US-Saudi Nuclear Deal Built on Contradictions

The proposed US-Saudi nuclear deal is being portrayed as a landmark initiative capable of reshaping the Middle East. In reality, it appears to be a proposal burdened with so many political and strategic conditions that its chances of implementation remain slim. It promises much, yet delivers little that Saudi Arabia has sought for years.

The first obstacle is Washington itself. Any agreement of this magnitude must pass the US Senate, where Middle East policy has historically been heavily influenced by pro-Israel interests. It is difficult to envisage congressional approval for any arrangement that Israel believes could narrow its long-standing strategic and technological superiority in the region. Political resistance in Washington, therefore, remains the biggest hurdle.

Even if the agreement survives Congress, its strategic value for Riyadh is questionable. Saudi Arabia has consistently maintained that any civilian nuclear program must eventually include the right to enrich uranium. If enrichment is prohibited, the Kingdom would remain dependent on foreign suppliers for nuclear fuel. Such an arrangement falls well short of the strategic autonomy Riyadh has long pursued.

The proposal becomes even more complicated if it is linked to Saudi recognition of Israel through the Abraham Accords. The Kingdom faces strong domestic, Arab and wider Islamic pressure not to normalize relations with Israel in the absence of a credible and irreversible path toward Palestinian statehood. Without meaningful progress on that front, normalization carries significant political costs for Riyadh.

There is also an economic dimension. Saudi Arabia has invested heavily in the United States over several decades, yet many in Riyadh question whether Washington has fulfilled the security commitments expected from a strategic ally. The muted American response to attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure and its shifting regional priorities have inevitably weakened Saudi confidence in US security guarantees.

Above all, Saudi leaders understand that American policy in the Middle East is inseparable from its commitment to Israel. Whether justified or not, a growing perception across the Arab world is that Israeli security considerations increasingly shape Washington's regional decisions. That perception inevitably influences Saudi strategic calculations.

For these reasons, the proposed US-Saudi nuclear deal looks less like a transformative agreement and more like a diplomatic bargaining chip. It expects Saudi Arabia to make strategic, political and financial concessions while offering neither an independent nuclear capability nor security assurances that Riyadh considers fully credible. Until these fundamental contradictions are addressed, the deal is unlikely to move beyond diplomatic headlines.

Washington Is Not Changing Course - It Is Buying Time

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's recent statement that Washington remains willing to negotiate with Iran and that "the possibility for diplomacy remains alive" has raised more questions than answers. After nearly two weeks of sustained military operations, the renewed emphasis on diplomacy appears less like a change of policy and more like an attempt to buy time.

Since the ceasefire memorandum signed in April, President Donald Trump's objectives have appeared to shift repeatedly. At different stages, Washington has spoken of containing Iran's nuclear program, weakening its regional influence, pressuring its leadership and demanding broader concessions. These shifting objectives have reinforced the perception that the ultimate goal is Iran's unconditional surrender—an ambition that has proved far more difficult than many in Washington may have anticipated.

Ironically, the prolonged confrontation appears to have strengthened the very adversary it sought to weaken. Rather than triggering internal divisions or regime change, sustained external pressure seems to have fostered greater national unity inside Iran. Many regional analysts now argue that the conflict has elevated Tehran's strategic importance instead of diminishing it, making Iran an even more influential regional actor.

Military history shows that major powers often pause not because they have secured victory, but because they need time to reassess. Reports suggesting heavy expenditure of advanced munitions, the failure to achieve the anticipated regime change, and growing debate among some Gulf Arab states over long-term reliance on US security guarantees all point to an increasingly complex strategic landscape. Against this backdrop, a diplomatic initiative may offer Washington an opportunity to regroup, replenish resources, reassess its options and preserve strategic flexibility without appearing to retreat.

The battle is also being fought in the information domain. Narratives portraying the Houthis as targeting Saudi oil tankers have been questioned by many regional observers, who argue that their operations have primarily focused on vessels linked to Israel. Regardless of which narrative ultimately proves more accurate, the contest to shape international opinion has become almost as important as developments on the battlefield itself.

Whether Washington's latest diplomatic outreach leads to meaningful negotiations or merely marks a tactical pause remains to be seen. What is becoming increasingly evident that military superiority alone has not delivered the political outcome the United States and Israel sought. If diplomacy has returned to center stage, it may not be because Washington has changed course—it may simply be because, in modern conflict, time itself is a strategic weapon.

The Shifting Battle: From Oil to Shipping Corridors

For much of the twentieth century, oil was regarded as the world's most powerful geopolitical weapon. In the twenty-first century, however, control over global shipping corridors may prove equally—if not more—consequential. Whoever can influence the world's maritime chokepoints can shape not only energy supplies but also international trade, supply chains, and economic stability. Against this backdrop, the Red Sea appears to be emerging as the next major strategic battleground.

Following months of disruption around the Strait of Hormuz, growing concerns are now centered on the security of commercial shipping through the Red Sea. Together, the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, and the Suez Canal constitute one of the world's most vital maritime corridors, carrying a substantial share of global trade, including oil, liquefied natural gas, manufactured goods, agricultural commodities, and containerized cargo. Any prolonged disruption would ripple across continents through higher freight costs, supply-chain bottlenecks, inflationary pressures, and increased energy prices.

The immediate question is not simply who is attacking commercial vessels, but who stands to gain from sustained instability in these strategic waterways.

Western governments and much of the international media have attributed recent attacks to Yemen's Houthi movement, arguing that the group continues to target maritime traffic as part of its confrontation with Israel and its Western allies. Given the Houthis' own public statements and previous operations, this explanation cannot be dismissed.

Yet geopolitics is rarely straightforward.

Military confrontations are increasingly accompanied by information warfare, where competing narratives emerge almost as rapidly as military events themselves. Some analysts caution against assigning responsibility before credible, independent investigations establish the facts. Premature conclusions can become powerful geopolitical tools, shaping public opinion and diplomatic responses long before evidence is fully examined.

Another line of analysis raises a different possibility. It suggests that if vessels linked to Saudi Arabia increasingly become targets, the objective may extend beyond disrupting commercial shipping. Such incidents could undermine the fragile rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran, reviving regional rivalries that had begun to ease after years of confrontation. Those who favour a polarized Middle East would clearly benefit from renewed distrust between the region's two most influential powers.

There is also the Israeli dimension. Since the outbreak of the Gaza conflict, the Houthis have repeatedly declared that their maritime campaign is intended to pressure Israel by disrupting shipping linked to Israeli interests. If commercial traffic through the Red Sea becomes increasingly constrained, Israel's trade routes could face significant economic and logistical challenges. However, if the pattern of attacks shifts from Israeli-linked shipping toward Saudi-linked vessels, analysts will inevitably ask whether the conflict is being redirected by actors pursuing broader geopolitical objectives.

History suggests that great powers compete not only for natural resources but also for the routes that transport them. The struggle is no longer confined to controlling oil fields. Increasingly, the ability to influence strategic maritime corridors has become a source of geopolitical leverage. Disrupting a major shipping route can impose economic costs on multiple countries simultaneously without direct military confrontation.

Whether the current tensions represent an extension of the Israel-Houthi conflict, an attempt to derail Saudi-Iranian reconciliation, or a broader contest for influence over global shipping corridors remains an open question. What appears increasingly clear is that in today's interconnected world, strategic power lies not only beneath the ground in oil reserves but also on the sea lanes that connect continents.

The nation—or coalition—that can influence these maritime arteries possesses a powerful instrument of geopolitical leverage. In the twenty-first century, control of shipping corridors may prove even more valuable than control of the cargo itself.

Oil Is No Longer a Weapon

For decades, a major military conflict involving Iran would almost certainly have sent global oil prices soaring. Conventional wisdom held that any disruption in the Persian Gulf would trigger an energy crisis, fuel inflation, and push the world economy toward recession. Yet, nearly five months into the US-Iran war, oil prices have remained relatively stable. This apparent contradiction deserves closer examination.

The foremost reason is that the conflict has not significantly disrupted physical oil supplies. Energy markets react less to military headlines than to actual interruptions in production and transportation. Despite intense hostilities, oil has continued to flow.

The Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly one-fifth of the world's seaborne oil trade passes, remains open. Although shipping costs and insurance premiums have risen, oil tankers continue to transit the waterway. A prolonged blockade would almost certainly have triggered a dramatic spike in crude prices.

Iran has also continued exporting crude oil, primarily to China and, through indirect channels, to other Asian buyers. At the same time, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and other Gulf producers have maintained production, while exports through the Red Sea have largely continued despite heightened security risks.

The global energy landscape has changed fundamentally over the past decade. The United States has emerged as one of the world's largest producers of both crude oil and natural gas, reducing dependence on Middle Eastern supplies. Meanwhile, despite Western sanctions, Russian oil continues to reach international markets through alternative buyers and trading routes, preventing a significant supply shortfall.

Demand-side factors have also played a role. Slower economic growth in China and subdued industrial activity in several major economies have moderated global oil consumption, offsetting much of the upward pressure created by geopolitical tensions.

Perhaps the most important factor is market confidence that none of the principal actors wants to ignite a full-scale energy crisis by destroying vital oil infrastructure or permanently blocking key shipping lanes. Investors have increasingly distinguished between a military conflict and an energy war.

The lesson is unmistakable. The Middle East remains indispensable to global energy security, but today's oil market is more diversified, resilient and interconnected than ever before. As long as production continues, shipping lanes remain open and alternative suppliers keep the market well supplied, oil will struggle to serve as an effective geopolitical weapon. The era when a Middle East conflict automatically plunged the world into an oil crisis may well be coming to an end.

Growing lust for controlling energy routes

The Red Sea is not merely another conflict zone in the Middle East. It has become the latest theatre in an intensifying struggle for control over the world's most critical maritime trade and energy corridors. Following prolonged disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, renewed threats to commercial shipping in the Red Sea suggest that the contest has moved beyond territorial disputes to a broader competition over strategic chokepoints that sustain the global economy.

Much of the international debate remains focused on Yemen's Houthi movement and its attacks on commercial vessels. The Houthis have publicly linked their operations to the Gaza conflict and have demonstrated the capability to target shipping with drones and missiles. Western governments also maintain that Iran provides the group with varying degrees of political, military and technical support. These developments are important, but they do not fully explain the strategic significance of what is unfolding.

The Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz are connected by more than geography. Together, they form the principal maritime gateway through which a substantial share of Gulf oil, liquefied natural gas and international trade reaches global markets. Disruption at either chokepoint unsettles energy markets. Simultaneous instability at both has the potential to reshape global trade flows, increase transport and insurance costs, fuel inflation and slow economic growth far beyond the Middle East.

This raises an important strategic question: Is the objective simply to disrupt shipping, or to increase the strategic vulnerability of Gulf energy exporters?

Publicly available evidence does not allow a definitive answer. However, it is beyond dispute that prolonged insecurity in these sea lanes weakens the commercial position of Gulf exporters, reduces the attractiveness of the Red Sea–Suez route, and increases dependence on alternative transport corridors. Whether these outcomes are intended or incidental, they carry profound geopolitical consequences.

Modern warfare has evolved. Economic disruption has become a strategic instrument alongside military force. Countries and non-state actors increasingly seek to influence rivals by targeting supply chains, energy infrastructure, financial systems and maritime trade rather than engaging in conventional battlefield confrontations. In this environment, the ability to threaten a strategic waterway may generate political leverage disproportionate to military strength.

Yemen illustrates this reality. A country with limited conventional military power occupies territory overlooking the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, one of the world's most important maritime chokepoints. Geography has given the Houthis an influence extending far beyond Yemen's borders. Their actions demonstrate how relatively inexpensive drones and missiles can compel some of the world's most advanced naval forces to devote enormous resources to protecting commercial shipping.

The question of who benefits also deserves careful examination. The immediate economic losers are evident: Gulf Arab exporters face higher shipping costs and insurance premiums; Egypt risks losing valuable Suez Canal revenue; Europe and Asia confront longer supply routes; global shipping companies absorb higher operating costs; and consumers ultimately pay more. At the same time, prolonged instability can strengthen the strategic position of actors seeking higher energy prices, expanded defence spending, greater geopolitical leverage or a reconfiguration of regional influence. Identifying potential beneficiaries does not establish responsibility, but it is an essential element of serious geopolitical analysis.

The continued vulnerability of commercial shipping despite the deployment of powerful multinational naval forces exposes another important reality. Maritime security in the twenty-first century can no longer be guaranteed solely through conventional naval superiority. Low-cost drones, precision missiles and asymmetric tactics have fundamentally altered the economics of maritime conflict, enabling comparatively weak actors to impose substantial costs on much stronger adversaries.

For policymakers, the central lesson is clear. Viewing the Red Sea crisis solely through the lens of Yemen risks overlooking the larger strategic transformation taking place. Control of maritime chokepoints is becoming one of the defining features of contemporary geopolitics. The competition is no longer confined to territorial boundaries; it increasingly revolves around the ability to influence global commerce, energy supplies and supply chains.

History repeatedly demonstrates that control over trade routes often proves as decisive as victories on the battlefield. From the Strait of Hormuz to the Bab el-Mandeb and the Suez Canal, the struggle for maritime access is shaping the strategic landscape of the twenty-first century. The real question, therefore, is not whether the Red Sea crisis began in Yemen. It is whether the world is witnessing the emergence of a new era in which control of sea lanes becomes the principal instrument of geopolitical power.

Technological Superiority Cannot Guarantee Victory

For months, I have been convinced that President Donald Trump has pursued a strategy aimed at securing nothing less than Iran's unconditional surrender. More than five months into the conflict, however, that objective remains unfulfilled despite the overwhelming military and technological superiority of the United States and Israel. This raises a fundamental question; can military dominance alone compel a determined nation to surrender?

The conflict has steadily moved beyond its originally stated objective of curbing Iran's nuclear and missile programs. Instead, it increasingly appears to have become an effort to weaken the Iranian state itself. The repeated attacks on Iranian infrastructure have intensified human suffering and drawn criticism from those who argue that such operations risk violating international humanitarian law. Whatever the legal verdict may ultimately be, the war has expanded far beyond its declared purpose.

Ironically, the countries paying an increasingly heavy price are America's Arab allies. By hosting US military bases, they have become vulnerable to retaliation despite having little direct stake in the conflict. Their economies, energy infrastructure, shipping routes, and national security now face growing risks as the confrontation deepens.

The greatest lesson of this conflict is that technological superiority cannot guarantee victory against a dispersed and resilient adversary. Precision-guided weapons, advanced intelligence, and air superiority have not eliminated Iran's ability to respond. Even many Western analysts acknowledge that Tehran retains the capability to launch missiles and drones against American military installations, Gulf allies, and commercial shipping transiting the Strait of Hormuz. As long as that capability exists, expectations of forcing Iran into unconditional surrender appear unrealistic.

If President Trump refuses to alter course, America's Arab partners may eventually conclude that protecting their own national interests requires a different approach. They should insist that offensive military operations against Iran are no longer conducted from bases located on their territory and seek a transparent timetable for redefining the role of foreign military forces. If those bases cease to be launch pads for attacks, Iran would have far less incentive to target Arab states.

Any durable regional security arrangement should also include China, whose growing economic and diplomatic influence makes it an indispensable stakeholder in Gulf stability.

My greatest concern is that trust has been severely damaged. The current war erupted while diplomatic engagement was still underway, making future negotiations far more difficult. Peace cannot rest on demands for unconditional surrender. It requires credible diplomacy, mutual security guarantees, and respect for commitments. The enduring lesson of this conflict is unmistakable: technological superiority may win battles, but it cannot, by itself, guarantee political victory.

Growing Discontent Across the Arab World

As the conflict between the United States and Iran enters a more dangerous phase, another challenge is quietly emerging across the Middle East. While global attention remains focused on air strikes, missile exchanges and military strategy, America's Arab partners are confronting a growing strategic dilemma. The longer the war continues, the greater the political, economic and security costs they will have to bear. For many Arab governments, patience is not unlimited.

For decades, the United States has been the principal security partner of several Gulf states, maintaining military bases and providing strategic protection against external threats. Today, however, those same military installations have become potential targets for Iranian retaliation. Every attack on a US base in the Gulf exposes the host country to risks it neither initiated nor seeks.

As tensions escalate, Arab governments face the difficult task of preserving their security partnerships with Washington while preventing their own territories from becoming battlefields in a widening regional conflict.

The economic implications are equally serious. Gulf economies are no longer driven solely by oil exports. Through ambitious diversification programs, countries across the region are investing heavily in tourism, finance, technology, logistics and manufacturing. These reforms require political stability, investor confidence and uninterrupted trade. A prolonged war threatens all three. Rising insurance premiums, uncertainty in financial markets and disruptions to maritime commerce could undermine years of economic planning.

The Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea remain two of the world's most important maritime corridors. Any disruption to these routes would directly affect the export-dependent economies of the Gulf and reverberate throughout the global economy. While energy prices have remained relatively stable so far, Arab leaders understand that a prolonged conflict could eventually jeopardize both regional prosperity and international energy security.

Equally significant is the political dimension. Across the Arab world, public concern over regional instability and humanitarian suffering continues to grow. Governments must balance their strategic ties with Washington against the expectations of their own citizens, who increasingly want their countries to avoid becoming participants in another prolonged regional war. This balancing act becomes more difficult with every passing day.

The conflict also threatens to reverse the diplomatic progress achieved in recent years. Several Arab states have worked to reduce regional tensions, rebuild diplomatic relationships and promote economic cooperation. A wider war could undo those gains, deepen regional polarization and weaken collective efforts to build a more stable Middle East.

History offers a sobering lesson - wars in the Middle East rarely remain confined to their original battlefield. These spill across borders, reshape alliances and leave behind long-lasting political and economic consequences. Military victories may be celebrated in the short term, but the costs of prolonged conflict are borne by entire societies.

For America's Arab partners, the overriding priority is not the military defeat of Iran or the strategic success of Washington. Their foremost interest lies in safeguarding their sovereignty, protecting their economies and preserving regional stability. As the costs of continued escalation mount, pressure for diplomacy will inevitably grow.

The longer the war continues, the greater the Arab world's discontent—and the stronger the demand for a political solution that ends the cycle of confrontation before it engulfs the entire region.

 

Seven Days of US Strikes, No Strategic Breakthrough

Seven consecutive days of United States air strikes on Iran have raised a fundamental question, has Washington moved any closer to achieving its strategic objectives? Judging by the available evidence, the answer appears far from convincing. Military campaigns are ultimately measured not by the number of missiles fired, but by the political and strategic outcomes they produce.

Despite the intensity of the operation, remarkably little official information has been released about the military targets destroyed or the extent of the damage inflicted. In modern warfare, governments are usually quick to showcase decisive battlefield successes. The absence of detailed battle damage assessments has inevitably fueled speculation that the campaign has yielded fewer tangible results than expected.

Equally concerning are reports that civilian infrastructure and public utilities have been affected. If the intention is to increase economic hardship and public suffering in the hope of provoking unrest against Tehran, such a strategy carries significant legal, moral and political risks. Under international humanitarian law, deliberate attacks on civilian objects that are not legitimate military targets could raise serious questions about compliance with the laws of armed conflict. Greater transparency is therefore essential.

The broader strategic picture also remains uncertain. One apparent objective has been to pressure Iran by disrupting regional energy security through the Strait of Hormuz. Yet global oil markets have remained relatively calm, with crude prices staying below the psychologically important threshold of US$100 per barrel. Markets appear unconvinced that energy supplies will face prolonged disruption.

Attention is now increasingly focused on the Red Sea, another critical maritime corridor for global trade and Gulf energy exports. Any escalation there would broaden the conflict, increase risks to international shipping and place additional economic and political pressure on Arab oil-exporting states.

Perhaps the campaign's most significant consequence has been political rather than military. Iranian retaliatory strikes against American military installations in Gulf countries have heightened regional tensions and risk fuelling anti-American sentiment. For governments hosting US military bases, the political cost of continued escalation could become increasingly difficult to manage.

History offers a consistent lesson - air power can destroy military assets and infrastructure, but it rarely secures lasting political victories on its own. If anything, sustained external military pressure often strengthens national resolve rather than weakens it.

After seven days of strikes, Washington appears to have achieved neither a decisive military breakthrough nor a clear political advantage. Unless diplomacy regains priority, the conflict risks expanding while the prospects for a durable peace continue to diminish.

PSX benchmark index down 3.5%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained under pressure during the week ended on Friday, July 17, 2026. The benchmark index closed the week at 175,803, down 6,439 points or 3.5%WoW, with average daily trading volume declining to 911 million shares, down 29%WoW.

During the week market driven by uncertainties surrounding the US-Iran conflict, with the US threatening to strike Iran’s energy facilities.

Re-imposition of the naval blockade of Strait of Hurmuz pushed oil prices above US$86/bbl, the highest level since the MOU was signed between the two countries.

On the macroeconomic front, Current Account posted a deficit of US$139 million in FY26, as against a US$1.8 billion surplus during the same period last year.

Net FDI dropped 34%YoY to US$1.6 billion in FY26.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) decreased by US$1.2 billion to US$17.2 billion as of July 10, 2026, due to debt repayments.

LSM index increased by 6%YoY in 11MFY26.

Auto sales rose 33%YoY for the industry in FY26 to 244,000 units, led by stable prices, lower financing rates, and discount offers by OEMs.

IT exports surged 21%YoY to a record high of US$4.6 billion in FY26.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) HSD/MS price are likely to be increased over the weekend, 2) Electricity generation marginally increased by 1%YoY in FY26, 3) Textile exports inched up to US$17.9 billion in FY26, 4) Largest LNG carrier berthed at Port Qasim, and 5) Pakistan, Saudi Arabia agreed to expand energy cooperation.

Active sectors were: Jute, Refinery, and Technology & Communication, while lagged included: Textile Weaving, Synthetic & Rayon, and Transport.

Major selling was recorded by Mutual Funds amounting to US$37.6 million, while major buyers were Foreigners and Individuals aggregating to US$33.2 million.

Top performing scrips were: PIOC, CNERGY, and TPLRF1, while laggards included: IBFL, KTML, YOU, KEL, and ISL.

According to AKD Securities, any positive progress on US-Iran conflict, along with moderating international oil prices towards pre-conflict levels would remain the key focus.

Additionally, favorable financial results for the period ended June 30, 2026 would support market sentiment in the near term. Market continues to trade at attractive valuations.

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

Why Is Iran Reluctant to Attack Israel Directly?

Every time hostilities flare in the Middle East, a familiar pattern emerges. Israel strikes Iranian targets, and Iran often retaliates by targeting US military installations or interests in the region rather than launching a sustained direct attack on Israel. This recurring pattern raises an intriguing question, if Israel is Iran's declared adversary, why does Tehran so often avoid direct military confrontation?

The answer lies not in fear alone but in strategic calculation.

Iran understands that a large-scale attack on Israel would almost certainly trigger an overwhelming response. Israel possesses formidable military capabilities and enjoys unwavering political, diplomatic, and military backing from the United States. A direct war could inflict severe damage on Iran's military infrastructure, economy, and internal stability. No responsible government willingly enters a conflict where the costs are likely to far outweigh the gains.

Military realities reinforce this caution. Israel has developed one of the world's most sophisticated, multi-layered missile defense systems. While these defenses cannot intercept every missile or drone, they substantially reduce the effectiveness of mass attacks. Iran must therefore consider whether expending expensive missiles would achieve meaningful military objectives or merely expose the limitations of its own arsenal.

Geography further complicates the equation. Iran and Israel do not share a common border. Any missile or drone attack must cross or approach the airspace of several regional states. Countries such as Jordan have, on occasion, intercepted projectiles traversing their airspace to protect their own national security. These operational challenges make sustained direct attacks considerably more difficult.

Instead, Iran has adopted what appears to be a strategy of calibrated retaliation. Rather than seeking decisive military victory, it aims to impose costs while preventing the conflict from escalating into a regional war. This explains Tehran's preference for targeting US military bases, conducting cyber operations, disrupting maritime traffic, and relying on allied armed groups to project influence.

From Iran's perspective, the United States is not merely Israel's ally but its principal strategic enabler. Washington provides military assistance, intelligence, advanced weaponry, and consistent diplomatic support. Consequently, Tehran may calculate that increasing pressure on American military assets sends a message to both Washington and Tel Aviv without immediately crossing the threshold of an all-out war.

This does not mean Iran lacks the capability or the willingness to strike Israel directly. It has done so under exceptional circumstances. However, those attacks have generally been carefully measured, suggesting that deterrence and escalation management remain at the heart of Iranian strategy.

The Middle East is often viewed through the lens of ideology and rhetoric, yet military decisions are usually driven by hard strategic calculations. Iran's conduct reflects this reality. Rather than pursuing an unrestricted war with Israel, Tehran appears to be balancing retaliation with restraint, seeking to preserve its deterrent capability while avoiding a conflict that could threaten the survival of the Iranian state.

Understanding this distinction is essential. In geopolitics, actions are rarely dictated by slogans alone. More often, they are shaped by the cold arithmetic of power, capability, and consequence.

Why Are We Scared of Telling the Truth?

The first casualty of war is often the truth. Yet an equally disturbing reality is that many of us become unwilling participants in this process. We repeat official narratives, avoid uncomfortable questions, and hesitate to challenge the assumptions promoted by powerful states. Whether out of fear, political convenience, or media influence, we often stop asking whether there is another side to the story.

The present conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran offers a striking example. Much of the international discourse has focused on Iran's actions, while comparatively less attention has been given to the timing of the US-Israel military campaign, which began while diplomatic engagement over Iran's nuclear program was still underway. For many observers, this raises legitimate questions about the sincerity of negotiations and the priority given to diplomacy.

Another issue that receives limited discussion is the strategic importance of Iran in the regional balance of power. Many analysts argue that Washington and Tel Aviv view Iran as the principal obstacle to establishing a security order aligned with their interests in the Middle East. Whether one agrees with this assessment or not, it deserves open debate rather than dismissal.

Similarly, public discussion often frames Iran as the principal source of instability in the region, while criticism of Israel's policies receives comparatively less prominence. Across much of the Muslim world, perceptions differ significantly from those commonly reflected in Western political discourse. Ignoring these perspectives does little to promote mutual understanding.

The same applies to the role of the United States. Its military presence across the Arabian Peninsula is generally explained as necessary for regional security. Critics, however, argue that this presence also serves broader strategic objectives, including controlling energy routes and preserving American influence over one of the world's most important oil-producing regions. These competing interpretations should be examined rather than silenced.

Likewise, incidents involving attacks on US military installations in Gulf countries are frequently portrayed as attacks on the host nations themselves. Others contend that these bases are part of a broader geopolitical confrontation between Washington and Tehran. The distinction is important because it shapes how audiences understand the conflict and assign responsibility.

Healthy democracies are built not on unquestioning acceptance of official narratives but on the courage to ask difficult questions. Truth is rarely served by silence, selective reporting, or fear of challenging powerful interests. If meaningful peace is ever to prevail in the Middle East, the international community must be willing to examine every narrative critically, apply consistent standards to all parties, and encourage honest debate rather than suppress uncomfortable questions. Only by overcoming our fear of speaking openly can we hope to move closer to a more balanced understanding of one of the world's most consequential conflicts.

Beyond Hormuz: Is Yemen the New Diversion?

The attempt by an Iranian aircraft to land in Houthi-controlled Yemen, and the swift response by Saudi-backed Yemeni forces to prevent it, should not be viewed as an isolated aviation incident. It may represent another chapter in the wider geopolitical contest unfolding across the Middle East. More importantly, it raises a strategic question: Is the focus on Yemen intended to shift international attention away from the Strait of Hormuz?

For decades, the Strait of Hormuz has remained the world's most critical maritime energy corridor. Roughly one-fifth of global oil and a significant share of liquefied natural gas exports pass through this narrow waterway. Any instability there has immediate consequences for energy prices, inflation, global trade and financial markets. It is also the one strategic chokepoint where Iran possesses considerable geographic leverage.

Against this backdrop, renewed attention to Yemen is unlikely to be accidental. By reigniting tensions around Sanaa, the Red Sea and Bab el-Mandeb, Washington and its regional partners can compel Iran to divide its strategic focus. Instead of concentrating on Hormuz, Tehran must also devote diplomatic, military and logistical resources to protecting its interests in Yemen.

For Saudi Arabia, preventing Iranian flights from landing in Houthi-held territory serves immediate security objectives. For the United States, the broader strategic benefit lies in expanding the theatre of competition. A conflict confined to Hormuz leaves Iran operating in its strongest geographic position. A conflict stretching from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea forces Tehran to manage multiple fronts simultaneously, thereby diluting its leverage.

Whether this reflects a carefully coordinated strategy or the convergence of regional interests remains open to debate. Yet the cumulative effect is unmistakable: international attention shifts from Hormuz to Yemen, from energy security to aviation disputes, and from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea.

The Middle East has long demonstrated that perception is as important as military capability. In modern geopolitics, shaping the narrative often shapes policy. The latest confrontation in Yemen may therefore be less about one aircraft than about redirecting the world's strategic gaze. While headlines focus on Sanaa, the Strait of Hormuz—the true center of the region's geopolitical gravity—risks fading into the background. That, in itself, may be the most significant development.

Shanghai overtakes London in shipping hub rankings

According to Seatrade Maritime News Shanghai has taken second place in the 2026 Xinhua Baltic International Shipping Centre Development Index (ISCDI), breaking London’s six-year streak as runner in the ranking of global shipping hubs.

Singapore earned the top spot, a position it has held for all 13 years of the report’s history. With London slipping the third place, Hong Kong and Dubai rounded out the index’s top five cities.

Ningbo-Zhoushan overtook Rotterdam to become the sixth-highest-ranked shipping centre, while New York and New Jersey jumped up two places to eighth, overtaking Athens and Hamburg. There were no new entrants to the top 20.

Analyzing Shanghai’s ascendancy in the rankings, the report noted the city stood in seventh place in 2014 and has risen steadily since. Shanghai is home to the world’s busiest container port, which recorded strong growth in 2025, including at the world’s largest automated container terminal.

The opening of Maersk’s flagship logistics centre in Shanghai’s Lin-gang Special Area further strengthened the clusters’ case, as did the launch of The North Bund International Legal Service Port, a new international ship inspection operations team from China Classification Society, and the arrival of representative offices for both the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and London P&I Club.

The Index judges shipping centres based on three main weighted criteria: port inputs account for 20% of the total, business services 50%, and general environment inputs — which covers government transparency, customs tariffs, logistics performance, and the extent of e-government and administration — making up the remaining 30% of the score.

The report said Singapore’s grip on the top spot showed no signs of loosening, as container volume growth at its port outpaced Shanghai’s to remain the world’s second-busiest container port. Singapore’s bunkering industry also broke records in 2025 to remain the world’s largest bunkering destination crown with sales of 56.77 million tons. The report noted an increase in LNG deliveries and the issuing of bunkering licenses for methanol and groundwork for future ammonia developments.

Tonnage under the Singapore Registry of Ships rose 27% on-year to 137.46m gt and some 35 companies opened or expanded operations in the city in 2025.

“Singapore’s challenge heading into the latter part of the decade is less about defending its position as a leading shipping hub but about continuing to distinguish itself from other leading maritime cities across Asia. On the evidence of 2025, it is doing exactly that,” said the report.

The only shipping centre to gain two places this year was New York & New Jersey, which the report noted as home of private equity, law firms, brokerage firms, financial institutions and the New York Stock Exchange. The port recorded its third-busiest year ever, and the Xinhua-Baltic analysis highlighted long-term plans at the port, including completion of a harbour deepening project and the signing of two lease extensions of more than 30 years each.

The port’s long-term ambition is clear, as The port’s Master Plan 2050 projects cargo volumes through the port complex could double or triple by the middle of the century.

 

Louder Rhetoric, Diminishing Credibility

The United States Central Command (CENTCOM) has claimed that its latest military campaign struck nearly 140 targets in Iran—far exceeding the scale of its previous rounds of attacks. Whether this figure is accurate or not is almost secondary. More important is the strategic narrative such claims are designed to create and the political objectives they may serve.

One emerging perception is that the conflict is no longer confined to military confrontation. It has evolved into a struggle over energy markets, regional influence, and financial leverage. Continued instability in the Gulf discourages investment, disrupts confidence, and keeps a strategic premium on energy supplies. Critics argue that prolonged tension can also benefit major energy exporters outside the region by sustaining higher oil and gas prices.

A second perception is that repeated references to Iranian attacks on American military facilities reinforce the argument for maintaining an extensive US military presence across the Gulf. From this perspective, every escalation strengthens the case that these bases remain indispensable for the security of America's Arab partners, even though their continued presence itself remains a subject of debate.

There are also wider economic considerations. Analysts have suggested that continued hostilities delay any possibility of normalizing Iran's oil exports, resolving disputes over frozen Iranian assets, or addressing future claims for compensation arising from wartime destruction. As long as the conflict persists, diplomacy inevitably takes a back seat to military calculations.

Perhaps the greatest casualty, however, is credibility. In modern warfare, information has become as powerful as missiles. Every claim of battlefield success is instantly challenged by satellite imagery, independent analysts, and social media. Governments no longer enjoy an uncontested monopoly over the narrative. If official statements are perceived to exaggerate military achievements or downplay setbacks, public trust erodes rapidly.

History reminds us that wars are fought not only on the battlefield but also in the realm of perception. Military victories may shape today's headlines, but credibility determines tomorrow's legitimacy. In an age of instant information, winning the narrative may ultimately prove more difficult—and more important—than winning the war itself.

Who Is the Terrorist? The United States or Iran

"Terrorist" is perhaps the most powerful label in modern geopolitics. Once attached to a country, organization or individual, it often becomes sufficient to justify sanctions, military intervention and even targeted killings. Yet a fundamental question remains unanswered: Who decides what constitutes terrorism, and are the same standards applied to everyone?

The continuing confrontation between the United States plus Israel and Iran exposes this dilemma. Although, a ceasefire was announced in April, military exchanges have continued, with each side accusing the other of violating the agreement. Amid the exchange of accusations, an uncomfortable reality has emerged—the principles of international law appear to change depending on who is using force.

The United States and Israel have defended targeted strikes against senior Iranian military commanders and political leaders as legitimate acts of self-defense. Their critics argue that these operations amount to political assassinations carried out without judicial process and in violation of international law.

The disagreement is not merely legal; it goes to the heart of how the international community defines legitimate use of force.

Similarly, Iran has maintained that military bases used to launch attacks against its territory become lawful military targets, regardless of where they are located. Arab governments, understandably, fear that such retaliation could draw the entire region into a wider conflict. At the same time, competing media narratives often shape public perception more effectively than independently verified facts.

The latest allegation that Iran seeks to assassinate US President Donald Trump has further intensified tensions. If such a plot exists, it deserves unequivocal condemnation. However, it also raises a difficult question. If the targeted killing of foreign leaders or senior officials can be justified as self-defense when undertaken by one state, on what legal or moral basis should similar conduct be judged differently when attributed to another?

This is not an argument in favor of political assassination by any nation. Rather, it is a call for consistency. International law cannot retain credibility if identical actions are described as "self-defense" when committed by allies and "terrorism" when attributed to their adversaries.

The real question, therefore, is not simply who the terrorist is. The more important question is whether the world is prepared to uphold one universal standard of justice—or continue living with two.

 

At PSX volatility spikes daily trading 25.7%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during the outgoing week driven by uncertainties surrounding the US-Iran conflict, pushing oil prices to US$80/ bbl before retreating. The benchmark index declined 4,626 points decline on Wednesday, but recovered partially on Friday. The index closed the week at 182,242 points, down 3,130 points or 1.7%WoW. Market activity remained strong, with average daily trading volume up 25.7%WoW to 1.3 billion shares.

On the macroeconomic front, worker remittances for June 2026 increased by 2%YoY to US$3.5 billion, taking FY26 total to a record high of US$41.6 billion, up 9%YoY.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) were reported at US$18.5 billion, as of July 03, 2026.

Yields during first FY27 T-Bills auction fell by 31-40 bps across all tenors.

Cement sales rose 18%YoY in June 2026 to 4.3 million tons, led by domestic dispatches, taking full year FY26 sales to 50.5 million tons, a 4-year high.

Other major news inflow during the week included: 1) Saudi makes biggest oil price cut in decades, 2) GoP buys more LNG as flows through Hormuz fail to recover, 3) IMF forecasts 3.5% growth rate for Pakistan’s economy in FY27, 4) RDA inflows increased to US$2.8 billion in FY26, and 5) Removal of MDR to provide leverage to banks.

Top performing sectors were: Synthetic & Rayon, Refinery, and Leasing Companies, while lagged included: Sugar & Allied Industries, Close-End Mutual Funds, and Transport.

Major buying was recorded by Individuals and Banks aggregated US$24.5 million. Major sellers were Companies and Mutual Funds with flows of US$20.9 million and US$11.3 million, respectively.

Top performing scrips were: IBFL, GHNI, CNERGY, PGLC, and LOTCHEM, while laggards included: MEHT, NPL, TPLRF1, KTML, and SNGP.

According to AKD Securities, going forward, positive progress on US-Iran conflict, along with moderating international oil prices towards pre-conflict levels would remain the key focus.

Additionally, favorable financial results for the period ended June 30, 2026 would support market sentiment in the near term. Market continues to trade at attractive valuations.

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

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

Iran seeks to assassinate Donald Trump

Recent media reports alleging that Iran seeks to assassinate US President Donald Trump, alongside claims that Trump has instructed the United States to launch a devastating military response should such an attack occur, raise a far more important question than the headlines themselves. Are the rules governing the use of force universal, or are they reserved only for the powerful?

This is not a debate about personalities. It is a debate about principles.

For years, the United States and Israel have defended targeted killings of foreign military and political leaders as legitimate acts of self-defense or national security. Their argument is that extraordinary threats justify extraordinary measures. However, if this doctrine is accepted as a legitimate principle of international conduct, can other states not invoke the very same rationale when they perceive an existential threat?

The issue is not whether Iran is right or wrong. The issue is whether international law can survive if every country adopts the same standard. A principle that applies only to one nation is not a principle at all; it is simply an expression of power.

International politics has long demonstrated that labels are rarely neutral. One nation's freedom fighter is another nation's terrorist. Likewise, one country's "targeted strike" may be viewed by another as political assassination or an act of war. Perspectives differ, but the consequences remain the same.

Iran has endured US sanctions, diplomatic isolation and repeated military threats for nearly half a century. From Tehran's perspective, these policies represent continuous hostility. It is therefore understandable why successive Iranian leaders have described the United States as the "Great Satan." Whether one agrees with that description is beside the point. The reality is that prolonged confrontation has deepened mistrust on both sides.

History offers a consistent lesson. Political assassinations rarely resolve conflicts. More often, they fuel retaliation, strengthen hardliners, weaken diplomacy and perpetuate cycles of violence. Every action establishes a precedent, and every precedent eventually finds a new claimant.

The world should therefore resist the normalization of assassination as an instrument of statecraft. If the targeted killing of another country's political leadership becomes an accepted practice, no head of state can reasonably expect immunity from the same logic. Such a doctrine would make global politics less stable and far more dangerous.

The United States still has an opportunity to reverse this trajectory. Military threats, sanctions and coercion have failed to produce lasting stability in the Middle East. A renewed commitment to diplomacy, respect for sovereignty and the gradual easing of sanctions would serve regional and global security far better than another cycle of escalation.

The international order cannot be sustained through selective justice. The same rules must govern allies and adversaries alike. Otherwise, the world risks replacing the rule of law with the law of retaliation—a path from which there are no true victors.

China has 7 of world’s 10 biggest banks

China’s big four state-run banks are the largest in the world in terms of asset scale, a new report has found, underscoring Beijing’s rising ambitions to build the country into a global financial powerhouse.

The ranking released by The Banker magazine on Wednesday was topped by the four Chinese banks – Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank, Agricultural Bank of China and Bank of China – with JPMorgan Chase following in fifth place.

In total, Chinese banks made up seven of the top 10 in the ranking, which lists global banks in terms of tier-one capital size. All seven of them are controlled by the Chinese government.

Postal Savings Bank of China broke into the top 10 for the first time, while US giants Bank of America and Citigroup ranked sixth and eighth, respectively.

Chinese banks collectively held US$54.8 trillion in total assets, more than double the US$25 trillion held by US banks in the ranking, data showed.

However, the race is not only about size, as US banks continue to hold the advantage in terms of profitability.

Chinese banks in the top 1,000 ranking reported combined pre-tax profits of US$392 billion, compared with US$328 billion for US banks.

The publication noted that American lenders maintained a clear lead in profitability performance, while European banks recorded stronger earnings growth after a relatively weak previous year.

The expansion of China’s banks is closely linked to Beijing’s broader financial ambitions: increasing the global role of the yuan, developing alternative cross-border financing channels and extending China’s influence through overseas banking operations.

Silvia Pavoni, editor-in-chief of The Banker, said Chinese banks’ international expansion and efforts to promote yuan internationalization would become increasingly important drivers of future growth and profitability.

“China’s largest banks continue to underpin their dominance,” Pavoni said, adding that the scale and resilience of the country’s banking sector remained significant as the global economy faced uncertainty and geopolitical challenges.

 

The Gulf Must Not Become the Next Casualty

President Donald Trump's latest remarks should be treated as more than political rhetoric. For the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), they should serve as a strategic warning. Every indication that the United States is prepared to sustain pressure on Iran rather than prioritize reconciliation raises an uncomfortable question: who stands to lose the most from another prolonged regional confrontation?

The answer is unlikely to be Washington or Tehran. It is the Gulf.

Over the past decade, GCC countries have invested hundreds of billions of dollars to diversify their economies, attract foreign investment and transform themselves into global hubs for trade, finance and tourism. Those ambitions depend on one indispensable ingredient—regional stability. Every new military crisis threatens to undermine years of economic progress.

Modern conflicts are no longer judged solely by territorial gains or military victories. They also reshape energy markets, sustain defence industries, influence financial markets and reinforce geopolitical leverage. Periods of prolonged uncertainty often coincide with higher military spending, increased demand for sophisticated weapons systems and heightened volatility in global commodity and equity markets. International media organizations also benefit from continuous coverage of unfolding crises. Yet the countries closest to the conflict invariably bear the greatest economic and security costs.

Energy remains at the heart of this equation. Any threat to Gulf shipping routes or oil infrastructure immediately disrupts global markets, increases freight and insurance costs and weakens investor confidence. While uncertainty pushes energy prices higher, it also encourages consuming nations to diversify supplies and seek alternative sources, creating long-term challenges for traditional exporters.

The GCC must also confront a strategic reality. Iran possesses limited capability to inflict decisive damage on the United States itself. However, American military installations across the Gulf represent visible strategic assets that could become focal points during any wider regional escalation. Whether justified or not, the presence of these facilities inevitably exposes host nations to risks that originate beyond their own borders.

This does not argue for abandoning long-standing security partnerships. Rather, it calls for a sober reassessment of whether existing arrangements continue to maximize Gulf security or inadvertently increase regional vulnerability. Every sovereign nation has both the right and the responsibility to periodically evaluate defence partnerships in light of changing geopolitical realities.

The Gulf has reached a pivotal moment. "Business as usual" is no longer a strategy. GCC leaders should collectively champion de-escalation, strengthen regional diplomacy and ensure that their territories do not become the principal arena for conflicts driven by external rivalries. Stability—not perpetual confrontation—is the foundation upon which the Gulf's future prosperity, security and global influence will ultimately rest.

Trump’s Iran Policy: Follow the Money, Not the Rhetoric

Donald Trump returned to the White House promising to end America's "endless wars" and restore stability through the "America First" agenda. Yet his handling of Iran has told a different story. Since the fragile US-Iran ceasefire was announced, violations have become almost routine. Washington's position has oscillated between calls for restraint and renewed threats. The latest example came when President Trump declared that the interim deal aimed at ending the conflict was "over," once again injecting uncertainty into already fragile global markets.

The reaction was immediate. Wall Street's major indices slipped as investors reassessed geopolitical risks. The ripple effects reached far beyond the United States. Pakistan Stock Exchange also came under heavy selling pressure before recovering part of its losses by the close. Financial markets have become hostages to political messaging emanating from Washington.

During the US presidential campaign, I wrote that it mattered little whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris won the election. The occupant of the White House would change, but the powerful interests shaping American foreign policy would remain remarkably constant. Recent developments have only reinforced that conviction.

Washington's Iran policy appears to have become an exercise in managing competing domestic interests rather than pursuing a coherent diplomatic strategy. Every escalation benefits someone. Defence contractors receive larger orders as regional insecurity grows. Oil companies gain from heightened uncertainty in energy markets. Wall Street profits from volatility that creates trading opportunities. Major media organizations thrive on continuous crisis coverage that attracts audiences and advertising revenues.

None of these realities proves that any one of these powerful constituencies dictates White House decisions. But when every major policy shift repeatedly advances their commercial interests, skepticism is both natural and justified. In politics, patterns often reveal more than official statements.

The uncomfortable truth is that modern American foreign policy increasingly resembles a marketplace where geopolitical crises generate economic opportunities for influential stakeholders. Peace rarely produces exceptional corporate earnings. Tension does.

This is why Trump's changing posture towards Iran deserves closer scrutiny. The issue is not whether he personally seeks confrontation or compromise. The more important question is whether any American president can formulate Middle East policy free from the influence of the military-industrial establishment, energy giants, financial markets and the corporate media.

Perhaps the real lesson is this - American presidents come and go, campaign slogans change, and foreign policy narratives evolve. Yet the beneficiaries of prolonged instability appear strikingly familiar. Until that cycle is broken, the world will continue to pay the price for wars that are declared in the name of security but often end by serving the interests of power and profit.

Who Governs Yemen?

The emergency meeting of Yemen's Presidential Leadership Council in Riyadh over Iran's direct flight to Sanaa raises a fundamental question, who actually governs Yemen today?

The Council described the flight as a violation of Yemen's sovereignty and international law. Yet the very fact that the country's internationally recognized leadership convened outside Yemen inevitably invites scrutiny.

Governments derive legitimacy not only from international recognition but also from their ability to exercise effective authority over their own territory. In practical terms, the Houthis control Sanaa and much of northern Yemen, while the Presidential Leadership Council continues to rely heavily on external political and security support.

This reality reflects the uncomfortable truth that Yemen has evolved into a battleground where competing regional and global powers pursue strategic interests through local actors. Iran openly backs the Houthis, while the internationally recognized government enjoys diplomatic and military support from a coalition led by Saudi Arabia and backed by the United States.

The strategic significance of Yemen extends far beyond its internal politics. Sitting at the entrance to the Red Sea through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, Yemen occupies one of the world's most critical maritime chokepoints. Whoever influences this corridor can affect international trade, energy supplies, and naval movements linking Europe and Asia.

It is therefore unsurprising that many analysts believe the broader contest in Yemen is less about restoring democratic governance and more about securing geopolitical influence over one of the world's busiest shipping routes. In this interpretation, Washington's overriding objective is to maintain strategic leverage over the Red Sea, while regional allies inevitably become participants in a much larger geopolitical competition.

Saudi Arabia is frequently portrayed as the principal architect of Yemen's prolonged conflict. Such a characterization, however, overlooks the wider strategic calculations of global powers. Riyadh has undoubtedly made decisions that attract criticism, but reducing the conflict to a Saudi-Iran rivalry ignores the interests of larger actors whose strategic priorities extend well beyond Yemen itself.

The tragedy is that while external powers compete for influence over a vital maritime corridor, the Yemeni people continue to pay the highest price. The real battle may not simply be for Yemen, but for control of one of the world's most strategically important waterways.

Trump and Netanyahu Have Made Iran a Regional Superpower

The greatest irony of the US-Israel military campaign against Iran is that it appears to have produced results opposite to those publicly declared by Washington and Tel Aviv. While Iran has undoubtedly suffered significant human, economic and infrastructure losses, the conflict has also demonstrated an uncomfortable reality - overwhelming military superiority does not always translate into strategic success.

The campaign, which began on February 28, 2026, was widely seen as an effort to weaken Iran's military capabilities, curtail its regional influence and force political concessions. Yet Iran has neither capitulated nor abandoned its strategic objectives. Instead, it has displayed remarkable resilience despite living under US sanctions for nearly half a century. History shows that nations subjected to prolonged external pressure often emerge more self-reliant, strategically patient and politically determined.

Perhaps the most significant consequence of the conflict has been the transformation of regional perceptions. Iran is increasingly viewed not merely as a country capable of surviving sustained military pressure, but as a state able to impose meaningful costs on two of the world's most powerful military forces. Whether one agrees with Tehran's policies or not, that perception alone strengthens its deterrence and elevates its regional standing.

The conflict has also prompted difficult questions about the United States' role in the Middle East. For decades, several regional governments relied on Washington as the ultimate guarantor of their security. Today, many are reassessing the costs and risks of that dependence. If confrontation with Iran places neighbouring states directly in harm's way, outsourcing national security no longer appears as reassuring as it once did.

Arab capitals also face an unavoidable geographical reality. Iran may lack the capability to strike the US mainland directly, but it possesses the means to target American military installations and strategic assets across the Gulf. Even without launching such attacks, the possibility alone has heightened concerns among governments hosting US forces and critical energy infrastructure.

Adding another layer of complexity are reports that Israel has offered to accommodate additional US military deployments on its territory. Whether viewed as strategic cooperation or military consolidation, such developments reinforce the perception that the regional security architecture is becoming increasingly polarized. Some Arab policymakers may also fear that refusing to align with initiatives such as the Abraham Accords could expose them to greater political and military pressure.

The broader geopolitical implications may prove even more consequential. If the United States gradually reduces its military footprint in the Arabian Peninsula, the resulting strategic vacuum is unlikely to remain unfilled. China and Russia have steadily expanded their diplomatic, economic and security engagement across the region and would be well positioned to deepen their influence as regional states diversify their strategic partnerships.

Ironically, a campaign intended to isolate and weaken Iran may instead be remembered for strengthening its regional position. Military conflicts often reshape perceptions more profoundly than they alter borders. In that respect, history may ultimately record that Trump and Netanyahu achieved the opposite of their declared objectives by helping transform Iran into a more influential and formidable regional power.

Hormuz Security: Responsibility and Compensation Must Go Together

The decision by Britain and France to lead a multinational military mission to secure navigation through the Strait of Hormuz deserves careful scrutiny. While the initiative is being presented as an effort to protect freedom of navigation, it raises a more fundamental question, why should extra-regional powers assume responsibility for a waterway that lies between Iran and Oman?

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most strategically important maritime passages. A substantial portion of global energy supplies and commercial cargo passes through it every day. Ensuring its safety is therefore essential, but geography cannot be ignored. Iran and Oman are the two littoral states that share the Strait. They have the greatest stake in maintaining peace, stability and uninterrupted maritime traffic.

Iran has consistently maintained that the security of the Strait should remain the responsibility of the countries bordering it. That position deserves serious consideration. History has shown that the involvement of outside military powers often complicates regional disputes instead of resolving them. The deployment of multinational naval forces may appear reassuring to some, but it can also intensify strategic competition and increase the risk of confrontation.

It is also difficult to believe that Britain and France are acting entirely on their own. Their initiative appears to reflect a broader Western security strategy in which the United States prefers to remain in the background while its closest allies take the lead. Whether this perception is accurate or not, it is one that many countries in the region are likely to share.

If Iran and Oman are expected to shoulder the responsibility of safeguarding one of the world's busiest maritime corridors, then responsibility and compensation should go hand in hand. Maintaining maritime surveillance, search-and-rescue services, navigation support and security infrastructure requires significant financial resources.

It is therefore reasonable to argue that Iran and Oman should be entitled to levy a regulated transit toll on commercial vessels using the Strait to recover the cost of providing this essential international service.

The Strait of Hormuz belongs to its geography before it belongs to global geopolitics. Lasting maritime security will be achieved not through the presence of foreign warships, but by recognizing the primary responsibility—and the corresponding rights—of Iran and Oman.