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.

The United States at 250: A Taxpayer's Unasked Question

The United States is celebrating the 250th anniversary of its independence. There will be fireworks, parades and speeches praising democracy, liberty and the Constitution. Political leaders will applaud the resilience of American institutions, while corporations will showcase their contributions to innovation, philanthropy and corporate social responsibility.

These celebrations are well deserved. The United States has given the world remarkable scientific discoveries, technological breakthroughs and an economic model that continues to inspire millions.

Yet amid the celebrations, one question is unlikely to be asked.

How closely do the taxpayers examine the way their tax dollars are spent beyond their own borders?

The United States devotes an extraordinary share of public resources to defence and national security. Every military deployment, overseas base, weapons package and security commitment begins with a tax dollar earned by a US worker or business. Governments justify such spending as essential to protecting national interests and maintaining international stability.

Critics argue that some foreign interventions and prolonged military engagements have instead contributed to instability and imposed heavy human and financial costs.

Reasonable people may disagree over these competing views. What should not be disputed, however, is the taxpayer's right to ask questions.

In every democracy, taxpayers are more than a source of government revenue; they are stakeholders in national policy. They have every right to demand transparency, accountability and measurable outcomes whenever vast sums of public money are committed abroad.

If corporations are expected to explain how they spend shareholders' money, governments should be equally prepared to explain how they spend taxpayers' money.

The strength of the United States has never rested solely on its military power. It has also rested on the confidence of its citizens that public institutions remain accountable to the people they serve.

As the United States enters its next quarter millennium, perhaps the most meaningful expression of patriotism is not louder celebration, but deeper scrutiny. Democracies flourish not when citizens applaud every decision of their governments, but when they ask whether every tax dollar reflects the values, priorities and aspirations of the people who earned it.

PSX benchmark index up 3.2%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) witnessed positive momentum during the week ended on July 03, 2026. The improved outlook led to a strong rally in Banks. During the week the benchmark index gained 5,801 points and closed the week at 185,372 points, up 3.2%WoW. Despite a positive week, market participation measured by average daily traded volume declined by 32.5%WoW to 1.0 billion shares.

Market witnessed positive momentum, driven by lower-than expected inflation of 11.07%YoY in June 2026, as full year CPI remained in single digits at 7.05%YoY in FY26. This fueled sentiment around a potential policy rate cut later in the year as expectations for FY27 inflation remain subdued.

The aforementioned inflation also led to a decline in yields for 2, 3, 5, and 10-year tenors in Thursday’s PIB auction.

Positive talks in Doha between the US and Iran led to improved traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, though still below pre-war levels, bringing Brent near US$70/ bbl, further supporting investor confidence.

On the macroeconomic front, trade deficit rose to US$39.5 billion for FY26, up 22%YoY, as higher oil prices weighed on imports.

Foreign exchange reserves held by Pakistan at close of the fiscal year were reported at US$18.4 billion, marking a record high year-end level.

OMC sales declined marginally by 1%YoY in FY26 to 16,190,000 tons, led by higher oil prices.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan debt upgraded to ‘overweight’ by Barclays, 2) FBR achieved the revised tax collection target of PKR12,957 billion for FY26, 3) Middle East producers push on with oil/ LNG loadings despite ship attacks, 4) Pakistan eyes formal energy trade with Tehran, and 5) Pakistan and US discussed maritime cooperation.

Top performing sectors were: Jute, Sugar & Allied Industries, and Synthetic & Rayon, while laggards included: Textile Spinning, Leather & Tanneries, and Exchange Traded Funds.

Major buying was recorded by Mutual Funds and Companies of US$23.5 million and US$6.6 million, respectively. Major sellers were Insurance US$20.9 million and Individuals US$4.8 million.

Top performing scrips were: IBFL, TPLRF1, PTC, UBL, and JVDC, while laggards included: KEL, SRVI, MEHT, PABC, and SNGP.

According to AKD Securities, progress on US-Iran deal, 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.

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.

Restraint at Iran's Defining Moment

As Iran prepares to bid farewell to its Supreme Leader, regional stability depends less on military strength than on strategic patience. For all parties, this is a moment when restraint can prevent miscalculation and preserve the prospects for peace.

The funeral of Iran's Supreme Leader will be far more than a religious ceremony. It will mark one of the most consequential political events in the country's contemporary history. Millions of mourners are expected to gather, while Iran's political, military, and religious leadership is likely to be present. Such an unprecedented congregation presents extraordinary security challenges.

The delay in the burial has prompted widespread speculation. Although Iranian authorities have not officially explained the postponement, many analysts believe it reflects the enormous responsibility of ensuring the safety of both the public and the country's top leadership. Given the prevailing regional tensions, Iran's security establishment is unlikely to leave anything to chance.

One factor that cannot be overlooked is the current geopolitical environment. Following months of military confrontation, covert operations, and escalating rhetoric, Iranian authorities are bound to prepare for every conceivable contingency. Even in the absence of credible evidence of an imminent attack, prudent security planning requires assessing worst-case scenarios. In today's Middle East, perceptions can be as influential as realities.

Historical experience also weighs heavily on Iranian planners. The funeral of Imam Khomeini remains etched in the nation's collective memory after massive crowds created chaos and endangered countless lives. No responsible government would wish to witness a repeat of such scenes, particularly when today's security environment is considerably more volatile than it was decades ago.

This is precisely why Israel and the United States should exercise maximum restraint during this sensitive period. There is no public evidence that either country intends to undertake military action during the funeral. Nevertheless, wisdom dictates avoiding any action that could be perceived as provocative. Military movements, heightened aerial activity, or any unexpected incident could easily be misinterpreted, increasing the risk of an unintended confrontation.

Beyond the strategic risks lies an even greater humanitarian concern. Any confrontation during an event attended by millions of civilians could have catastrophic consequences. The resulting loss of innocent lives would inflame public opinion across the Middle East, deepen regional instability, and further diminish the already fragile prospects for diplomacy.

Strategically, restraint serves the interests of all parties. Allowing Iran to conduct this solemn national event without fear of external interference would reduce the likelihood of miscalculation, deny extremists an opportunity to exploit heightened emotions, and demonstrate that even bitter adversaries recognize certain humanitarian and political boundaries.

The Middle East has endured decades of conflict, retaliation, and strategic misjudgments. The region does not need another crisis born of misunderstanding at one of its most emotionally charged moments. History repeatedly shows that wars are not always the result of deliberate decisions; they often begin with miscalculations, false alarms, and failures of communication.

Iran's leadership transition will undoubtedly shape the region's future. How its adversaries conduct themselves during this period will also be remembered. Strategic restraint should not be mistaken for weakness; on the contrary, it reflects confidence, maturity, and an understanding of the grave consequences of unnecessary escalation.

The funeral of a national leader should remain a moment of mourning, reflection, and orderly transition—not a stage for geopolitical brinkmanship. At this defining moment, the strongest message any nation can send is not through force, but through restraint.

US Military Bases: Security Shield or Regional Liability

For decades, the presence of United States military bases in the Gulf has been presented as a cornerstone of regional security. However, the recent escalation between the United States and Iran has raised a fundamental question for Arab countries hosting these installations - do these bases continue to provide security, or have these become a source of strategic vulnerability?

In any direct confrontation between Washington and Tehran, Gulf states risk becoming exposed to consequences of decisions they did not make. When US forces strike Iranian targets, retaliation can extend to American military facilities located in neighbouring Arab countries, placing their territory, infrastructure, and economies at risk.

The economic impact is equally significant. Gulf economies depend on uninterrupted energy exports, maritime trade, and investor confidence. Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz immediately affects national revenues and global markets. Countries hosting foreign military bases therefore face a difficult reality - they bear the costs of conflicts shaped by external strategic calculations.

The original purpose of these bases was deterrence and protection. Yet changing regional dynamics require a reassessment of whether the existing security framework continues to serve Gulf interests. A military presence designed to prevent instability may, under certain circumstances, become a factor that increases the risk of escalation.

Though, a tough decision, it demands an immediate end to all foreign military cooperation. The GCC states have to ensure that their territories are not used for offensive operations that could invite retaliation and undermine their economic security.

The Gulf region today is far different from the era when external powers largely defined its security arrangements. GCC countries possess greater economic influence, diplomatic capacity, and strategic importance. This may be the time to explore a more balanced security architecture based on regional stability, dialogue, and greater strategic autonomy.

The Strait of Hormuz crisis has highlighted a broader reality - lasting security cannot depend only on military deployments. It requires reducing the risk of confrontation and ensuring that Gulf states are not trapped between competing powers.

The question facing GCC countries is therefore not simply who provides security, but whether the current model truly protects their long-term interests.

Who Will Control Strait of Hormuz?

The debate over the future control of the Strait of Hormuz has moved beyond naval deployments and freedom of navigation. It has become a question of sovereignty, regional power balance, and who will shape the security architecture of one of the world’s most important maritime corridors.

The basic question is straightforward: who will provide security to ships and their crews, and in return, who will collect charges for ensuring safe passage? Geographically, the Strait lies between Iran and Oman, making these two coastal states the natural stakeholders in any future arrangement.

For decades, the Gulf security framework was built around a strong American military presence. The United States played a major role in protecting maritime routes and reassuring regional allies. However, the geopolitical landscape has changed. Past arrangements no longer fully reflect current realities.

Iran, despite years of sanctions and pressure, has emerged as a major regional power with significant influence over Gulf security dynamics. Its location at the Strait of Hormuz provides it with a strategic position that cannot be ignored. Any future framework governing the waterway will have to acknowledge Iran’s role as a neighbouring coastal state.

At the same time, Arab states are reassessing the assumption that their long-term security can depend entirely on external guarantees. The perception that Washington’s regional priorities are closely linked with Israel’s security interests has encouraged some Gulf countries to reconsider the balance between strategic partnerships and regional self-reliance.

This does not mean that the United States has lost its influence in the Gulf. Its military presence, diplomatic reach, and economic relationships remain significant. However, influence is different from ownership. A foreign security role does not automatically translate into authority over a waterway located within the jurisdiction of coastal states.

The discussion over Iran’s proposed transit charge — reportedly around one dollar per barrel — highlights the larger issue. Financially, such a fee may appear limited when compared with global oil prices. The real significance is political: accepting such an arrangement would symbolize recognition of a greater regional role for Iran.

The Strait of Hormuz carries a substantial share of global energy supplies. Any disruption affects oil, gas, fertilizer, food costs, and global inflation. Therefore, the world has a direct interest in stability and predictable rules.

The future of Hormuz may not be determined only by military strength. It will depend on whether a new regional understanding emerges — one that balances international navigation rights with the legitimate interests of countries bordering the Strait.

The central question is no longer whether Iran and Oman have influence over Hormuz. They already do. The real question is whether the world is prepared for a new security arrangement where regional powers play a greater role in managing regional affairs.

Pak-Iran energy cooperation: Geopolitics Limits Economic Choices

For decades, Pakistan has relied on imported energy to meet its growing requirements. Crude oil, refined petroleum products and LNG have largely come from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, creating deep economic and strategic linkages with the Gulf region.

However, Pakistan’s energy map has also been shaped by geopolitical realities. Energy cooperation with Iran has remained limited, largely due to international sanctions on Tehran, particularly those imposed by the United States. The Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline remains one of the clearest examples of how strategic considerations can override economic logic.

At a time when Pakistan faces persistent energy shortages, high import costs and pressure on foreign exchange reserves, the question of affordable and diversified energy supplies has become increasingly important. Yet, despite recent improvement in Pakistan-US relations and public expressions of cooperation from both sides, the sensitive issue of Iranian energy imports remains largely absent from the discussion.

Pakistan also faces potential financial consequences linked to delays in implementing the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline agreement. This highlights a broader dilemma: whether Pakistan’s energy decisions are being driven primarily by economic necessity or constrained by a larger geopolitical environment.

Iran, as a neighbouring country with significant energy resources, could theoretically provide Pakistan with another supply option. Any such engagement, however, would require Islamabad to carefully balance relations with Washington and its longstanding partnerships with key Gulf energy suppliers.

The issue is not simply about choosing one partner over another. Pakistan’s challenge is that energy security, diplomacy and global power politics are now deeply interconnected. In an ideal economic environment, the cheapest and most reliable energy source would naturally attract demand. In reality, international relations often influence commercial decisions.

This has led some analysts to question whether Pakistan has sufficient strategic space to pursue every economically attractive opportunity, including potential energy cooperation with Iran.

For Pakistan, the long-term objective must be an energy policy that maximizes national interest while managing external sensitivities. A country with growing economic ambitions cannot afford energy insecurity, but it must also navigate the complex realities of global alliances.

The emerging debate is therefore not only about Iran, sanctions or pipelines. It is about whether Pakistan can build an energy strategy where economic priorities and geopolitical realities find a workable balance.

Strait of Hormuz: Blockade Becoming a Geopolitical Instrument

The announcement of a truce between United States and Iran created expectations that tensions around the Strait of Hormuz would ease. However, the continued disruption of shipping activity, with vessels and crews still stranded, suggests that the crisis is far from resolved. The world’s most critical energy chokepoint remains under pressure — raising a fundamental question, is this merely a security crisis, or is it becoming a tool of geopolitical influence?

An emerging perception among some analysts is that the prolonged disruption may unintentionally — or strategically — serve the interests of certain global powers, including the United States. While such assessments require careful scrutiny, the geopolitical consequences are undeniable.

For the Gulf Arab states, the crisis has exposed the risks of relying excessively on external security guarantees. Over the years, several Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members have debated whether outsourcing regional security to Washington remains the most sustainable approach, particularly given America’s strong strategic alignment with Israel and its broader Middle East priorities.

The disruption of Hormuz also directly affects the economic interests of major Arab energy exporters. Any restriction on oil flows limits export revenues and creates additional pressure at a time when some Gulf states have been reassessing their security partnerships and strategic autonomy.

The situation has also complicated the regional diplomatic landscape. The initial momentum surrounding the Abraham Accords has faced growing challenges, with some GCC members showing greater caution about deeper engagement amid shifting regional realities.

At the same time, Iran’s energy exports remain under pressure. Any prolonged disruption affecting Iranian oil supplies, particularly shipments destined for China, adds another dimension to the wider US-China strategic competition. Energy security has increasingly become a component of geopolitical rivalry.

Meanwhile, the global energy market has undergone a historic transformation. The United States has emerged as one of the world’s largest oil producers and exporters while expanding its influence in LNG markets. In an environment where supply routes face uncertainty, energy producers with alternative capacity gain strategic importance.

However, the continuation of the crisis also carries significant risks. Higher energy costs, renewed inflationary pressures, and disruption of global trade could create consequences far beyond the Middle East.

The Strait of Hormuz is no longer merely a maritime passage for oil shipments; it has become a symbol of the intersection between energy, security, and global power politics. The critical question is not only who benefits from the disruption, but whether the long-term costs of using energy routes as instruments of strategic competition will outweigh the short-term gains.

OPEC Dilemma: More Oil, Less Revenue

The debate over Iraq’s possible reconsideration of its OPEC membership highlights a deeper challenge facing the global oil market - whether individual producers can protect their economic interests by increasing production, or whether collective discipline remains the only way to preserve value.

According to reports, Iraq is considering all options if OPEC does not allow a significant increase in its production quota. The concern is understandable. Oil remains the backbone of Iraq’s economy, and fiscal pressures have intensified after export disruptions and economic challenges. However, increasing production during a period of declining oil prices may provide more barrels, but not necessarily more revenue.

The reported exit of the United Arab Emirates and growing dissatisfaction among some producers indicate rising internal pressures within OPEC. This development also has wider geopolitical implications.

The United States, having achieved the position of the world’s largest oil producer and a major exporter, has an interest in a more competitive global oil market. A weakened OPEC, with members pursuing independent production strategies, could reduce the organization’s ability to influence global supply management.

However, history suggests that oil producers often suffer when they prioritize volume over value. If every major producer attempts to maximize output, the inevitable outcome is downward pressure on prices, reducing revenues for all exporters.

Saudi Arabia’s approach offers an important lesson. Despite possessing enormous production capacity, Riyadh has frequently supported supply discipline to maintain market stability. The objective is not simply to sell more barrels, but to ensure that each barrel generates maximum economic benefit.

Iraq and other oil-dependent economies must recognize that higher production quotas are not a guaranteed solution. Sustainable revenue growth requires economic diversification, better fiscal management, and reducing excessive dependence on crude exports.

The global energy landscape is changing rapidly. Demand patterns, technological advancement, and alternative energy sources are creating long-term uncertainty for oil producers.

In a declining oil price scenario, increasing production is not a prudent solution. The real challenge for oil-exporting countries is not how many barrels they can produce, but how intelligently they manage the value of the barrels they already have.

The Netanyahu Dilemma: When an Ally Becomes an Obstacle

For years, Benjamin Netanyahu built his political reputation around a powerful proposition: that he was the Israeli leader best positioned to ensure that Washington and Jerusalem remained firmly aligned, particularly on Iran.

His ability to cultivate strong support within American political circles, especially among Republicans, became one of his greatest strategic assets. His repeated warnings about Tehran, his opposition to the Iran nuclear agreement, and his direct engagement with the US political system reinforced the perception that Netanyahu possessed unmatched influence over American policy.

However, the emerging US-Iran understanding has exposed a growing gap between Washington’s broader strategic calculations and Netanyahu’s preferred approach.

The United States appears increasingly focused on containing escalation and preventing another prolonged Middle East conflict. While its commitment to Israel’s security remains intact, Washington seems less willing to allow one partner’s immediate priorities to determine the direction of its regional strategy.

This creates the Netanyahu dilemma.

An ally can remain a valued partner while its policies become difficult to reconcile with another country’s evolving interests. For Washington, the challenge is not abandoning Israel, but managing a relationship where strategic priorities are no longer perfectly aligned.

Netanyahu’s political strength was built on the belief that he could convince successive US administrations that maximum pressure on Iran was the only viable option. The current diplomatic shift suggests that this influence has limits.

The Israeli leader now faces a difficult domestic and international balancing act. Continuing confrontation risks deeper disagreements with Washington, while accepting diplomatic compromises may create political challenges at home.

The upcoming Israeli elections could become a turning point. Not because Washington controls Israel’s political choices, but because a change in leadership could naturally provide room for a different approach while preserving the broader US-Israel relationship.

Netanyahu entered the Iran conflict promising historic achievements — weakening Tehran, reducing the influence of its regional partners, and expanding Israel’s diplomatic breakthroughs. Yet the outcome has been far more complicated. Iran remains a significant regional actor, tensions continue, and the path toward wider normalization has become more uncertain.

The irony is that the leader who spent decades presenting himself as indispensable to Washington may now find his greatest political asset becoming a source of strategic friction.

History shows that alliances survive when they adapt to changing realities. The question facing Netanyahu is whether he can adjust to a new regional order — or whether his political legacy will be defined by the moment when a trusted ally became an obstacle to a different strategic path.

PSX shortened trading week closes almost flat

Pakistan stock Exchange (PSX) witnessed volatility during the shortened trading week, as the benchmark Index declined through the first two trading days before recovering in the final session to close at 179,571 points, up 0.4%WoW. Due to the rollover activity, market participation increased to average daily trading of 1.5 billion shares as compared to 1.4 billion shares in the prior week.

On the positive side was, the US and Iran formally agreed on a 60-day roadmap towards a final deal, sustaining the recent downward momentum in international oil prices, extending decline on expectations of smoother crude flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

Sentiments further improved by Iranian President's visit to Islamabad.

The National Assembly passed the PKR18.8 trillion FY27 budget, broadly favorable for key sectors including Cement, Steel, Refineries, Textiles, Pharma, and Technology, alongside reduction/ elimination of super tax for individuals and corporates.

Another positive was the reduction in petrol prices.

The T-Bill auction saw cut-off yields falling sharply across all tenors.

Broad money supply (M2) rose 9.2% FYTD to PKR44.2 trillion as of June 12, 2026 driven primarily by a 2.8%WoW increase in scheduled bank deposits.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Gulf oil tanker rates nearly doubled as Middle East producers accelerated crude exports, 2) Pakistan expected to save US$3.24 billion through conversion of the Jamshoro Power Plant, 3) Government and the oil industry reached an agreement on a stable petroleum pricing formula, and 4) GoP to handover PIA to new owners by the month-end.

The most active sectors were: Leather & Tanneries, Sugar & Allied Industries, and Textile Composite, while laggards included: Vanaspati & Allied Industries, Synthetic & Rayon, and Refinery.

Major buying was recorded by Companies of US$209.3 million, while major net selling was recorded by Foreigners of US$159.4 million.

Top performing scrips were:  KEL, SRVI, MLCF, ILP, and SNGP, while laggards included: SSOM, AIRLINK, TPLRF1, BAFL, and ABL.

According to AKD Securities, progress on US-Iran deal, along with International oil prices would remain the key focus. Additionally, ease in inflation amid decreased oil prices and favorable financial results for June 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.

Brewing Crisis on Red Sea and Horn of Africa

While global markets remain focused on the Strait of Hormuz and the economic fallout from the US-Israel war on Iran, another geopolitical risk is quietly developing along a different but equally important maritime corridor — the Red Sea and the Horn of Africa.

The region has historically been a crossroads of competition, conflict, and strategic interests. Today, rising tensions between Ethiopia, its northern Tigray region, and Eritrea are reviving concerns that a fragile peace could unravel. The Horn of Africa has endured decades of instability, and any renewed confrontation could create a new security challenge at a time when the world economy is already facing multiple disruptions.

The risks extend beyond national borders. Ethiopia’s internal challenges, Eritrea’s strategic ambitions, and the continuing civil war in Sudan are creating overlapping crises that could draw in regional and external powers. What begins as a local dispute can quickly evolve into a broader geopolitical contest when it involves a region located next to one of the world’s most important shipping routes.

The Red Sea is not merely a regional waterway; it is a lifeline of global commerce. Connecting the Indian Ocean with the Mediterranean through the Suez Canal, it carries a significant portion of international trade, including critical energy shipments and container traffic. Any disruption to ports, shipping lanes, or maritime infrastructure would add further pressure to global supply chains already strained by geopolitical uncertainty.

The timing makes the situation even more concerning. The world is already watching developments around the Strait of Hormuz, another vital energy corridor. A simultaneous crisis affecting both routes could create a serious challenge for energy markets, increase freight costs, raise insurance premiums, and intensify inflationary pressures.

For policymakers and businesses, the message is clear - geopolitical risks are no longer confined to battlefields; they directly influence markets, trade flows, and economic stability. The experience of recent years has shown that supply chains can be disrupted rapidly when strategic chokepoints come under pressure.

The Red Sea crisis may not yet dominate global headlines, but ignoring early warning signals could prove costly. In an interconnected world, stability in distant regions has become a direct economic interest for every nation.

The storm clouds gathering over the Horn of Africa deserve attention before they become another global crisis.