Capture of Venezuelan President: Return of Colonial Seizure Politics

If reports of the capture and removal of Venezuela’s sitting president are even partially accurate, then what is unfolding is not a crisis of governance or an overdue act of justice. It is the unambiguous return of colonial seizure politics—the doctrine that powerful states may confiscate sovereignty itself when defiance becomes inconvenient.

This is not regime change as an accidental by-product of policy failure. It is regime removal as method. The familiar language of democracy, legality, and human rights is little more than ornamental cover. Strip it away and the operating logic is brutally clear: discipline the non-compliant, seize control, and reorder ownership. This is not the breakdown of the international system; it is the system functioning precisely as intended.

Venezuela was effectively subdued long before this moment. Years of sanctions did not merely “pressure” the state; they systematically dismantled its economic sovereignty. Revenues were strangled, institutions hollowed out, and governance rendered structurally unworkable. This was not unintended harm. It was preparation. Economic suffocation created the conditions in which intervention could later be marketed as inevitable rather than chosen.

When sanctions failed to produce surrender, political fiction followed. The US-engineered experiment of Juan Guaidó was not diplomacy but theater—an attempt to outsource sovereignty without tanks. When even that farce collapsed, escalation became the only remaining option. Empires do not retreat when resisted; they recalibrate.

The capture of a sitting president is not law enforcement—it is a declaration of ownership. By asserting jurisdiction over a foreign head of state, Washington is not upholding justice; it is asserting hierarchy. Venezuela is no longer treated as a sovereign political subject but as a managed space—its leadership provisional, its future externally arbitrated. This is not international law stretched beyond recognition. It is international law discarded outright.

Oil is not the subtext of this intervention; it is the text. Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves. Governments that privatize resources on Western terms are tolerated regardless of repression. Governments that insist on national control are destabilized regardless of elections. This is not hypocrisy. It is imperial consistency.

Dismissing Latin American resistance as “anti-Americanism” is willful blindness. From Guatemala and Chile to Panama and Nicaragua, the pattern is consistent: sanctions, destabilization, leadership removal, resource realignment. Venezuela fits perfectly—except this time, the mask is off.

This moment should not be personalized. Trump is not the cause; he is the instrument. The architecture of sanctions, energy interests, and bipartisan hostility to Venezuelan sovereignty predates him and will outlast him.

What is being normalized is more dangerous than Venezuela’s immediate devastation: the idea that sovereignty exists only by imperial permission, that sanctions are preparatory weapons, and that leaders may be seized rather than negotiated with. This is colonialism without occupation—domination without apology.

Venezuela: Delcy Rodriguez Interim President

The Constitutional Chamber of Venezuela's Supreme Court ordered on Saturday that Vice President Delcy Rodríguez assume the role of acting president of the country in the absence of Nicolás Maduro, who was detained early Saturday morning in an operation by US forces.

The court ruling said that Rodríguez would assume "the office of President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in order to guarantee administrative continuity and the comprehensive defense of the Nation."

The ruling added that the court will debate the matter in order to "determine the applicable legal framework to guarantee the continuity of the State, the administration of government, and the defense of sovereignty in the face of the forced absence of the President of the Republic."

 

Will Iran Be the Next Target?

The reported capture of Venezuela’s president should not be seen as an isolated incident. It resembles a full-dress rehearsal—a live demonstration of how far the United States is willing to go to impose political outcomes beyond its borders. For those still clinging to the illusion of sovereign immunity in the international system, this episode should serve as a sobering wake-up call.

Washington has a long record of attempting regime change in Venezuela through sanctions, covert operations, and diplomatic isolation. These efforts largely failed to unseat the government, but they steadily weakened the country’s economy and institutions. When economic strangulation did not deliver political submission, escalation appeared inevitable. The capture of a sitting president marks a dangerous new threshold, one that blurs the line between foreign policy and outright coercion.

History offers unsettling parallels. One may recall the failed attempt by the US in 1980 to free its embassy staff held hostage in Iran. Though framed as a rescue mission, it underscored Washington’s readiness to violate sovereign territory when strategic or political pressure mounts.

More recently, Sheikh Hasina’s transfer to India can be viewed through a similar prism: political outcomes shaped not by domestic consensus but by external facilitation. Different contexts, same method—power over process.

Labeling such actions as “state terrorism” may sound provocative, but the term merits serious consideration. When a powerful state uses fear, coercion, and force to compel political change in weaker nations, the distinction between counterterrorism and terror itself becomes dangerously thin.

The irony is striking, the very actor positioning itself as the global guardian of democracy increasingly relies on methods that undermine international law.

Iran inevitably enters this conversation. Long under sanctions, diplomatically cornered, and persistently portrayed as a threat, Tehran fits the familiar profile. If Venezuela was the rehearsal, Iran could well be the main act. The lesson is stark - resistance invites escalation; sovereignty offers no guarantee.

The world must condemn the US actions unequivocally. Silence today signals consent tomorrow. If such precedents stand unchallenged, no regime—friend or foe—can consider itself safe. The erosion of international norms does not stop with adversaries; it eventually consumes the system itself.

US will intervene if Iran kills protesters, Trump

US President Donald Trump has warned Iran's authorities against killing peaceful protesters, saying Washington "will come to their rescue".

In a brief post on social media, he wrote: "We are locked and loaded and ready to go." He gave no further details.

A senior adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei responded by saying Trump should "be careful" if he intervened, warning of potential chaos across the Middle East.

At least six people are reported to have been killed in Iran on Thursday after almost a week of mass protests sparked by worsening economic conditions.

In Friday's post on Truth Social, Trump wrote: "If Iran shots [sic] and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue."

Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, condemned Trump’s remarks, saying he “should know that American interference in this internal issue is equivalent to chaos across the entire region and the destruction of American interests”.

“We consider the positions of the protesting merchants separate from those of the destructive elements,” Larijani added in a post on X.

“The people of the US should know that Trump began the adventurism. They should take care of their own soldiers.”

Larijani’s remarks likely referenced the US’s wide military footprint in the region. In June, Iran attacked Al Udeid airbase in Qatar after the US strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites during Israel’s 12-day war with Iran.

In his post, the US president did not specify what action Washington could take against the Iranian authorities.

Iranian officials earlier said a member of the country's securities forces had been killed on Wednesday in the western city of Kouhdasht.

Footage posted on social media showed cars set on fire during running battles between protesters and security forces.

The protests began on Sunday in Tehran among shopkeepers angered by another sharp fall in the value of the Iranian currency, the rial, against the US dollar on the open market.

President Masoud Pezeshkian has said he will listen to the "legitimate demands" of the protesters.

The protests have been the most widespread since an uprising in 2022 sparked by the death in custody of Mahsa Amini, a young woman accused by morality police of not wearing her veil properly. 

 

Yemen: Where Saudi and Emirati Paths Parts

For much of the past decade, Yemen has been framed as a proxy battleground between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Yet beneath this familiar narrative lies a quieter but increasingly significant fault line - the divergence between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Though, both entered the Yemen war as close allies, their strategic priorities have steadily drifted apart.

Saudi Arabia’s engagement has remained fundamentally security-centric. Yemen is Riyadh’s vulnerable southern flank, and the prospect of an Iran-aligned force entrenched in Sana’a poses a direct threat. This explains the kingdom’s consistent emphasis on Yemen’s territorial integrity and its support for a strong, central government capable of asserting authority nationwide. For Saudi Arabia, a fragmented Yemen is not a solution but a long-term liability.

The UAE, while initially aligned with these goals, adopted a markedly different approach as the conflict evolved. Abu Dhabi focused less on Yemen’s political center and more on its strategic periphery. Control over ports, islands, and coastal corridors—Aden, Mukalla, Socotra, and areas near the Bab el-Mandeb strait—became central to Emirati calculations. These assets sit astride vital global trade and energy routes, giving them value far beyond Yemen’s internal politics.

This divergence became most visible in southern Yemen. The UAE backed local militias, most notably the Southern Transitional Council (STC), which advocates autonomy or independence for the south. While these forces proved effective in securing territory and countering militant groups, they also challenged the authority of the Saudi-backed Yemeni government. Repeated clashes between allied factions exposed the incompatibility of Saudi and Emirati endgames.

For Riyadh, decentralization risks prolonged instability and leaves the north vulnerable to sustained Houthi—and by extension Iranian—influence. For Abu Dhabi, a decentralized or divided Yemen, with friendly actors controlling key maritime nodes, offers influence without the burden of governing a fractured state.

Tensions were further sharpened by differing risk calculations. Saudi Arabia remained deeply exposed militarily and diplomatically as the war dragged on. The UAE, by contrast, reduced its direct military footprint after 2019, outsourcing security to local allies while retaining strategic leverage. This asymmetry quietly altered the balance within the coalition.

The Saudi–UAE rift in Yemen is not ideological, nor is it an outright break. It is a case study in how alliances strain when national interests diverge. Yemen has revealed a fundamental truth of regional geopolitics - partners may fight together, but they rarely fight for the same future.

PSX Benchmark index up 3.8%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) moved upwards sharply during the week, with benchmark Index advancing 6,634 points, up 3.8%WoW, to close at a fresh all-time high of 179,035 points.

Market participation improved by 9.7%WoW, with average daily traded volume rising to 1.3 billion shares, as compared to 1.1 billion shares in the prior week.

Momentum was driven by a favorable new year effect alongside a softer than expected December 2025 inflation of 5.6%.

Sentiments were further buoyed by sharp rally in the E&P sector, following OGDC’s oil and gas discovery in Nashpa Block, where a second formation delivered 4,100 barrels oil and 10.5mmcfd gas, adding to the earlier discovery announced in December 2025.

OMC volumes also increased by 6%YoY during December 2025.

On the macroeconomic front, Trade deficit increased by 24%YoY to US$3.7 billion during December 2025, whereas, GDP grew by 3.7%YoY during 1QFY26.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$13 million to US$15.9 billion as of December 26, 2025.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) SBP buys US$6.9 billion from currency market in 12 months, 2) FBR collects PKR6.2 trillion in 1HFY26, but falls short by PKR338 billion of target, 3) Pakistan Eyes US$1 billion Liability Settlement via UAE investment in Fauji Group, 4) US seeks Pakistani partnership in locomotive sales, mineral exploration, and 5) Pakistan gets ready to launch first Panda bond in China.

Transport, Property, Vanaspati & Allied Industries, Oil & Gas Exploration Companies, and Pharmaceuticals were amongst the top performing sectors, while Jute, Woollen, Cement, Real estate Investment Trust, and Textile Composite, were amongst the laggards.

Major buying was recorded by Mutual Funds and Companies with a net buy of US$24.5 million and US$9.4 million, respectively. Foreigners and Banks were major sellers with net sell of US$18.8 million and US$10.7 million respectively.

Top performing scrips of the week were: JVDC, SSOM, UBL, FFL, and EFERT, while laggards included: DGKC, CHCC, KTML, KOHC, and MLCF.

AKD Securities foresees the positive momentum in the benchmark index to continue due to further monetary easing driven by improving external account position and continuous focus on reforms amid political stability.

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

Investors’ sentiments are expected to improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

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

Year 2026 Key Events

Happy New Year from Nikkei Asia! It's the beginning of 2026, and in newsroom operations, one of the most important tasks is scheduling. Of course, the news never unfolds exactly as we predict. Our profession is to plan, prepare for news and respond flexibly to breaking headlines, grounded in meticulous reporting. With that caveat, I'd like to share my humble predictions on key news events likely to happen this year in Asia and beyond.

First, Asia has some major elections coming up. In Myanmar, the first general election since the military seized power in 2021 is being held in stages, with results expected by the end of January. Even after the election, military-friendly rule will probably remain, as will tensions with pro-democracy forces and ethnic groups. What deserves attention is how regional organizations like ASEAN as well as neighboring and major countries position themselves toward Myanmar's new administration. Following that, elections will be held in Thailand and Nepal. Thailand's general election is expected to significantly impact the country's uncertain relationship with Cambodia.

In business and tech, AI and EVs will be in the spotlight again following last year's booms. Massive data centers were built across Asia, and Chinese-made EVs expanded their market share, particularly in Southeast Asia. In AI, concerns about a stock market "bubble" remain strong, and whether that boom continues, deflates or goes bust will be a significant focus. Since Western markets hesitated to join the rapid EV shift, sales of Chinese EVs are likely to keep surging, especially in Asia. However, the crowded sector has given way to excessive competition, and this year may clearly separate winners from losers.

From June to July, the FIFA World Cup will be held in the U.S., Canada and Mexico. I'll refrain from predicting the champion, but you all know which team I'm rooting for. And this time, I think we might make it pretty far.

In November, the U.S. will hold midterm elections, which will serve as a verdict on President Trump's first two years in office. Over the past year, the president has shaken Asia and the rest of the world with threats and tariffs. This year, especially in the latter half, he will likely have to turn his attention to domestic issues. That said, Trump has defied every prediction so far, so caution is warranted.

How will China's economy evolve? Will U.S.-China relations improve or worsen? Predictions could go on endlessly, so I'll stop here. One thing is for sure in an increasingly uncertain world: Nikkei Asia's reporters and editors will spare no effort to deliver fact-based, insightful journalism on all issues. Please continue to look forward to Nikkei Asia's coverage in 2026.

Courtesy: Nikkei Asia

Western Media’s Selective Outrage on Iran

Protests are a natural and fundamental part of any society whose citizens care about their future and believe they can influence it. They are not a sign of systemic failure, but an indicator of civic health and the practice of free speech, assembly, and association. For Western states, their media, and their politicians, all of this holds true—except when the protests occur in Iran.

The unprecedented volatility in the currency market and the rapid devaluation of the Iranian Rial in recent weeks compelled business owners (known as bazaaris) to shutter their shops, go on strike, and gather in several of Tehran’s central squares to voice their discontent. Reports from journalists on the scene and footage shared by participants indicate the protests—spanning several days—remained largely peaceful.

Demonstrators refrained from vandalizing public property, kept pathways open for vehicles, and directed their slogans toward improved economic management. Anti-riot forces monitored the gatherings and seldom intervened. None of what has emerged from Iran would be unfamiliar in the regular protests seen across European capitals or American cities.

Yet this manner of protest does not sit well with the West or with Israel. Circulated videos show unidentified individuals urging bazaaris to vandalize property and block streets. In one instance, a young woman addressing a crowd fled after protesters refused to escalate into violence. In another, a man attempted to set a municipal trash bin ablaze before bystanders intervened and security forces arrested him. None of the bazaaris recognized him afterward.

Simultaneously, an online influence campaign has emerged, editing videos and fabricating audio to falsely suggest protesters are demanding the return of the deposed Shah’s son. A widely circulated image symbolizing the protests was later exposed as AI-generated.

Israel has openly admitted deploying agents to steer these peaceful demonstrations toward chaos. Mossad’s Persian-language account urged Iranians to “hit the streets,” while an Israeli television reporter openly called for organizing protests to justify a wider war. Iran International echoed similar narratives, promoting escalation as a pathway to foreign military action.

Political figures joined in. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett declared his readiness to help Iranians achieve “freedom,” while US President Donald Trump warned Iran of further “turmoil,” without acknowledging that Iran’s economic distress stems largely from the “maximum pressure” sanctions he imposed in 2018.

Iranian authorities acknowledged the protests and announced steps to stabilize the Rial. President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf both described the demonstrations as legitimate while cautioning against foreign exploitation.

Ultimately, these events reveal a clear double standard - peaceful assembly is praised in one context yet exploited when it occurs in a country opposed by Western and Israeli interests. The true measure of these protests lies not in sensationalized narratives from abroad, but in the legitimate and orderly spirit shown by the Iranian people themselves.

PSX Benchmark Index up 51 percent in 2025

According to Pakistan’s leading brokerage house, Topline Securities, Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) during 2025 posted return of 51%, taking 2 years cumulative returns to 179%. In US$ terms, market posted return of 50% (2 year returns 180%). The stated return is inclusive of dividends received during this period.

The larger portion of the price return (40%) came through re-rating of index, with PE rising from 4.1x in December 2024 to 7.1x in December 2025. The dividend yield during the year was 8%.

The continuation of positive momentum was driven by stable and improving economy, political stability, lower interest rates and stable PKR also helped.

Major triggers during the year which helped index in re-rating included: 1) Successful IMF review throughout the year, 2) Credit rating upgrade by all 3 top global rating agencies S&Ps, Moody’s and Fitch, 3) decline in interest rate by 250 bps, 4) stable/ improved macro indicators, 5) Saudi Arabia- Pakistan Defence Pact, and 6) PIA privatization.

During the year, market also witnessed few volatile event s namely Pakistan India Conflict of May 2025, which resulted in market losing 5.6% in 3 sessions, recovered all losses in a single day after successful mediation by US president Donald Trump. Other events which caused volatility in market were, Iran Israel war, and imposition of tariffs by United States on global economies including Pakistan.

PSX market capitalisation also increased by 36% in 2025 to US$70 billion but still below its 2017 peak of US$100 billion.

Trading activity recorded strong growth in both volume and value, with volumes (ready/ cash) per day at PSX up 40% to 797 million shares/ day in 2025 which is all time high. Similarly, average traded value per day was up 64% to PKR37 billion/ day in cash market which is also all time high. In futures market, total traded volume and value per day were also up by 35% and 76% to 249 million share/ day and PKR14 billion/ day, respectively.

As per Bloomberg data, Pakistan’s KSE-100 Index was among the fifth best-performing markets in Asia/ Pacific region in US dollar terms in 2025.

The KSE Index remained the second-best performing major asset class in 2025, while gold was the top performer with a return of 73%, based on selected investment assets class in Pakistan.

PSX witnessed same momentum in offerings in 2025, with the bourse witnessing 7 offerings (including 2 GEM Board offerings and 1 Migration). However, total amount raised from investors through the 7 offerings in 2025 stood at PKR4.3 billion as against PKR8.4 billion in 2024.

Economic Assassination: US Pressure Crippling Venezuelan Economy

Donald Trump’s revived “maximum pressure” strategy on Venezuela is no longer an abstract policy tool; it is inflicting visible damage on the country’s economic core. The clearest impact is unfolding in the oil sector, where state-run PDVSA has begun shutting down wells in the Orinoco Belt as inventories swell and tanker seizures disrupt exports. What began as pressure aimed at political leverage is increasingly resembling economic strangulation.

For much of 2025, Venezuela’s oil output had been staging a cautious recovery. Production averaged around 1.165 million barrels per day in November, a 20%YoY increase that provided a rare fiscal lifeline. That momentum now appears fragile.

According to Bloomberg, PDVSA plans to cut Orinoco Belt output by at least 25%, reducing production to roughly 500,000 barrels per day. Such a reduction could wipe out nearly 15% of Venezuela’s total liquids production, reversing much of the year’s gains and intensifying balance of payments stress in an economy already under strain.

The cuts are being applied selectively, underscoring the depth of operational constraints. Extra-heavy crude from the Junín block is expected to be curtailed first, as these fields depend heavily on imported diluents. Lighter crude fields, requiring fewer blending inputs, are being kept online for as long as possible to preserve limited export capacity.

While diluent flows have not fully stopped, these are increasingly unreliable. Russian suppliers have delivered four tankers of naphtha so far in December, even as seizures of very large crude carriers continue. Yet supply disruptions are no longer the sole bottleneck. Limited storage for upgraded bituminous crude, combined with constrained export routes, is turning unsold oil into stranded inventory. Wells are being shut not for lack of reserves, but for lack of access to markets.

The broader implications are difficult to ignore. Sanctions are no longer merely restricting Venezuela’s ability to sell oil; they are shaping production decisions inside the country. When external pressure determines which wells remain operational, the line between economic coercion and economic punishment becomes increasingly blurred.

Whether this amounts to “economic assassination” is open to debate. What is clear is that the costs extend beyond political elites. With oil revenues underpinning the entire economy, Venezuela’s fragile recovery risks sliding into renewed contraction—raising uncomfortable questions about the humanitarian and strategic price of maximum pressure.

Obituary: Khaleda Zia

Khaleda Zia, Bangladesh’s first woman prime minister and one of the most consequential — and polarizing — figures in the country’s post-independence politics, died on Tuesday after a prolonged illness, she was 80. Her death marks the end of an era dominated for more than three decades by an intense rivalry that shaped Bangladesh’s political culture, institutions and democratic trajectory.

Born Khaleda Khan, she lived a largely private life until tragedy thrust her into public prominence. Described by contemporaries as shy and family-oriented, she devoted herself to raising her two sons until the assassination of her husband, President Ziaur Rahman, in a failed military coup in 1981. Three years later, she assumed leadership of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), founded by her late husband, pledging to fulfil his vision of rescuing Bangladesh from poverty and economic stagnation.

Khaleda Zia rose to national leadership during a historic moment. Alongside Sheikh Hasina, daughter of Bangladesh’s founding leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, she led a popular uprising that toppled military ruler Hossain Mohammad Ershad in 1990. Yet the alliance soon collapsed, giving birth to one of South Asia’s fiercest political rivalries. The two leaders came to be known as the “battling Begums,” their contrasting personalities and uncompromising politics dominating public life for decades.

In 1991, Khaleda Zia won Bangladesh’s first widely regarded free and fair election, becoming the country’s first female prime minister and only the second woman to lead a democratic government in the Muslim world after Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto. Her government restored the parliamentary system, encouraged foreign investment, and made primary education free and compulsory.

Defeated in 1996, she returned to power with a landslide victory in 2001. However, her second term was overshadowed by the rise of Islamist militancy, allegations of corruption, and political violence, including the deadly 2004 grenade attack on an opposition rally — an episode that would haunt her legacy.

Ousted from power in 2006, Khaleda Zia spent years in jail or under house arrest amid corruption cases she consistently denounced as politically motivated. Her health steadily declined, and she was released on humanitarian grounds before being fully freed in 2024 following the ouster of Sheikh Hasina. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court acquitted her and her family in the long-running corruption cases.

Though long absent from office, Khaleda Zia remained a commanding presence, with the BNP retaining deep popular roots. Her death closes a turbulent chapter in Bangladesh’s history — one defined by resilience, rivalry, and the enduring struggle for democratic stability.

Netanyahu’s Washington Visit: Strategy, Sponsorship, and Shared Responsibility

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States is being portrayed as routine strategic coordination. In reality, it reflects a deeper convergence in which Washington is no longer a distant mediator but a principal enabler of Israel’s expanding regional agenda. The visit highlights not only Israeli ambitions, but also America’s sustained military, intelligence, and diplomatic sponsorship.

At the center of discussions lies Iran. Israel’s objective has clearly shifted from containment to systematic degradation of Iran’s strategic capabilities—nuclear latency, missile production, drones, and proxy networks. This transition would be impossible without continued US arms supplies, intelligence sharing, and political cover. While Washington publicly warns against escalation, its steady flow of advanced weaponry and repeated shielding of Israel at international forums effectively signal consent rather than restraint.

Regime change in Iran remains a sensitive phrase in Washington, but prolonged destabilization appears to be the preferred substitute. Cyber operations, economic pressure, and covert actions designed to exploit Iran’s internal vulnerabilities fit comfortably within a grey-zone strategy that allows plausible deniability. Western intelligence agencies may not openly own such operations, but coordination and silence often speak louder than formal declarations.

Saudi normalization remains another Israeli objective, though the Gaza war has made recognition politically costly for Riyadh. Netanyahu’s calculation is that the United States can again absorb the pressure—offering security guarantees and strategic incentives to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. In doing so, Washington risks further eroding its credibility across the Arab and Muslim world by prioritizing geopolitical bargains over public sentiment.

In Syria, Israel already enjoys near-unrestricted freedom of action, facilitated by US political backing and Russia’s strategic distraction. The goal now is to institutionalize strategic denial—preventing Iranian re-entrenchment and treating Syrian sovereignty as expendable in the pursuit of regional dominance.

Lebanon presents a similar pattern. Israel’s posture toward Hezbollah appears to be shifting from deterrence to attrition, with Washington focused on managing escalation rather than preventing it. Proposals to revise UNIFIL’s mandate or force Hezbollah north of the Litani risk dragging Lebanon into another devastating cycle.

Ultimately, Netanyahu’s visit is less about crisis management than about reaffirming a permissive American environment—one that allows Israel to act forcefully while the United States absorbs diplomatic costs. As Washington continues to arm, shield, and enable Israel, it also assumes responsibility for the instability that follows.

Israel to Seek US Help in Another Round of War with Iran

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travels to Mar-a-Lago to meet US President Donald Trump, reports suggest the visit is less about diplomacy and more about reigniting confrontation with Iran. Despite growing friction between Netanyahu and Trump’s advisers, the Israeli leader is expected to press Washington to support, or directly participate in, another round of military escalation.

According to NBC News, Netanyahu plans to argue that Iran’s expanding ballistic missile program presents an urgent threat requiring swift action. He is expected to present Trump with options for US involvement in potential military operations. Analysts, however, view this shift in emphasis with skepticism. Sina Toossi of the Center for International Policy notes that Netanyahu’s focus on missiles appears to be an attempt to manufacture a new casus belli after the collapse of the nuclear argument.

This inconsistency has drawn criticism even within Israel. Yair Golan, leader of Israel’s center-left Democrats party, questioned how Netanyahu could declare a “historic victory” last June—claiming Iran’s nuclear threat and missile capabilities had been neutralized—only to return months later seeking US approval to strike Iran again.

Iran will not be the only issue on the agenda. Israeli officials indicate Netanyahu will also push Trump to harden his stance on Gaza, demanding Hamas’s disarmament before any further Israeli troop withdrawals under the second phase of Trump’s peace plan. This comes amid mounting US frustration over Israel’s repeated violations of the October ceasefire.

While Trump has sought to cultivate a peacemaker image, Israel’s actions on the ground have complicated that narrative. Near-daily Israeli strikes have reportedly killed over 400 Palestinians, while a sustained blockade has left hundreds of thousands displaced, exposed to winter conditions, and deprived of adequate food, fuel, and medicine.

Trump’s advisers, according to Axios, increasingly fear Netanyahu is deliberately undermining the peace process to keep the conflict alive. Beyond Gaza, Netanyahu is also expected to seek continued US backing for Israel’s territorial expansion in Syria and renewed latitude to escalate against Hezbollah in Lebanon—both areas where Israeli actions have already strained US policy objectives.

As Toossi argues, Netanyahu’s visit reflects not a strategy to resolve crises but to defer accountability. The meeting’s outcome will test whether Washington continues to underwrite open-ended escalation—or begins to draw clearer limits around Israel’s regional ambitions.

Remembering Dr Shamshad Akhtar

Dr Shamshad Akhtar’s passing marks the end of an era in Pakistan’s economic and financial history. She was not merely a technocrat of rare caliber; she was a steady moral compass in moments when the country’s financial system stood at critical crossroads. Her life was defined by discipline, intellect, and an unwavering commitment to institutional integrity—qualities that are all too scarce in public life.

As Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, Dr Akhtar played a historic role in strengthening monetary governance and safeguarding macroeconomic stability during a period of global uncertainty and domestic pressures. She believed deeply in rule-based policymaking, central bank independence, and prudent regulation—principles she defended with quiet firmness rather than public theatrics. Under her stewardship, the SBP emerged as a more credible, resilient, and professionally anchored institution.

Her contribution did not end there. As Chairperson of the Pakistan Stock Exchange, she brought the same clarity of purpose and ethical rigor to capital markets. At a time when speculation often overshadowed substance, Dr Akhtar consistently advocated transparency, investor confidence, and long-term market development. She understood that markets thrive not on hype, but on trust—and she worked tirelessly to nurture that trust.

On a personal level, Dr Shamshad Akhtar commanded respect without demanding it. She carried herself with grace, intellectual humility, and an unshakeable sense of responsibility to the public good. She inspired younger professionals—especially women—by demonstrating that excellence, not patronage, is the true currency of leadership. Her presence reassured colleagues that professionalism still had a place in Pakistan’s policy circles.

Dr Akhtar’s legacy will endure in the institutions she strengthened and the standards she set. In a system often vulnerable to expediency, she stood for consistency. In an environment prone to excess, she represented restraint. Pakistan has lost not just a former central bank governor or market regulator, but a guardian of financial discipline.

May her soul rest in peace. Her contributions will be remembered long after the noise of the moment fades, etched quietly but firmly into the country’s economic history.

 

 

Remembering Benazir Bhutto: A Trailblazer of Pakistani Politics

Benazir Bhutto made history as the first woman to lead a Muslim-majority country, breaking barriers in a world where political leadership was overwhelmingly male-dominated. Her election as Prime Minister of Pakistan was not just a personal triumph but a beacon of possibility for women across the Muslim world. With extraordinary vision, intellect, and charisma, she inspired millions to believe that courage and determination could overcome entrenched societal and political limitations. She was a leader who combined elegance with tenacity, compassion with political acumen, and ambition with a commitment to justice and democracy.

On December 27, 2007, the world lost this remarkable figure when she was assassinated, sending shockwaves across Pakistan and the international community. Her death marked a tragic end to a life devoted to political reform, social justice, and the fight for democracy.

Born into Pakistan’s political elite, Benazir inherited a legacy of leadership and activism from her father, former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. She emerged as a formidable force in Pakistani politics in the 1970s and 1980s, defying patriarchal norms and military authoritarianism. Twice elected Prime Minister, in 1988 and 1993, she pursued ambitious reforms aimed at modernizing Pakistan, empowering women, and advancing social development. Her tenure, however, was fraught with challenges, including political opposition, allegations of corruption, and a volatile geopolitical environment that tested her resilience.

Bhutto’s assassination, in a country already reeling from political unrest, triggered widespread chaos and violence. Hundreds lost their lives in the aftermath, with reports of atrocities compounding the national tragedy. Despite her party’s participation in government and her husband Asif Ali Zardari’s presidency, the masterminds behind her killing remain unpunished, casting a long shadow over Pakistan’s justice system. Analysts continue to debate the motives behind her murder, from internal power struggles to broader geopolitical forces at play during that era.

Yet, beyond the controversies and tragedy, Benazir Bhutto’s legacy endures. She remains a symbol of courage, resilience, and the relentless pursuit of democratic ideals in the face of adversity. Her vision and leadership continue to inspire generations of Pakistanis, especially women, to dream without limits. Her life and untimely death serve as a reminder of both the dangers of challenging entrenched power and the enduring impact of a leader who dared to transform history.

Epstein Case highlights Collapse of Moral Authority

The Jeffrey Epstein affair is not merely a criminal scandal; it is an exposure of systemic rot within the US power structure. For more than three decades, a private island—Little Saint James—functioned as a protected enclave where influential figures from Western politics, finance, technology, and culture operated beyond law and scrutiny. This was not an accidental blind spot but a sustained failure enabled by privilege, power, and institutional silence.

Epstein’s operation preyed on teenage and underage girls through an organized trafficking network that spanned borders and social classes. Despite repeated investigations and mounting evidence, he escaped serious accountability for years. Such prolonged impunity was not the result of legal incompetence alone. It reflected protection—explicit or implicit—from within the highest echelons of the system he served.

When Epstein was finally arrested in mid-2019, expectations of a reckoning briefly surfaced. They were swiftly extinguished. His death in federal custody—officially declared a suicide—occurred under conditions that defied standard security protocols. Given the number of powerful individuals implicated, public skepticism was inevitable and justified. The belief that Epstein was silenced to prevent wider exposure has since become embedded in public consciousness.

Subsequent government conduct only reinforced suspicion. Congressional pressure forced partial disclosures, yet key documents were withheld or re-redacted, undermining claims of transparency. Under the Trump administration, selective leaks appeared designed less to uncover truth than to manage political fallout—diverting attention toward rivals while distancing allies. This was narrative control, not justice.

What remains most troubling is not what is known, but what appears implausible to dismiss. An operation of this scale—global in reach, durable across administrations, and populated by high-value individuals—could not have existed in isolation.

History demonstrates that intelligence services routinely exploit sexual entrapment and kompromat as tools of leverage. Whether through direct involvement, tacit tolerance, or post-facto exploitation, the notion that Epstein’s enterprise existed entirely outside intelligence interest strains credulity.

Was Little Saint James merely a den of elite depravity, or a controlled environment with strategic utility? Was Epstein the architect—or merely a facilitator? These questions persist because no authority has convincingly answered them.

Ultimately, the Epstein case exposes a deeper hypocrisy. A state that postures as the global arbiter of morality and human rights has revealed its own elite to be insulated from consequence. The truth may never fully surface, but the convergence of power, corruption, and silence is now impossible to deny.

PSX benchmark index closes at an all-time high of 172,401

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) experienced volatility throughout the week, driven by portfolio adjustments and realignments at year-end. However, the bullish momentum prevailed on the continuation of investor optimism amid recent 50bps rate cut announced by the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP). Benchmark index gained 996 points to close at an all-time high of 172,401 points, reflecting an increase of 0.6%WoW.

Market participation weakened by 3.5%WoW due to average daily traded volume falling to 1.1 billion shares, as compared to 1.2 billion shares in the prior week.

The Government of Pakistan successfully executed the privatization of the national carrier, PIA, with a consortium led by the Arif Habib Group emerging as the winning bidder for the acquisition of a 75% stake.

T-bills yields declined on one-month, 3-months, 6-months and 12-months paper, on the first auction after surprise 50bps cut in policy rate.

Foreign exchange reserves held by SBP increased by US$16 million, to US$15.9 billion as of December 19, 2025.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan eyes January Panda Bond debut, 2) Pakistan receives US$700 million from the World Bank for tax reforms, 3) ADB reviews progress on ML-I rail upgradation, and 4) Pakistan, Korea look to boost chemical trade.

Property, Technology, Modaraba, Paper & Board, and Fertilizer were amongst the top performing sectors, while laggards included: Inv. Banks, Woollen, Textile Weaving, Vanaspati, and Leasing

Major buying was recorded by Mutual Funds with a net buy of US$4.4 million, while Insurance Companies emerged as major sellers with net sell of US$5.0 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: JVDC, PTC, KOHC, BOP, and MEHT, while laggards included: YOUW, RMPL, UNITY, SSGC, and GADT.

AKD Securities foresees the momentum in the benchmark index to continue given successful third tranche disbursement under the EFF & RSF, monetary easing environment, minimal flood impact and improved credit ratings by global agencies amid falling fixed income yields.

Investor sentiment is expected to further improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

This outlook is supported by the lack of alternative investment avenues and the attractive valuation of local equities, with the KSE-100 trading at a multiple of 8.0x while offering a dividend yield of 6.5%.

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

From Superpowers to a Super Syndicate

This writeup discusses a proposition that may appear unconventional but is rooted in long-term observation. After more than a decade of writing on geopolitics in South Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, it has become increasingly evident that the traditional concept of regional and global superpowers no longer adequately explains contemporary international politics. Power today is exercised less through overt state rivalry and more through a coordinated, transnational arrangement that may best be described as a Super Syndicate.

This emerging order is not ideological in nature. It is driven by strategic convergence among states possessing advanced intelligence capabilities and sustained by powerful economic interests. The principal beneficiaries include the global military-industrial complex, energy exploration and production companies, major financial institutions, and international shipping networks. These actors provide the financial backbone, while intelligence agencies of aligned states facilitate operational coordination, risk management, and narrative control.

Unlike the bipolar or unipolar systems of the past, the Super Syndicate does not thrive on direct confrontation among its members. Instead, it functions through a tacit division of strategic space. Countries and regions are assigned defined spheres of influence, minimizing direct competition while maximizing collective gain. Conflicts, when they occur, are managed rather than resolved, ensuring continuity rather than closure.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict illustrates this dynamic. While Ukraine has suffered extensive human and infrastructural losses and Europe has faced economic and security disruptions, the broader global system remains intact. Arms manufacturers have recorded unprecedented growth, energy markets have been restructured, and financial systems have adjusted without systemic shock. The conflict persists not because resolution is unattainable, but because prolonged instability serves entrenched interests.

The situation in Gaza further exposes the asymmetries of this order. Israel’s military campaign has continued despite widespread international criticism and humanitarian concern. Yet institutional accountability has remained elusive. This is not merely a failure of diplomacy; it reflects a structural imbalance in which certain actors operate with effective immunity due to their strategic positioning within the broader system.

Iran’s experience offers additional insight. Despite its aspirations for regional influence, Tehran has remained constrained by prolonged economic sanctions. The recent escalation involving Israel revealed a notable regional alignment. Several Middle Eastern states, while publicly maintaining neutrality, actively supported Israel through intelligence cooperation and defensive measures. The episode underscored the limitations faced by states attempting to operate outside the prevailing strategic framework.

For Pakistan and other developing states, these trends carry important implications. Sovereignty in the contemporary international system is increasingly conditional, shaped by economic leverage, intelligence alignment, and narrative positioning rather than formal equality among states. Moral appeals and legal arguments, while important, rarely translate into decisive outcomes without strategic backing.

The conclusion is not conspiratorial but analytical - global power is no longer exercised solely through identifiable superpowers. It is mediated through a coordinated network of state and non-state actors whose interests converge across military, financial, and strategic domains. Recognizing this reality is essential for policymakers, analysts, and scholars seeking to navigate an international order that is less visible, more complex, and increasingly resistant to traditional frameworks of analysis.

Pakistan Economic Turnaround: A Narrative Built on Illusions

Finance Minister, Muhammad Aurangzeb’s upbeat portrayal of Pakistan’s economy may sound reassuring to international audiences, but it rests on fragile assumptions and selective facts. The claim that Pakistan has reached a “critical turning point” reflects more narrative management than economic reality.

There is no denying that inflation has eased, foreign exchange reserves have inched upward, and the current account has temporarily moved into surplus. However, these outcomes are not the result of deep structural reform or productivity gains. They are the by-product of harsh demand compression, import suppression, excessive taxation, and reliance on remittances. This is stabilization through pain, not sustainable recovery.

A primary fiscal surplus achieved by slashing development spending and squeezing an already overburdened tax base is hardly a triumph. It signals a state retreating from growth and social investment rather than fixing long-standing inefficiencies. Economic growth of 2.7 percent in a country with one of the fastest-growing populations in the world is not progress—it is stagnation disguised as stability.

The minister’s repeated emphasis on an export-led transition remains largely aspirational. Pakistan’s exports are still narrow, low value, and vulnerable to external shocks. Textiles dominate, agriculture remains inefficient and climate-exposed, and the IT sector faces policy inconsistency and weak infrastructure. Announcing reforms does not equal executing them. Competitiveness is earned through governance, not rhetoric.

Privatization, energy sector restructuring, and tariff liberalization continue to be recycled promises. State-owned enterprises remain a drain on public finances, while circular debt persists as a structural failure. Investors do not respond to interviews and roadmaps; they respond to credible institutions, policy predictability, and contract enforcement—areas where Pakistan remains deficient.

Remittances are hailed as a pillar of stability, yet they highlight a deeper failure - an economy unable to generate opportunities at home. Similarly, foreign reserves covering barely two-and-a-half months of imports offer little protection in an increasingly volatile global environment.

Invoking an “East Asia moment” borders on self-deception. East Asian success was built on disciplined industrial policy, export diversification, human capital investment, and institutional strength—none of which Pakistan has demonstrated at scale. Acknowledging challenges such as population growth, learning poverty, gender exclusion, and climate vulnerability means little without decisive action.

Pakistan’s economy is not transitioning from crisis to opportunity. It is trapped in a cycle of cosmetic stability and structural decay. Until growth becomes productive, inclusive, and job-creating, celebrating macroeconomic indicators is dangerously misleading.

Middle East Riviera: Monetizing Gaza Ruins

The US administration has once again revealed its moral blindness by reviving the fantasy of turning Gaza into a “Middle East Riviera.” Branded as “Project Sunrise,” the initiative—first reported by the Wall Street Journal—presents itself as a visionary reconstruction plan. In reality, it is a deeply cynical attempt to monetize devastation while erasing Palestinian political existence.

Marketed as a decade-long transformation of Gaza into a high-tech coastal hub, the plan is anchored in luxury housing, tourism, AI-managed infrastructure, and private investment. Glossy presentations speak of smart cities, high returns, and urban renewal. What they conspicuously avoid mentioning is the fate, rights, or consent of Gaza’s 2.4 million Palestinians—the very people whose land is being redesigned.

At its core, Project Sunrise is less about reconstruction than control. It conditions any rebuilding on Hamas’s total disarmament, a demand Israel and the United States failed to achieve after two years of relentless war. If one of the region’s most advanced militaries could not impose this outcome through force, the assumption that it can now be achieved through PowerPoint diplomacy borders on fantasy.

The proposal’s credibility erodes further with its emphasis on a new administrative capital, “New Rafah,” designed to house more than half a million people in southern Gaza. Framed as orderly development, these risks becoming population transfer by stealth—concentrating civilians away from their homes while large parts of Gaza are redeveloped under rigid security and investment regimes. History shows that such “development-led relocation” often serves as a precursor to permanent displacement.

Equally troubling is the project’s financial logic. Washington has committed roughly 20 percent of the estimated US$112 billion cost, positioning itself not as a guarantor of rights, but as a stakeholder expecting influence and returns. The involvement of figures linked to Trump’s real estate networks reinforces the perception that Gaza’s ruins are being treated as a commercial opportunity rather than the aftermath of mass suffering.

Nowhere does the plan address accountability for the devastation, the ongoing blockade, or the thousands still buried beneath rubble. Palestinian self-determination is absent; justice is ignored. Instead, Palestinians are reduced to a population to be managed, not a people with rights.

Trump’s vision offers luxury towers atop unresolved injustice. Without addressing occupation, security, and political freedom, the “Middle East Riviera” will remain what it truly is: a real estate fantasy built on denial.