only 39 percent of Americans approve of Trump’s handling of the Iran crisis, while 52 percent disapprove. The absence of a traditional “rally around the flag” effect suggests that the administration has yet to convincingly explain why military force was necessary.

Criticism has emerged even within Republican circles. Former congressman Charlie Dent argues that although the US military has performed effectively, the political and diplomatic case for war was never clearly articulated. Without a compelling strategic narrative, the conflict risks becoming a liability for Republican candidates in the approaching midterm elections.

Supporters of the war, including Senator Lindsey Graham, insist the campaign is degrading Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities and weakening the government’s ability to project power. Yet the political challenge facing the administration is ultimately a question of time.

As long as tensions threaten energy routes and keep oil markets volatile, inflationary pressures are likely to intensify. Higher fuel and transportation costs could ripple through the broader economy, pushing up prices from farm inputs to supermarket shelves.

Military superiority may secure tactical advantages. Politically, however, prolonged wars often test economic resilience and public patience. For Trump, the decisive arena may ultimately be the domestic economy rather than the battlefield in the Middle East.

PSX benchmark index down 2.3%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile throughout the week, driven by ongoing Middle East military conflict. Overall, the benchmark index declined by 3,630 points or 2.3%WoW to close at 153,866 on Friday, March 13, 2026. Market participation remained moderate during the week, with average daily traded volumes declining to 548 million shares, from 791 million shares in the prior week.

Market began the week on a bearish note on Monday, as oil prices surged by more than 20% in intraday trading, with Brent crossing US$119/bbl in early trading as Iran conflict deepens with traffic halted at Strait of Hormuz. However, market largely recovered in subsequent session as oil prices stabilized after the announcement of release of 400 million bbl of oil from IEA strategic reserves, along with signals of easing sanctions on Russian oil following call between Trump and Putin. Moreover, status quo in the policy rate, with largely unchanged economic projections for inflation, current account, and foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP), supported investors’ confidence

IMF mission concluded its Pakistan visit for the third review, with end-of-mission statement noting significant progress, while discussions will continue in the coming days, including a more fully assessment of impact of recent global developments.

Economic indicators remained largely positive, with worker remittances remaining strong in February 2026, increasing by 5%YoY to US$3.3 billion.

OMC offtakes increased by 13%YoY, while auto sales continued growth, rising by 42%YoY during the month.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif assures Mohammad Bin Salman of full solidarity during Jeddah visit, 2) Pakistan raises US$507 million through 5G spectrum auction, 3) GoP raises petrol and diesel prices, 4) RDA inflows rise 12%MoM and 19%YoY to US$242 million in the previous month, and 5) Foreign exchange reserves held SBP rose US$41 million to US$16.34 billion as of March 06, 2026.

Refinery, Leasing Companies and Jute were amongst the top performing sectors, while Woollen, Paper & Board and Transport were amongst the laggards.

Major selling was recorded by Companies and Foreigners with a net sell of US$16.5 million and US$13.4 million.

Individuals and Banks absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$10.8 million and US$11.7 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: AICL, LOTCHEM, HINOON, PGLC, and YOUW, while laggards included: SAZEW, FCCL, MUREB, GHNI, and DGKC.

AKD Securities anticipates market sentiments to be dictated by developments in the ongoing Middle East conflict. GoP’s efforts to address energy conservation and the ongoing IMF review would also remain key areas of focus.

In the medium term, any de-escalation of Middle East military conflict could trigger a significant market recovery, as the recent correction has made market valuations much more appealing, with forward P/E now at 6.6x.

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

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

 

Time Is on Iran’s Side

Despite the overwhelming military might of the United States and Israel, time may ultimately favor Iran in the ongoing conflict, as mounting political and economic pressures strain the Trump administration.

Since launching Operation Epic Fury, US forces have reportedly struck some 6,000 Iranian targets, damaging naval vessels, missile launch sites, and other military infrastructure. The US Central Command says more than 90 Iranian vessels have been neutralized. Experts argue that Iran anticipated such attacks and structured its defense around confronting conventionally superior foes.

Analysts note that Iran is deliberately prolonging the conflict, betting it can endure military pressure longer than the US can withstand domestic political fallout. Rising oil prices, disruptions in global energy markets, and attacks on US allies in the Gulf have intensified the economic and diplomatic costs of the war. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has pushed oil prices near US$100 per barrel, adding further pressure on the global economy.

Military analysts suggest that Iran’s definition of victory is simple - survival. Removing the current leadership in Tehran would require far greater military commitment than the United States has so far deployed. Pentagon officials reported that the war cost over $11.3 billion in just the first six days. The conflict has also taken a human toll - seven American service members have died, and roughly 140 have been wounded.

In his first statement as Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and continue military pressure on regional adversaries. The US is considering naval escorts for oil tankers through the waterway. Analysts warn that as the conflict drags on, rising economic costs, political divisions in Washington, and potential casualties could erode domestic support for what some critics describe as an “optional war.”

While US and Israeli forces dominate tactically, Iran’s endurance strategy could make the political and economic cost of the conflict unsustainable for the United States, leaving the regime in Tehran intact and the strategic balance in the Gulf uncertain.

Quds Day: A Reminder of an Unfinished Question

Few issues in international politics have endured as persistently as the question of Palestine and the future of Jerusalem. Each year, on the last Friday of Ramadan, Muslims across the world observe International Quds Day, a symbolic occasion that seeks to keep global attention focused on one of the most prolonged and emotionally charged conflicts of the modern era.

The observance was initiated in 1979 by Iran’s revolutionary leader Ruhollah Khomeini, who called on Muslims worldwide to dedicate a day to expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. His objective was simple but strategic - ensure that the Palestinian issue would not fade from international consciousness amid shifting geopolitical priorities.

The word “Quds” is the Arabic name for Jerusalem, a city sacred to Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike. For Muslims in particular, its significance stems from the presence of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest site. Yet the meaning of Quds Day extends far beyond religious symbolism. It reflects a broader political message — that the Palestinian question remains unresolved despite decades of negotiations, conflicts, and diplomatic initiatives.

Over the years, Quds Day has evolved into a global platform marked by rallies, seminars, and public discussions in many countries. Supporters view it as a reminder of the humanitarian and political dimensions of the Palestinian struggle, while also emphasizing the need for justice and self-determination. Critics, however, often interpret the event through the lens of regional politics, arguing that it also reflects Iran’s ideological posture in the Middle East.

Regardless of differing interpretations, the continued observance of Quds Day highlights a simple reality - the Palestinian issue remains central to the political landscape of the Middle East. In an age when global attention shifts rapidly from one crisis to another, the annual commemoration serves as a reminder that lasting stability in the region cannot be achieved without addressing the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Ultimately, Quds Day is more than a political demonstration or a symbolic gathering. It represents an enduring call for the international community to confront a conflict that continues to shape regional politics and global debate.

 

UAE Cannot Afford Hostility with Iran

For the United Arab Emirates (UAE), prosperity has long depended on one critical asset - stability. As a global hub for trade, tourism, and finance, the Emirates has built its reputation on being a safe and predictable center of commerce in a turbulent region. Yet the intensifying confrontation between Israel and Iran is now testing that carefully cultivated image, placing the UAE in an increasingly uncomfortable strategic position.

In recent years, UAE has sought to deepen diplomatic and economic ties with Israel, hoping to benefit from technological cooperation and expanded trade. While this policy opened new economic avenues, it has also exposed it to the risks of regional polarization. When tensions escalate between Israel and Iran, countries perceived to be aligned with either side inevitably face political and security consequences.

The ripple effects of these tensions are already being felt in the Emirates. The emirate of Dubai—widely regarded as the Gulf’s commercial and financial hub—depends heavily on international investor confidence and a steady flow of tourists. Even limited security incidents or military exchanges in the region can unsettle markets, delay real estate investments, and deter travelers who view the Gulf primarily as a stable destination.

The economic stakes extend far beyond tourism and property markets. The UAE’s energy exports and maritime commerce rely heavily on the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of global oil shipments passes each day. Any disruption to this narrow but critical waterway directly affects the functioning of Gulf ports and the broader regional economy.

For a nation that has carefully built its prosperity on logistics, trade, and energy connectivity, prolonged instability in the Strait of Hormuz could prove deeply damaging. Ports cannot operate at full capacity if shipping lanes remain uncertain, and once shaken, investor confidence can take years to rebuild.

Geography offers a clear strategic lesson. Iran is not a distant rival but a powerful neighbor across the Gulf whose influence will remain a permanent feature of regional politics. Sustainable stability in the Gulf therefore requires engagement with regional powers, not merely alignment with distant allies.

Ultimately, the prosperity of the UAE rests on stability, open sea lanes, and investor confidence—assets that cannot survive prolonged regional confrontation. Geography alone dictates that the Emirates and Iran must find a workable coexistence across the Gulf. Strategic pragmatism therefore demands careful diplomacy rather than rigid alignments. If UAE wishes to preserve its role as the region’s premier commercial crossroads, it must prioritize de-escalation and regional balance over geopolitical rivalry.

Who Is Benefiting From War on Iran?

As the conflict involving United States and Israel against Iran intensifies, the humanitarian cost has understandably dominated headlines. Yet wars are rarely judged only by the destruction they cause. Equally important is a harder question: who ultimately benefits from the economic and geopolitical consequences of war?

Daily Brief: PSX and Global Markets

Pakistan’s equity market ended almost flat on Wednesday, while trading in silver contracts remained suspended at the Pakistan Mercantile Exchange (PMEX). Meanwhile, Asian equities declined on Thursday as oil prices surged. Both crude benchmarks jumped about 9%, the safe-haven US dollar hovered near its strongest levels of the year, and gold prices held broadly steady. US stocks also closed lower on Wednesday. To read details click https://shkazmipk.com/capital-market-review-49/

Early estimates suggest Washington may be spending close to a billion dollars a day on military operations. While the figure appears staggering, such expenditures often circulate within the American economy itself. The vast defense ecosystem surrounding the United States Department of Defense thrives during prolonged military engagements. Demand rises for missiles, air defense systems, surveillance equipment and logistical support produced by companies such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, and Northrop Grumman. In that sense, war can act as a powerful economic multiplier for the military-industrial complex.

Energy markets provide another revealing dimension. The Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint, carries nearly one-fifth of global crude supplies. Any disruption or closure immediately pushes oil prices higher. Ironically, such instability may strengthen the position of the United States, which has emerged as one of the world’s leading oil and liquefied natural gas exporters. Higher global prices make American energy exports more profitable while opening opportunities to capture market share in Europe and Asia.

For Gulf producers, the situation is more complex. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar depend heavily on secure maritime routes to ship oil and gas to global markets. If traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is disrupted, export volumes could decline even while prices surge. In such a scenario, higher prices may not fully offset reduced shipments.

Geopolitical instability may also reinforce the dominance of the United States Dollar in global energy trade. Efforts by emerging economies to establish alternative settlement mechanisms often lose momentum when markets retreat toward the perceived safety of dollar-based transactions.

Meanwhile, elevated oil prices could still deliver additional fiscal space for Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, helping finance ambitious transformation initiatives such as NEOM and other development plans.

None of this proves that economic gain is the sole driver of conflict. But history repeatedly shows that wars reshape markets and redistribute advantages. When the guns fall silent, the question will remain: was this merely a geopolitical confrontation, or a conflict whose economic dividends were quietly anticipated from the start?

Donald Trump’s War Without Wisdom

At a time when nuclear negotiations were reportedly moving in a constructive direction, the United States—reportedly in coordination with Israel—launched strikes on Iran, abruptly escalating tensions in an already volatile region. The attacks targeted military and nuclear installations and reportedly eliminated senior Iranian commanders. What might have been intended as a strategic show of force has instead opened the door to a far more dangerous confrontation.

The shift from diplomacy to military action marks a critical turning point. Washington and its allies appeared to believe that overwhelming military superiority would quickly deter Tehran and force strategic concessions. Yet such assumptions often overlook the political realities of the Middle East, where military pressure rarely produces the swift outcomes external powers anticipate.

Iran’s response was swift and predictable. Tehran vowed retaliation against American bases across the Gulf region as well as against Israeli targets. More significantly, the crisis has threatened shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical energy corridors. Even the possibility of disruption in this narrow passage has unsettled global markets, as a substantial share of the world’s oil and gas supplies transit through it.

The episode underscores a recurring strategic miscalculation: the tendency of powerful states to underestimate the capacity of regional actors to retaliate through asymmetric means. Iran may not match the conventional military strength of the United States or Israel, but it possesses the capability to impose serious economic and geopolitical costs.

Equally troubling is the humanitarian dimension. Escalating strikes inevitably increase civilian suffering and deepen instability across the region. Experience shows that conflicts in the Middle East rarely remain contained; instead, they tend to trigger broader geopolitical ripple effects that extend far beyond the immediate battlefield.

The central question now is whether military escalation can achieve what diplomacy could not. History suggests otherwise. Wars launched without a credible political endgame often evolve into prolonged strategic traps.

For the international community, the priority must now be de-escalation. Continued confrontation risks destabilizing the Gulf, disrupting global energy markets, and entrenching hostility for years to come. Strategic restraint, however difficult, remains the only path toward preventing a wider and far more destructive regional conflict.

Time to impeach US president Donald Trump

When the President of the United States casually describes a war as an “excursion,” it inevitably raises questions about judgment and responsibility. Speaking at a press conference in Miami, Donald Trump referred to the ongoing war against Iran as “just an excursion into something that had to be done.” Such a characterization is strikingly detached from the human and geopolitical costs already unfolding.

Wars are never excursions. They bring destruction, loss of life, and long-term instability. Reports indicate that nearly 1,500 Iranians—many of them women and children—have already been killed since the conflict began. The situation escalated further when extensive air operations by Israel reportedly led to the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. The event alone was sufficient to transform an already volatile confrontation into a crisis with far-reaching regional implications.

Equally troubling is the timing of the military escalation. The United States and Iran were reportedly engaged in negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, and by several accounts those discussions were moving in a constructive direction. Launching large-scale military action during such negotiations has inevitably raised doubts about whether diplomacy was given a genuine opportunity to succeed.

The consequences are already visible beyond the battlefield. Oil prices have surged toward US$100 per barrel, heightening economic uncertainty worldwide. Regional tensions have intensified as Iran signals readiness for a prolonged confrontation, raising the possibility that the conflict could draw in additional actors across the Middle East.

At the same time, the objectives articulated by Washington appear expansive and shifting. Statements from the US administration have referenced preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, dismantling military capabilities, and even influencing the country’s political future. History offers ample evidence—from interventions in Iraq and Libya—that attempts to reshape political orders through military force rarely produce stable outcomes.

Perhaps the most damaging aspect is the rhetoric surrounding the war itself. When a conflict that has already taken thousands of lives is described as an “excursion,” it risks trivializing the gravity of military action and undermining the credibility of the United States in the eyes of the international community.

For these reasons, serious questions must now be asked in Washington. If presidential conduct has indeed inflicted lasting damage on the global image of the United States, then the constitutional mechanisms of accountability cannot be ignored. Initiating impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump may therefore become not merely a political debate, but a necessary test of democratic responsibility and institutional integrity.

Only Time Will Tell Who Survives? Mojtaba Khamenei or Donald Trump

The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s new Supreme Leader marks a dramatic turning point in the region’s already volatile geopolitics. Coming in the aftermath of the killing of his father, Ali Khamenei, during recent strikes against Iran, the succession signals continuity rather than change within the Islamic Republic’s power structure. Yet the broader question now emerging is not simply about leadership transition in Tehran, but about the intensifying confrontation between Iran and the United States.

The powerful Assembly of Experts, the constitutional body responsible for selecting Iran’s Supreme Leader, announced Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment after what it described as a decisive vote. For years, Mojtaba had been viewed as a leading contender due to his influence within Iran’s clerical establishment, security institutions and the vast economic networks that developed under his father’s long rule. His elevation therefore suggests that Iran’s hardline establishment remains firmly in control despite the shock caused by the assassination of its previous leader.

The geopolitical temperature rose further after remarks by Donald Trump, who declared that Washington should have a say in Iran’s leadership transition. The US president warned that the new leader might not “last long” without American approval. Such statements are unusual in diplomatic practice, as leadership succession is traditionally regarded as an internal matter of sovereign states.

At the same time, Israel had reportedly warned that whoever succeeded Ali Khamenei could become a target. These developments transform what might have remained an internal political transition into a potentially dangerous regional confrontation involving multiple actors.

History suggests that external pressure often produces unintended consequences in Iran. Rather than weakening the ruling establishment, foreign threats frequently reinforce internal cohesion and strengthen the narrative of resistance promoted by the Islamic Republic.

Ultimately, geopolitical contests are rarely decided by bold statements or threats alone. Political survival depends on domestic legitimacy, strategic endurance and the unpredictable shifts of international power.

As tensions escalate between Tehran and Washington, one reality remains clear - history, not rhetoric, determines political longevity. Only time will tell who ultimately survives this unfolding confrontation — Mojtaba Khamenei or Donald Trump

US Lust for Oil Reserves of Venezuela and Iran

Venezuela and Iran possess the largest and third-largest energy reserves in the world, respectively. Both nations have long faced persistent pressure from United States in the form of sanctions, political isolation, and attempts at regime change. While access to vast hydrocarbon wealth is an obvious factor, the issue goes beyond mere economics. Control over global energy flows remains central to sustaining geopolitical dominance, a principle reflected in Washington’s long-standing strategic doctrines emphasizing “energy dominance” and global power projection.

The contest surrounding Venezuela and Iran reflects a broader struggle between great-power dominance and national sovereignty. While temporary accommodations may emerge, the geopolitical rivalry over energy resources, political independence, and global influence is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

For both Venezuela and Iran, sovereign control over their hydrocarbon resources is essential for maintaining even a limited degree of political independence. Historically, both countries challenged Western dominance of their energy sectors. In Iran, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry in 1951, triggering a CIA-backed coup that removed him from power. Venezuela followed a similar path when it consolidated its oil industry under the state company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., a process later reinforced during the presidency of Hugo Chávez. As founding members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), both countries sought to strengthen collective leverage against Western oil dominance.

Their resistance to the US-led international order also shaped their broader foreign policies. Iran emerged as a central actor in regional resistance movements and a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights. Venezuela similarly backed Palestinian self-determination and severed diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009, while maintaining strong relations with Cuba and other governments critical of US foreign policy.

Washington’s response has largely taken the form of sanctions and political pressure. In 2015, US President Barack Obama declared Venezuela an “extraordinary threat” to US national security, opening the door for unilateral coercive measures. These pressures were intensified under Donald Trump, whose administration pursued “maximum pressure” campaigns against both Caracas and Tehran. Targeted killings, including that of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, further demonstrated Washington’s willingness to employ force to advance its strategic objectives.

Energy markets also play a role in shaping geopolitical timing. Escalation with Iran has frequently coincided with concerns about global oil supply, particularly the vulnerability of shipments passing through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. In such circumstances, Venezuela’s vast oil reserves are often viewed as a potential buffer capable of stabilizing global supply if disruptions occur in the Middle East.

Despite years of sanctions and pressure, Venezuela has demonstrated notable political resilience. Even amid attempts to isolate the government of President Nicolás Maduro, leadership continuity under Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has helped maintain state authority. Diplomatic engagement between Washington and Caracas has intermittently resumed, reflecting the reality that even adversaries must sometimes negotiate.

Toxic Black Rain in Tehran

In the wake of infernos unleashed across portions of Tehran the night before, the people of Iran’s capital woke up Sunday to the hideous sight of ominous gray clouds above, choking-levels of smoke, and black raindrops full of toxic oil falling across the city.

History will not forgive Reza Pahlavi, Masih Alinejad, Nazanin Boniadi, and all other leaders who tricked Iranians into thinking this war would set them free.

Critics described “Scenes of Armageddon” and characterized the bombings and the destruction they triggered as the latest crimes committed by the US and Israel since they launched their unprovoked and illegal assault on the Middle East nation last week.

Iranian officials urged residents to stay in doors to avoid the health impacts of the air quality following Israel’s intentional bombing of several oil storage and processing facilities in the city on Saturday.

“On top of everything else, Israel and the US have unleashed an environmental disaster in Tehran,” said Assal Rad, a fellow at the Arab Center in Washington, DC. “How many ways can they show you they have no regard for human life?”

Iran’s Red Crescent Society warned that the toxic rainfall in Tehran, home to approximately 10 million people, could be “highly dangerous and acidic” and issued exposure guidelines for residents.

Esmaeil Baqaei, a spokesperson for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, condemned the attacks and resulting damage in stark terms.

“The US-Israeli criminal war against the Iranian nation has entered a dangerous new phase with deliberate strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure,” said Bagaei in an online statement. “These attacks on fuel storage facilities amount to nothing less than intentional chemical warfare against the Iranian citizens.”

“By targeting fuel depots, the aggressors are releasing hazardous materials and toxic substances into the air, poisoning civilians, devastating the environment, and endangering lives on a massive scale,” he continued. “The consequences of this environmental and humanitarian catastrophe will not be confined within Iran’s borders. These strikes constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide—all at once.”

In a Sunday morning video, CNN correspondent Frederik Pleitgen showed the view from central Tehran, including the black water gathering on every surface:

Pleitgen also traveled to the Shahran oil depot, among the facilities bombed Saturday, where dark gray smoke continued to billow into the air and he described the amount of damage as “immense”.

“Though it is day, the sun cannot be seen in Tehran today because of all the smoke following the US and Israel bombing Tehran’s oil refineries,” said Trita Parsi, executive vice president for the Quincy Institute, a US-based foreign policy think tank. “People on the ground describe it as Armageddon.”

Parsi, who is of Iranian descent, also took aim at members of the Iranian diaspora who for weeks and months have pushed for the US and Israeli governments to attack their own country.

Courtesy: Common Dreams

 

 

Six Uncomfortable Questions the World Avoids Answering

It is often alleged that Western media is dishonest, it tows foreign policy agenda of United States. A term Embedded Journalists is used. As the US-Iran war continues, I tried to find replies to pertinent/ select questions through AI. These questions may not have simple answers, but asking them is essential. In international politics, narratives are often shaped by power, alliances, and media influence. An informed public must therefore examine facts carefully and remain willing to question prevailing assumptions.

Who is the aggressor — the United States or Iran?
From Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has carried out military interventions across several continents. Iran’s actions, though controversial, have largely remained confined to the Middle East.

Who is the terrorist — Israel or Iran?
Washington labels Iran a state sponsor of terrorism for supporting armed groups. Critics argue Israel’s military actions in Palestinian territories resemble state terrorism.

Who has killed the most people — the United States, Israel, or Iran?
The wars involving the United States have resulted in far greater casualties than those linked to conflicts involving Israel or Iran.

Who is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and maintains nuclear ambiguity. Iran, however, is a signatory and legally bound by the treaty.

Who is fooling Arabs the most — Israel or Iran?
Some analysts argue Israel benefits from divisions within the Arab world. Others believe Iran uses the Palestinian cause to expand its regional influence.

Why are U.S. military bases located in GCC countries?
Officially they exist to defend Gulf states and secure energy routes. Strategically, they also reinforce a regional security structure that indirectly protects Israel.