Five-Things One Must Know About US-Iran War

Whatever criticisms one may have of Iran’s government, the Trump administration is the aggressor in this illegal war.

The Trump administration has joined Israel in launching large-scale attacks across Iran. The strikes mark the beginning of ​“major combat operations,” according to President Trump, and in response Tehran has reportedly launched retaliatory attacks in Middle Eastern countries that host US military bases.

With the death toll mounting and the war threatening to spiral out of control, here are five-things Americans need to know.

1: Trump says he’s trying to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But it’s the United States and its allies that are the greatest nuclear threat

The United States, not Iran, is the country setting the worst example in promoting nuclear weapons in the world today.

It was Trump who pulled out of the US-Iran nuclear deal during his first term — even though the UN certified that Iran was in compliance — and resumed harsh sanctions, deployed more troops to the region, and even assassinated an Iranian general.

Trump’s hostility despite Iran’s earlier compliance only bolsters the claim of Iranian leaders who believe the country needs nuclear weapons as a deterrent against aggression.

Meanwhile, Trump just let the last existing nuclear agreement between the US and Russia, the two countries with the most warheads, expire. Trump is also giving unconditional backing to Israel — the only country in the Middle East that actually has nuclear weapons — and is now supporting the launch of a nuclear program in Saudi Arabia.

2: Trump is contributing to the suffering of ordinary Iranians, not rescuing them

The Iranian government recently carried out a brutal crackdown on protesters and critics. Trump has claimed that the US is ​“coming to the rescue” of Iranians who’ve challenged their government.

But in reality, his actions have put countless Iranians in harm’s way. Over 1,000 civilians have already been killed in the strikes so far — including 165 in an appalling strike on a girl’s school.

Even before the latest violence, US sanctions had devastated Iran’s population — especially women, children, the sick, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable people — leading to countless preventable deaths.

3: The United States is an unreliable negotiator

How could Iran — or any country — now take the US seriously at the negotiating table after Trump blew up the Iran nuclear deal?

Even if they did, US demands keep changing. In recent negotiations, the US kept moving the goal posts, going from the demand that Iran not develop nuclear weapons to saying that the country’s civilian nuclear program, its treatment of dissidents, its relationship with regional allies, and its ballistic missile arsenal would all be on the negotiating table.

As Trump put it bizarrely on FOX News, the deal he wants should have ​“no nuclear weapons, no missiles, no this, no that, all the different things that you want.”

4: The United States has been threatening Iran, not the other way around

Even before the war, US military bases across the region surrounded Iran with troops and weapons. But there are no Iranian troops or military assets anywhere near the United States.

There is also no question that the most aggressive Middle Eastern power at the moment is Washington’s ally Israel — which continues its genocide in Gaza and attacked six other countries in the last year alone — all enabled through military assistance, arms transfers, and political protection by the United States.

5: Trump’s war with Iran — and his aggressive foreign policy generally — are unpopular with Americans

The majority of Americans — 61 percent — disapprove of Trump’s aggressive foreign policy in general. And in a recent Reuters poll, just one quarter said they approved of Trump’s decision to strike Iran — and that was before the announcement that US servicemembers had been killed.

Attacking Iran is not popular, and Trump does not have a mandate to do it. Whatever criticisms one may have of Iran’s government, they do not justify this illegal war.

PSX benchmark index declines 6.3%WoW

At Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) sentiments remained subdued during the week, due to the escalation of war threats, alongside tensions on the Pak–Afghan border. Consequently, the index declined by 10,566 points or 6.3%WoW during the week, closing at 157,496 points on Friday, March 06, 2026.

Market participation slowed during the week, with average daily traded volumes decreasing by 24%WoW to 791 million shares, compared to 1.0 billion shares in the prior week.

Monday witnessed the second-largest single-day drop in the index’s history, plunging by 16,089 points or 9.6%. The sharp fall appeared to be an overreaction, followed by a partial recovery in the subsequent sessions.

Meanwhile, the Middle East conflict resulted in the closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz, triggering a 16.3%WoW surge in the price of the Oil benchmark Arab Light to US$83.1/ bbl. This development raises concerns over energy security, inflationary pressures, and the external account, weighing on overall market sentiment despite Pakistan’s ability to manage the situation.

On the macro front, inflation rose to a 16-month high of 7% in February 2026 amid heightened volatility.

On the external front, trade deficit widened 5%YoY to US$3.0 billion in February 2026.

Cement offtakes recorded a 13%YoY increase in February 2026.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) GoP raises PKR555 billion through T-Bills auction; yields move up, 2) Pakistan refinery secures crude via Fujairah, Red Sea amid Hormuz closure, 3) SBP governor confident about GDP growth and inflation, 4) OGDC strikes major oil, gas discovery in Kohat of daily 3,800 bpd oil and 11.2mmcfd gas, and 5) foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) rose by US$87 million to US$16.3 billion as of February 27, 2026.

While Refinery remained the sole top performer, laggards included Vanspati & Allied

Major selling was recorded by Mutual Funds and Foreigners with a net sell of US$56.0 million and US$22.1 million. Banks and Companies absorbed most of the selling with an aggregate net buy of US$49.5 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: ATRL (up 4.8%WoW), 2) MARI (up 2.0%WoW), 3) KEL (up 2.0%WoW), 4) DHPL (up 1.7%WoW), and 5) HUMNL (up 1.1%WoW), while laggards included: JVDC, KTML, AKBL, SSOM, and PAEL.

According to AKD Securities, market sentiments are likely to be dictated by developments in the ongoing Middle East conflict. Meanwhile, GoP’s ongoing efforts to address energy conservation, the ongoing IMF review, and SBP’s commentary in upcoming MPC meeting on Monday would also remain key areas of investor focus.

In the medium term, any de-escalation of Middle East military conflict could trigger a significant market recovery, as the recent correction has made market valuations much more appealing.

The brokerage house anticipates 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.

Foreign Policy or Political Insanity?

In international relations, powerful nations often attempt to influence developments beyond their borders. Yet a fundamental principle of the global order remains the sovereignty of states. When foreign policy begins to challenge that principle too openly, it risks appearing less like strategy and more like political recklessness.

Recent remarks by Donald Trump have revived this debate. In an interview with Axios, Trump asserted that he must be personally involved in selecting Iran’s next Supreme Leader following the death of Ali Khamenei. Dismissing the potential succession of Mojtaba Khamenei as “unacceptable,” the US president suggested Washington should help determine Iran’s future leadership to ensure “harmony and peace.”

Such a proposition is extraordinary even in the hard realities of power politics. Leadership transitions are among the most sensitive internal matters of any nation. A foreign leader openly claiming a role in deciding another country’s highest authority inevitably raises questions about respect for sovereignty and the norms that underpin international diplomacy.

The statement also resonates strongly in historical context. Iran’s modern political memory already carries the imprint of external intervention, particularly the 1953 Iranian coup d'état that strengthened the rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. That episode continues to shape Iranian perceptions of Western intentions.

Critics argue that Trump’s remarks reflect a broader pattern in his approach to global affairs. His presidency has witnessed sweeping punitive tariffs against trading partners, a reliance on executive orders to push policy objectives, and military intervention in Venezuela that led to the removal of Nicolás Maduro and the emergence of Delcy Rodríguez as the country’s leader.

Whether one views these actions as decisive leadership or excessive unilateralism, the implications are significant. Attempting to influence leadership outcomes in a country as politically and religiously complex as Iran risks inflaming nationalist sentiment and prolonging geopolitical tensions rather than resolving them.

Ultimately, the question confronting the international community is stark - when powerful states begin asserting the right to shape the leadership of other nations, does foreign policy remain diplomacy—or does it begin to resemble political insanity?

Has Israel Pushed US into War Against Iran?

The latest military confrontation involving the United States and Iran did not emerge in a vacuum. It followed Israeli escalation that Washington ultimately chose to join. The central question, therefore, is not whether America is now at war — it clearly is — but whether the pathway to war was shaped primarily in Tel Aviv rather than Washington.

For years, US policy has demonstrated near-automatic alignment with Israel’s security doctrine. Strong diplomatic cover and sustained military support during regional crises created a strategic environment in which Israeli planners could reasonably assume American backing in the event of wider confrontation. When Israeli strikes expanded toward Iran in mid-2025, that assumption appeared to hold. The United States did not restrain the escalation; it became a direct participant.

The recent Senate briefing by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and senior defense officials has done little to clarify the strategic endgame. Lawmakers from both parties emerged expressing uncertainty about objectives, timelines, and even the possibility of deploying ground troops. Concerns over drone defenses, casualties, and munitions stockpiles further suggest that the conflict may be broader and more prolonged than initially presented.

This pattern evokes uncomfortable historical parallels with the Iraq War — a campaign launched with confidence but sustained amid shifting justifications and unclear exit strategies. No two conflicts are identical, yet the strategic risks of escalation without defined political outcomes remain constant.

To be clear, Iran’s regional posture and missile capabilities are not trivial matters. Nor can Israel’s security anxieties be dismissed. However, the responsibility of a global power extends beyond alliance solidarity. It requires independent assessment of costs, consequences, and long-term regional stability.

If Israeli action triggered the sequence of escalation and the United States entered primarily to preserve alliance credibility, then Washington must ask whether it is shaping events — or being shaped by them. Strategic partnerships are assets, but they should not become conduits for unintended wars.

At stake is not merely battlefield success, but America’s claim to strategic autonomy. In geopolitics, perception often hardens into reality. The longer this war continues without clearly articulated objectives, the louder the question will grow: who truly set this course?

Did the United States Build Gulf Bases to Protect Arab Monarchies — or Israel?

The enduring American military presence across the Gulf — from Bahrain and Qatar to United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia — has long been justified under the doctrine of regional stability and collective defence. Successive US administrations have argued that these bases serve as a deterrent against external threats, particularly from Iran, portrayed as a revisionist power challenging the Gulf monarchies and the broader regional order. Defence agreements were signed, billions of dollars’ worth of advanced weaponry was purchased, and a security architecture was institutionalized under the American umbrella.

However, recent escalations — including coordinated US–Israeli strikes on Iranian targets in 2025 and 2026, followed by retaliatory attacks on American installations inside Gulf states — have reignited a fundamental question: were these bases primarily designed to shield the Gulf emirates, or to guarantee strategic depth for Israel? Critics argue that the pattern of engagement suggests a security arrangement in which Gulf territories function less as protected partners and more as forward operating platforms in a broader US–Israel strategic calculus. Supporters of the status quo counter that without American deterrence, Gulf capitals would face far greater vulnerabilities.

The debate, therefore, is not merely about military installations; it concerns sovereignty, threat perception, and the true beneficiaries of regional security alignments. Were Gulf leaders persuaded to view Iran as the primary existential threat while Israel remained outside their formal defence calculus? Or is this interpretation an oversimplification of a far more complex geopolitical reality?

I invite readers to reflect critically:
Are US bases in the Gulf fundamentally defensive shields for Arab monarchies — or strategic assets designed to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge?
Has recent regional escalation validated long-standing security assumptions, or exposed their limitations?

Your considered views will enrich this debate.

Is Larijani Trump’s Likely Choice to Rule Iran?

The reported assassination of Ali Khamenei has pushed Iran into a moment of deep uncertainty. As Washington reassesses its objectives following joint US–Israeli strikes, speculation is mounting over whether the United States would quietly favor a particular figure to stabilize Tehran. Among the names circulating in policy discussions is Ali Larijani — a seasoned insider with deep roots in Iran’s national security establishment.

Larijani is no outsider. A former speaker of parliament, veteran nuclear negotiator and long-time power broker, he has operated at the heart of the Islamic Republic for decades. In the weeks before Khamenei’s death, he was reportedly entrusted with broader strategic responsibilities, reinforcing his standing within the system. That positioning makes him one of the few figures capable of navigating Iran’s complex factional landscape.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, has sent mixed signals about Washington’s ultimate aims — oscillating between suggestions of regime change and more limited objectives focused on missiles, nuclear capability and regional proxies. Such ambiguity may be deliberate, allowing room for negotiation if outright systemic collapse proves too costly or destabilizing.

In that context, Larijani’s profile presents both opportunity and risk. Critics describe him as deeply embedded in the regime’s hard power structure, including close interaction with security institutions. Supporters argue that precisely because of his establishment credentials, he could command trust across competing factions — a prerequisite for any controlled transition.

Still, Iran’s constitutional framework cannot be ignored. The Assembly of Experts retains authority to select the next Supreme Leader, and any interim arrangement would remain internally driven. External influence, however significant, has limits.

The central question is not whether Washington can “pick” Iran’s ruler — it cannot. Rather, it is whether US policymakers would prefer dealing with a pragmatic insider capable of negotiation over a fractured and unpredictable power vacuum. If stability and containment become the priority, Larijani may appear to some in Washington as a workable, if imperfect, interlocutor.

In geopolitics, choices are rarely ideal, these are calculated.

Pakistan: Strait of Hormuz risk back in focus

According to a report by Inter Market Securities, the renewed escalation in US-Iran hostilities marks reversal from the constructive progress emerging from last week’s dialogue in Geneva, wherein both sides signaled towards a possible agreement. Early Saturday, the US acknowledged attacks on key Iranian targets, which was followed by waves of retaliatory attacks by Iran on US installations in the GCC region (UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia). While the duration of the conflict is uncertain, geopolitical risks are likely to be repriced by markets of all asset classes via higher energy, commodity and freight costs, especially due to rising concerns of a potential disruption in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz – a narrow maritime corridor which links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman – is a critical route for the global energy trade, facilitating nearly one-fifth of global oil, petroleum and LNG trade, alongside nearly one-fourth of global seaborne trade. A partial disruption of the strait can materially lift oil prices and shipping freight. Beyond hydrocarbons, the strait is a key route for 25-30% of global seaborne minerals and 15% of chemicals/ fertilizer trade, among others, indicating worrisome implications on global growth and inflation. During the June 2025 US-Iran escalation (between June 13-24), Brent crude surged more than 10% DoD on June 13, before peaking later in the period north of US$77/bbl, before retracing as tensions dwindled. A similar situation played out early today when markets opened, with Brent crossing US$81/bbl (before retracing). If hostilities persist, oil could be pushed beyond US$80/bbl as well.

Notably, the KSE100 has historically reacted negatively to such events, due to Pakistan’s heavy reliance on imported crude oil and other commodities, giving rise to concerns of a potential deterioration of macroeconomic indicators. The KSE100 corrected 7% between the period before rebounding alongside de-escalation (market halted at the start of the day today). Therefore, a comparable risk-off episode cannot be ruled particularly if oil prices persistently remain elevated (negative for both inflation and the external account).

In the event of a prolonged oil price shock, the near-term macro implications for Pakistan would primarily be inflationary in absence of a swift de-escalation. For every US$5/bbl move in oil prices above with base case of US$65/ US$60/ bbl raises the next 12-month CPI estimates by an average 40bps. Additionally, given Pakistan’s structural reliance on energy imports, primarily crude related imports, 18% of overall import bill FY26 to date, higher oil prices would also weigh on the country’s external account, as a percent of GDP increasing by 20bps each for every US$5/bbl increase. That said, geopolitical oil spikes tend to be temporary, with prices retracing rapidly as tensions ease, limiting the impact on macro estimates.

Despite immediate macro risks, the brokerage house continues to remain constructive on Pakistan equities. The recent market correction has opened up valuation upside, while the earnings outlook and broader macro backdrop remain largely intact. Unless oil prices sustain higher for longer, the brokerage house sees the current market valuations as an attractive entry point.

 

Khamenei: A Leader Par Excellence

The passing of Ali Khamenei closes a defining chapter in the contemporary history of Iran. For more than three decades, he stood at the helm of a nation navigating relentless sanctions, diplomatic isolation, covert pressures, and open hostility led primarily by the United States and its regional ally, Israel. Yet, through turbulence and uncertainty, he projected continuity and resolve.

Khamenei’s leadership was forged in adversity. He inherited a revolutionary system still consolidating itself after war and internal transition. Over time, waves of economic sanctions and strategic containment sought to exhaust Iran’s capacity. Instead, the state apparatus endured. Institutions functioned, elections were held within constitutional timelines, and political processes — however debated externally — continued without systemic collapse. For his supporters, this was proof of institutional resilience under pressure.

He was neither a conventional politician nor merely a symbolic figure. He combined ideological steadfastness with calculated pragmatism. Negotiations were pursued when deemed necessary; resistance was emphasized when sovereignty was perceived to be at stake. His posture was often uncompromising, yet it reflected a consistent strategic doctrine: survival through endurance.

It is no secret that immense military, intelligence, and economic power was mobilized over decades to challenge the system he led. The geopolitical environment surrounding Iran was rarely neutral. Regional realignments, shifting alliances, and calculated silences frequently shaped the strategic space in which external pressure operated. Historians will debate the extent to which global and regional dynamics influenced the course of events. What is beyond dispute, however, is that Iran did not fracture under sustained coercion.

Leaders depart, but legacies are measured by institutional durability. Those who believed that sustained pressure alone could bend Iran’s trajectory repeatedly encountered a more complex reality. Nations shaped by adversity often internalize resilience.

Ali Khamenei’s era will be remembered for confrontation, endurance, and continuity. His critics may question his methods; his followers will celebrate his steadfastness. Yet history is likely to record one central fact: despite extraordinary external pressure, Iran remained intact — and its future will now test whether the structures he fortified can carry that legacy forward.

Israel launches attack against Iran

According to Reuters report, Israel has launched attack against Iran on Saturday, pushing the Middle East into a renewed military confrontation and further dimming hopes for a diplomatic solution to Tehran's long-running nuclear dispute with the West.

The New York Times, citing a US official, reported that US strikes on Iran were underway. A source told Reuters that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was not in Tehran and had been transferred to a secure location.

The attack, coming after Israel and Iran engaged in a 12-day air war in June, follows repeated U.S.-Israeli warnings that they would strike again if Iran pressed ahead with its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

"The State of Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Iran to remove threats to the State of Israel," Defence Minister Israel Katz said.

Explosions were heard in Tehran on Saturday, Iranian media reported.

The US and Iran renewed negotiations in February in a bid to resolve the decades-long dispute through diplomacy and avert the threat of a military confrontation that could destabilize the region.

Israel, however, insisted that any US deal with Iran must include the dismantling of Tehran's nuclear infrastructure, not just stopping the enrichment process, and lobbied Washington to include restrictions on Iran's missile program in the talks.

Iran said it was prepared to discuss curbs on its nuclear program in exchange for lifting sanctions but ruled out linking the issue to missiles.

Tehran also said it would defend itself against any attack.

It warned neighbouring countries hosting US troops that it would retaliate against American bases if Washington struck Iran.

In June last year, the US joined an Israeli military campaign against Iranian nuclear installations, in the most direct American military action ever against the Islamic Republic.

Tehran retaliated by launching missiles toward the US Al Udeid air base in Qatar, the largest in the Middle East.

Western powers have warned that Iran's ballistic missile project threatens regional stability and could deliver nuclear weapons if developed. Tehran denies seeking atomic bombs.

Pakistan’s Western Front: Security First, Escalation Last

The latest flare-up between Pakistan and Afghanistan is not about ideology, nor about religion. It is about security — plain and simple. For Islamabad, the issue is whether militant groups hostile to Pakistan can operate from across the border with impunity.

Pakistan’s position is rooted in sovereignty. No state can allow armed actors to use neighboring territory as a launching pad for attacks. Islamabad has consistently maintained that elements targeting Pakistan have found operational space inside Afghanistan since the return of the Taliban government in 2021. Kabul rejects this claim, arguing that Pakistan is deflecting from its internal security challenges. This divergence is not new — but it is now sharper and more dangerous.

The recent Pakistani air operations inside Afghan territory must be seen through this security prism. Islamabad describes them as targeted actions against militant infrastructure, not as aggression against the Afghan state. The subsequent retaliation along the border elevated tensions to a level that Pakistan’s Defence Minister, Khawaja Muhammad Asif, termed “open war.” That phrase reflects gravity, not intent for prolonged conflict.

The response from the US Department of State — supporting Pakistan’s right to defend itself while expressing concern over casualties — adds geopolitical context but does not define Pakistan’s policy. Islamabad’s western border challenges are indigenous and longstanding. These predate Washington’s statements and will persist independent of them.

Strategically, Pakistan faces a classic security dilemma. If it acts, it risks escalation. If it does not act, it risks emboldening militant actors. Neither option is cost-free. However, sustained instability on the western frontier would divert resources from Pakistan’s primary priority - economic stabilization and internal reform.

It is also important to recognize what this confrontation is not. It is not a war for territory. It is not a regime-change project. And it is not in Pakistan’s interest to see Afghanistan destabilized. A chaotic Afghanistan historically produces security spillovers into Pakistan. Stability in Kabul, therefore, is aligned with Islamabad’s long-term interests — provided that stability does not come at the cost of Pakistani lives.

The way forward demands firmness without adventurism. Pakistan must continue to defend its sovereignty while keeping diplomatic channels functional. Structured border mechanisms, verifiable counterterrorism cooperation, and sustained political engagement are essential.

For Pakistan, the equation is straightforward: security first, escalation last. Strategic maturity lies in deterring threats without sliding into prolonged confrontation. The western border must not become a permanent battleground — it must become a managed frontier built on accountability and realism.

PSX benchmark index down 2.9%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) continued to witness volatility during the week amid persistent geopolitical tensions between the US and Iran, alongside Pak-Afghan conflict, before staging a recovery on Thursday with a gain of 4,267 points. The benchmark index declined by 5,108 points or 2.9% during the week, closing at 168,062 on Friday, February 27, 2026. Market participation improved during the week, with average daily traded volumes rising by 25%WoW to 1.0 billion shares, from 831 million shares a week ago.

On the macro front, developments remained supportive, with the IMF review team currently in the country. In parallel, the Finance Minister’s remarks regarding the UAE’s US$2 billion loan rollover were also encouraging, providing comfort on the country’s external financing position.

Moreover, SBP’s net FX intervention reached US$11 billion over the last 18 months as of November 2025, while SBP held FX reserves increased by US$16 million to US$16.2 billion as of February 20, 2026, despite the repayment of a US$700 million loan to the China Development Bank.

On the currency front, PKR appreciated by 0.03%WoW against the greenback during the week, closing the week at 279.47 PKR/ US$.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Trump hikes US global tariff rate to 15%, 2) IMF hints at phased tax cut approach, 3) Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif and Qatari Emir agree to deepen economic cooperation, 4) Profit repatriation rises to US$1.67 billion in 7MFY26, and 5) CCP clears Abu Dhabi-based Eve Holdings’ acquisition of First Women Bank.

Vanspati & Allied Industries, Fertilizer, and Automobile Parts & Accessories were amongst the top performing sectors, while Tobacco, Synthetic & Rayon, and Property were amongst the laggards.

Major selling was recorded by Individuals and Foreigners with a net sell of US$18.0 million and US$17.3 million, respectively. Banks absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$33.9 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: SSOM, AKBL, THALL, POL, and BAFL, while laggards included: UNITY, SSGC, TRG, YOUW, and IBFL.

AKD Securities expects the market to recover as domestic and geopolitical uncertainties subside, with market trading at attractive valuations of forward PE of 7.2x and Dividend Yield of 6.6%. The brokerage house anticipates the benchmark Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2o26.

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.

War with Iran Can Be a Strategic Mistake

In his recent address, US president Donald Trump again signaled that military action against Iran remains an option — citing Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, missile program, regional conduct, and human rights record. The message was firm - Iran must never acquire a nuclear weapon. On that objective, there is rare bipartisan consensus in Washington, but consensus on a goal is not consensus on a method.

Public opinion in the United States is far more cautious than political rhetoric. After the costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, American voters are wary of another open-ended Middle Eastern conflict. Polling indicates limited appetite for military escalation. That hesitation reflects hard-earned lessons - wars launched with limited objectives often expand beyond initial calculations.

For Pakistan and the broader region, the consequences would be immediate and severe. Iran sits at the crossroads of global energy routes. Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz would send oil prices sharply higher, straining fragile economies across South Asia. For energy-importing states already battling inflation and external account pressures, this would be destabilizing.

Equally important is the question of strategic clarity. Is the objective deterrence? Degradation of nuclear capability? Or regime change? Absent a clearly articulated end-state, military action risks triggering retaliation without securing lasting stability. Even limited strikes could invite asymmetric responses across the region.

Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful, though its stockpile of highly enriched uranium alarms Western powers. Yet past diplomatic frameworks proved that monitoring and verification are possible when political will exists. Diplomacy is slow and frustrating, but war is irreversible.

The 21st century offers enough evidence that military adventurism in the Middle East produces unintended and often uncontrollable consequences. From prolonged insurgencies to regional fragmentation, the record is sobering. An attack on Iran could become another costly chapter in that history — one that reshapes the region in ways no strategist can fully predict and no economy can easily absorb. Strategic restraint is not idealism; it is realism grounded in experience.

Washington’s Iran Policy: Security Rhetoric, Energy Reality

The dominant narrative in Washington frames Iran as a nuclear threat and a destabilizing regional actor. Yet beneath the moral language and security rhetoric lies a more pragmatic driver - energy geopolitics. The United States’ posture toward Iran appears shaped less by concern for Iranian citizens or nuclear anxieties alone, and more by the strategic calculus of global oil and gas dominance.

Over the past decade, the United States has undergone a structural energy transformation. Once heavily reliant on imported hydrocarbons, America is now a leading oil and LNG exporter. This shift has inevitably altered its foreign policy priorities. Sanctions regimes and diplomatic pressure have systematically constrained the energy exports of major producers viewed as adversarial or strategically inconvenient — including Iran, Russia, and Venezuela. The objective is not merely punitive; it is market-shaping.

Iran presents a unique case. Despite nearly half a century of sanctions, isolation, and economic warfare, the Islamic Republic has neither collapsed nor capitulated. Its economy has been bruised, but its political structure remains intact. History suggests that external pressure has not succeeded in engineering regime change in Tehran. Instead, it has often entrenched domestic resistance while imposing hardships on ordinary Iranians.

The persistence of confrontation raises a critical question, what has been achieved? Sanctions have constrained revenues but not fundamentally altered Iran’s regional behavior or strategic ambitions. Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions inject volatility into global energy markets, adding risk premiums that burden consumers worldwide.

A reassessment is overdue. Durable stability rarely emerges from perpetual pressure. Diplomatic engagement anchored in mutual economic interests — including structured energy cooperation — offers a more realistic pathway. Iran has repeatedly denied seeking nuclear weapons, and whether one accepts this claim or not, diplomacy remains the only verifiable mechanism for accountability.

Washington must recognize a simple geopolitical truth - coexistence delivers more than coercion. Escalatory rhetoric and regime-change fantasies have yielded diminishing returns. A pragmatic reset — reducing hostility, encouraging dialogue, and prioritizing regional stability — would better serve global economic and security interests.

Confrontation may generate headlines. Engagement, however, produces results.

Washington Iran policy, US Iran tensions, Iran sanctions, energy geopolitics, oil politics, nuclear narrative, Middle East stability, regime change debate, global energy markets, US foreign policy,

Trump Must Accept Strategic Reality

For nearly half a century, Washington has relied on sanctions, isolation, and coercion to reshape Iran’s behavior. The results are sobering. Rather than capitulate, Tehran adapted. Its political system endured, its regional footprint expanded, and its negotiating posture hardened. Yet Donald Trump has revived the vocabulary of “maximum pressure,” again pairing economic strangulation with threats of military escalation and even rhetoric about targeting Iran’s top leadership.

This moment is being framed as a last chance for diplomacy. Ali Khamenei, now in his late eighties, faces a consequential decision: accept severe limits on Iran’s nuclear program or risk confrontation with the United States and Israel. Reports suggest U.S. envoys favor transactional breakthroughs, while military planners warn that a campaign against Iran could spiral into a prolonged conflict. Such caution is not academic. The Middle East’s history is littered with wars that began as “limited strikes” and evolved into grinding, unpredictable entanglements.

Even recent use of force underscores the limits of coercion. Joint strikes did not erase Iran’s nuclear capabilities outright. Meanwhile, Tehran signals it will not negotiate away what it views as core deterrence — uranium enrichment rights and missile capacity. Offers like diluting enriched uranium or joining a regional enrichment consortium hint at possible off-ramps, but maximalist demands risk closing those exits before they are fully explored.

There is another underappreciated dimension: regional complicity. Past operational successes by Washington and Tel Aviv were facilitated by access, logistics, and airspace in neighboring Muslim-majority states. If those governments now hesitate or refuse, the military calculus changes dramatically. Geography, not just firepower, shapes outcomes.

Regime-change fantasies should also be retired. Decapitation strategies rarely produce stable, pro-Western transitions; more often they unleash fragmentation, nationalism, and cycles of retaliation. Iran’s leadership has reportedly prepared for succession contingencies, signaling that the state’s continuity does not hinge on one individual.

Strategic reality demands sobriety. Escalation may satisfy domestic political narratives, but it heightens risks for regional stability, global energy markets, and civilian lives. Durable security will not emerge from threats alone. It requires credible diplomacy, respect for redlines, and a recognition that adversaries under pressure do not always break — they often dig in.

The wiser course is clear: de-escalate rhetoric, widen diplomatic space, and prioritize negotiated constraints over another open-ended conflict. History has already delivered its verdict on wars of choice. 

Who Decides War: Trump, or the Constitution?

A credible democracy does not drift into war on the strength of rhetoric, speculation, or executive impulse. Yet that is precisely the anxiety surrounding President Donald Trump and the intensifying discussion of possible US military action against Iran. Reports suggest that lawmakers may soon vote on whether to restrain the president’s authority to initiate hostilities without explicit approval. That vote, if it happens, will not be procedural theater — it will be a constitutional test.

The power to declare war resides with the US Congress, not the White House. This division of authority is not a technicality; it is a safeguard designed to prevent unilateral decisions carrying irreversible human, economic, and geopolitical consequences. Limited defensive strikes may fall within executive discretion, but sustained, weeks-long military operations clearly cross into territory requiring legislative consent.

According to Reuters, the US military has been preparing for the possibility of extended operations should diplomacy fail. Preparation, however, must not be confused with authorization. A democracy’s legitimacy rests not merely on capability, but on adherence to process.

The bipartisan initiatives led by Senators Tim Kaine and Rand Paul, alongside Representatives Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, reaffirm a fundamental principle - if war is justified, elected officials must debate it openly and vote on it transparently. Evading that responsibility corrodes accountability and weakens democratic credibility at home and abroad.

Supporters of expansive presidential authority argue that Congress should not restrict national security powers. But oversight is not obstruction. Requiring approval is not weakness. It is the constitutional mechanism ensuring that war reflects national consensus rather than political expediency.

An attack on Iran would reverberate far beyond the battlefield — unsettling global markets, inflaming regional tensions, and risking dangerous escalation across an already volatile Middle East. Such a decision demands scrutiny measured not in cable news cycles, but in constitutional gravity.

If conflict is unavoidable, Congress must own the decision. If peace remains possible, diplomacy must be exhausted. What cannot be justified is silence — or worse, the surrender of legislative authority when it matters most.

PSX Benchmark Index Declines 3.6%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during the week due to persistent geopolitical tensions between the United States and Iran, coupled with domestic political noise. Benchmark index declined by 6,434 points or 3.6% during the week to close at 173,170 on Friday. Market participation also slowed with the start of Ramadan, with average daily traded volumes declined by 22%WoW to 831 million shares, as compared to 1.1 billion shares in prior week.

Developments on the economic front remained encouraging, as the country posted Current Account surplus of US$121 million in January 2026, against a deficit of US$393 million in the same period last year, primarily driven by higher workers’ remittances.

Industrial activity (LSMI) expanded by 4.8%YoY in 1HFY26, led by growth in automobile and textile sectors.

Government notified PKR5/ kWh reduction in industrial tariffs, higher than initially announced by Prime Minister.

Power generation increased by 12%YoY in January 2026, supported by the incremental industrial power tariff package and imposition of gas levy on CPPs.

Fertilizer offtakes declined by 48%YoY during January 2026, mainly due to elevated channel inventory following advance procurement in prior month.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$19 million to US$16.2 billion as of February 13, 2026.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) IMF review mission to arrive Pakistan on 25th of this month, 2) Pakistan's bonds draw biggest foreign inflows in 19 months during January this year, 3) IT exports increase by 19%YoY during January, 4) Textile exports increase by 1.3%YoY during 7MFY26, and 5) RDA inflows crosse US$12 billion mark during February 2026.

Sector-wise, Vanaspati & Allied Industries and Woollen were amongst the top performing sectors, while Refinery, Modarabas, and OMCs were the laggards.

During the first four trading sessions, major selling was recorded by Foreigners with a net sell of US$26.5 million. Individuals and Banks absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$14.4 million and US$12.1 million, respectively.

Top performing scrips of the week were: INIL, SSOM, THALL, BNWM, and MUREB, while laggards included: PIOC, TRG, UNITY, PSO, and MEHT.

AKD Securities expect market to recover as domestic and geopolitical uncertainties subside, with market trading at attractive valuations of forward PE of 7.3x and Dividend Yield of 6.4%.

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

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

Trump’s Iran Gambit: A Region on the Brink

The United States appears to be preparing military action against Iran. Reports of rapid troop movements and mobilization of advanced hardware suggest that a strike could be imminent. Yet, in this moment of peril, the world—and notably Muslim leaders—remains largely silent. Their silence, whether intentional or out of fear, risks turning a dangerous plan into an uncontrollable catastrophe.

My deepest concern is that some regional powers may inadvertently facilitate these strikes. Nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE could become staging grounds or provide logistical support, directly exposing themselves to Iranian retaliation. Tehran’s drone and missile capabilities are not hypothetical: even a “surgical” US strike could provoke swift counterattacks, endangering civilian populations and critical infrastructure across the Gulf.

The most alarming possibility is the elimination of Iran’s top leadership. While some may view this as a tactical objective, it would almost certainly trigger a full-scale regional war. We have seen in past conflicts how targeted killings escalate rather than contain violence, unleashing cycles of retaliation that spiral beyond anyone’s control. The economic consequences would be immediate and global: energy markets would surge, trade routes could be disrupted, and refugee flows would strain neighboring countries. Extremist groups could exploit chaos, further destabilizing the region.

The silence of Muslim-majority nations is deafening. By failing to speak against this looming confrontation, they risk becoming complicit in a war with no winners. The international community—Washington included—must recognize that diplomacy and restraint are far more powerful than pre-emptive strikes. Averted conflict today is exponentially less costly than a conflagration tomorrow.

We stand at a dangerous crossroads. Leadership demands foresight, courage, and moral clarity; recklessness promises death, destruction, and chaos. The world must act now to prevent a spark that could ignite a fire engulfing an entire region. If we do not, history will judge us for failing to speak while war loomed on the horizon.

Congress Must Draw the Line on Iran

As Washington again drifts toward confrontation with Iran, Congress faces a constitutional test it has postponed for far too long. Reports of rapid US military mobilization in the Middle East, coupled with warnings from seasoned observers, suggest that the momentum toward conflict may already be outrunning diplomacy. If so, lawmakers cannot remain spectators.

The bipartisan War Powers Resolution introduced by Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie is not a procedural nuisance; it is a reaffirmation of the separation of powers. The Constitution vests the authority to declare war in Congress precisely to prevent unilateral military adventures driven by miscalculation, political impulse, or external pressure. Requiring explicit authorization before striking Iran is the minimum safeguard, not an obstacle to national security.

Recent commentary paints a troubling picture: ultimatums that touch Iran’s declared red lines, paired with skepticism that genuine negotiations are underway. Whether one accepts that assessment or not, prudence demands congressional oversight. Wars have begun on thinner evidence and with greater confidence than hindsight could justify. Iraq remains the cautionary tale of intelligence failures, inflated expectations, and consequences that lasted decades.

The risks today are neither abstract nor distant. Iranian officials have hinted that a broader US strike would trigger severe retaliation. Even limited exchanges could endanger American troops, destabilize energy markets, and ignite a regional escalation that engulfs allies and civilians alike. Military action is easy to start, notoriously hard to contain.

Civil society groups—from Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) to the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) and CodePink—are urging Congress to act. Their arguments vary, but converge on a central point: another Middle East war would be devastating and avoidable. Lawmakers should heed that warning without surrendering to alarmism. The question is not whether Iran poses challenges; it is whether bypassing Congress improves outcomes.

This is a moment for institutional responsibility. Debate the intelligence. Scrutinize the objectives. Weigh the costs. Then vote. If military action is truly necessary, the administration should be able to make its case to the people’s representatives. If it cannot, that itself is an answer.

Congress must draw the line—clearly, constitutionally, and now.

Trump War Mania Crossing All Red Lines

The drumbeat of war rhetoric from Donald Trump toward Iran is no longer just political posturing — it is a test of America’s constitutional integrity. Wars are not reality shows. These are irreversible acts that consume lives, destabilize regions, and stain legacies.

Reporting by Axios, citing journalist Barak Ravid, warns that the United States may be closer to a “massive,” weeks-long conflict than most Americans understand. That phrase should trigger national debate. Instead, Congress is on recess and public discourse remains oddly subdued. Silence, in moments like this, is not neutrality — it is complicity.

America’s strength has never rested solely on military power but on process: consultation with allies, engagement with the United Nations, coordination within NATO, and authorization by the United States Congress. The War Powers Act exists to prevent unilateral escalations driven by impulse or political calculus.

Yet critics observe a troubling vacuum. Democratic leaders such as Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have raised procedural objections, but where is the forceful challenge to the logic, risks, and consequences of war itself? Procedural caution without substantive resistance is an inadequate defense against catastrophe.

Columnist David French captured the absurdity: the nation edges toward possible conflict while Congress appears disengaged and the public largely unaware. Meanwhile, Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft warns of familiar patterns — media narratives that amplify hawkish voices while sidelining restraint.

Public opinion tells a clearer story. A YouGov survey shows significantly more Americans opposing military action against Iran than supporting it. After Iraq and Afghanistan, skepticism is not isolationism — it is wisdom earned at staggering cost.

President Trump, a war with Iran would not be surgical, swift, or contained. It would ignite regional volatility, shock global markets, and risk drawing America into another open-ended quagmire. History rarely forgives leaders who confuse bravado with strategy.

Congress must act — not later, not symbolically, but now. Debate openly. Assert authority. Because once the first strike is ordered, red lines stop being diplomatic language, but become graves.

Bangladesh: A cabinet dominated by first-timers

All 24 state ministers in the cabinet are new appointees, and 16 of the 25 full ministers are serving in that role for the first time

With BNP Chairman Tarique Rahman sworn in today at the South Plaza of the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban, the country got its 11th prime minister.

President Mohammed Shahabuddin administered the oath of the prime minister, 25 ministers, and 24 state ministers.

Among those who become ministers for the first time are: Tarique Rahman, AZM Zahid Hossain, Khalilur Rahman, Abdul Awal Mintoo, Mizanur Rahman Minu, Khandaker Abdul Muktadir, Ariful Haque Choudhury, Zahir Uddin Swapan, Aminur Rashid Yasin, Afroza Khanam Rita, Shahid Uddin Chowdhury Anee, Asaduzzaman Asad, Zakaria Taher, Dipen Dewan, Fokir Mahbub Anam, Sardar Sakhawat Hossain Bokul and Sheikh Robiul Alam.

The new state ministers are: M Rashiduzzaman Millat, Anindya Islam Amit, Shariful Alam, Shama Obaed Islam, Sultan Salahuddin Tuku, Barrister Kaiser Kamal, Farhad Hossain Azad, Md Aminul Haq, Mir Mohammad Helal Uddin, Md Abdul Bari, Mir Shahe Alam, Zonayed Saki, Ishraque Hossain, Farzana Sharmin, Shaikh Faridul Islam, Nurul Haque Nur, Yasser Khan Chowdhury, M Iqbal Hossain, MA Muhith, Ahammad Sohel Manjur, Bobby Hajjaj, Ali Newaz Mahmud Khaiyam, Habibur Rashid and Md Rajib Ahsan.

The new BNP-led government under Tarique Rahman officially took office on Tuesday.

The BNP-led coalition won in 209 seats in the February 12 national election.