Nvidia's AI empire stumbles over Huang's human error

Nvidia, the company that has ushered humanity into the age of AI, has hit its biggest hurdle because of a very human error at the top

Jensen Huang, the cofounder and chief executive of Nvidia, who has basked in the spotlight of the AI boom, has come crashing down from center stage in the global tech industry. Allegations have emerged that Huang had an intimate relationship with a woman suspected of being a Chinese spy. Exposure of another relationship - this time with a company executive - has added to the scandal. Nvidia's board announced on Thursday that Huang has resigned as president, CEO and board member, effective immediately. It's like a plot from a James Bond movie. A rock-star CEO who built the world's most powerful chip company finds himself at the heart of an espionage scandal involving cutting-edge AI technology, one of the most sensitive battlegrounds in the US-China rivalry. The timing could hardly have been more dramatic. Democrats, who have taken an increasingly tough stance toward Big Tech and tech billionaires, have just won control of both chambers of the US Congress. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump, who has maintained close ties with Huang, has spoken out in support of him since the scandal broke. Next week, Trump is scheduled to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping during the APEC summit. With so many developments converging at once, it is hard not to wonder whether the timing is entirely coincidental.

Nvidia and Huang have become virtually synonymous. The company's public image centers on its charismatic leader in a black leather jacket. Nvidia, which designs the world's most advanced AI chips, is one of the most important customers of Taiwan's TSMC, Asia's largest tech company by market capitalization. Huang has frequently visited Taiwan and other parts of Asia, solidifying strong relationships with the region's leading tech executives. If Nvidia loses momentum without Huang's leadership, the consequences for Asia's technology supply chains could be profound. His departure could also give China's semiconductor companies a chance to gain ground, potentially shifting the balance of tech power between the US and China. Nvidia shares plunged following news of Huang's scandal. Nvidia is much more than a chip designer. The company has also become something of a central bank for the AI industry, providing massive funds to leading AI startups and cloud computing companies that, in turn, purchase its chips. This has made Nvidia a crucial source of capital and confidence for the broader AI ecosystem. The sudden loss of Huang, effectively the governor of this AI central bank, could raise fresh questions about the sustainability of the AI-driven stock market boom. That said, despite Huang's departure, Nvidia's financial performance is unlikely to suffer any immediate direct impact, as global tech giants remain heavily reliant on the chip giant's dominant market share in advanced AI semiconductors. However, it's difficult to overstate the consequences of losing such an iconic leader. If Nvidia loses its way without Huang at the helm, the fallout could spread far beyond the company itself in the not-too-distant future, affecting the global technology industry, geopolitics and financial markets. Courtesy: Nikkei Asia

US-Iran War: Why Saudi Arabia Has Become the New Target?

If one takes a cursory look at the headlines of leading conventional media, an interesting shift in the regional conflict becomes apparent. The US-Iran war appears to be turning into a Houthi-Saudi war, with Saudi Arabia increasingly portrayed as the victim of Houthi assaults.

There are two important developments worth examining. First, Israel stopped its attacks on Iran, and Donald Trump also announced a halt to US attacks. However, the conflict has not formally ended, and Washington continues to keep its military options open.

Second, the narrative surrounding Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia, particularly allegations concerning the holy cities of Mecca and Medina, appears to be gaining prominence. Saudi authorities have reported missile and drone interceptions, including in the Mecca region. The Houthis, however, have denied targeting the holy cities and maintain that their operations are directed against strategic and military installations.

An important question arises: why does the confrontation appear increasingly concentrated on Saudi Arabia? There have been no comparable reports of Houthi attacks on other GCC countries or US military bases hosted by them. This apparent selectivity deserves closer examination.

My concern is that the regional narrative may be undergoing a subtle but significant transformation. For years, Washington and its allies have projected Iran as a greater threat to regional stability than Israel. Now, the growing focus on Houthi attacks against Saudi Arabia risks shifting attention away from the original US-Israel-Iran confrontation.

There is another dimension that cannot be ignored; Saudi Arabia's oil exports. Attacks or threats against its oil infrastructure, particularly the East-West pipeline and export facilities, could undermine the Kingdom's economic interests and disrupt global energy supplies. The Houthis have claimed attacks on such installations, although individual claims require independent verification. The Kingdom emerges as the principal target of a wider strategy disrupting Saudi oil exports?

This is not a conclusion to be drawn lightly. However, Riyadh must carefully assess whether the conflict is merely changing its battlefield or whether Saudi Arabia itself is becoming the new center of gravity.

Making the US a Welcome Guest in Pakistan

As a geopolitical analyst with a particular focus on South Asia and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), I warmly welcome H.E. Natalie Baker, the designated US Ambassador to Pakistan. Having served in Pakistan for a considerable period, she is reasonably familiar with the country's political and economic landscape, as well as its immediate neighbourhood. This experience should help her appreciate the challenges and opportunities confronting Pakistan.

I would, however, like to submit a few considerations for her attention.

Pakistan shares borders with Afghanistan, Iran and India. Unfortunately, border crossings with the three neighbours have remained closed for extended periods at different times. While such closures are frequently attributed to cross-border terrorism and security concerns, their economic and humanitarian consequences deserve equal attention. The closure of the Afghan border, for instance, disrupts transit trade and, more importantly, the movement of perishable fruits and vegetables, causing substantial losses to farmers on both sides of the border.

Similarly, US sanctions on Iran have constrained Pakistan's access to potentially low-cost Iranian gas, including the proposed onward supply to India. Pakistan also offers transit facilities for goods destined for Central Asian markets through Iran. During the recent US-Israel war on Iran, transit movements remained suspended for an extended period, highlighting the vulnerability of regional trade to geopolitical tensions.

There is also an apparent imbalance in Washington's regional priorities. While the United States regards India as a major trading partner, Pakistan has traditionally been viewed primarily as a frontline ally in the war against terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan. This perception deserves reconsideration.

The United States is a major destination for Pakistan's textiles and clothing exports. Yet, American investment in Pakistan's textile and clothing industry remains relatively modest. Greater US entrepreneurial participation could help Pakistan move towards greater value addition, modernization and stronger industrial competitiveness.

Finally, the continuing conflict in Pakistan's neighbourhood is contributing to rising anti-American sentiment. This is an important consideration that should not be overlooked.

I sincerely hope Ambassador Baker will view these submissions as an opportunity to broaden bilateral engagement. A relationship based on mutual economic interests, regional stability, trade and investment, rather than security considerations alone, would serve both countries better.

Making the United States a welcome guest in Pakistan requires understanding Pakistan's concerns as much as expecting its cooperation.

Give Eisenkot a Chance to Prove He Enjoys Majority

There are growing apprehensions that President Isaac Herzog may be under intense domestic and external pressure to ensure Benjamin Netanyahu remains Prime Minister of Israel for as long as possible. Such apprehensions must not be allowed to undermine the democratic process or the mandate emerging from the recent elections.

The October 27 election did not give Netanyahu's political alliance the parliamentary majority required to form a government. Moreover, some of his traditional allies have distanced themselves from him. In contrast, Gadi Eisenkot received recommendations from 67 members of the 120-member Knesset, against 46 for Netanyahu. President Herzog subsequently entrusted Eisenkot with the responsibility of forming the next government.

The question is why should there be any hesitation in allowing the parliamentary process to take its course?

I have two fundamental reasons for opposing Netanyahu's continuation in office. First, his political alliance failed to secure a majority, while several former allies have reconsidered their association with him. Second, he faces international allegations of war crimes, including an International Criminal Court arrest warrant, besides ongoing corruption proceedings at home. These circumstances raise serious questions about his political legitimacy and the credibility of his leadership.

I may not be an ardent supporter of Gadi Eisenkot, nor am I suggesting that he has an easy task ahead. His ability to bring together ideologically divided political groups remains uncertain. However, uncertainty about his ability to secure a working majority cannot be a legitimate reason to deny him an opportunity.

The right to elect a government rests with the elected representatives of the people. The President's constitutional responsibility is to facilitate this process, not to influence its outcome in favour of a particular individual.

Eisenkot should be allowed to negotiate, demonstrate his support and seek the confidence of the Knesset. If he succeeds, he should become Prime Minister. If he fails, the constitutional process provides for the next course of action.

Democracy cannot be selective. Keeping Netanyahu in office merely because some influential quarters prefer him would undermine the very institution that the President is expected to protect.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Israel's elected representatives, not external preferences or political pressure, must decide who governs the country.

US Must Shift from Escalation to Diplomacy

The United States' decision to relocate military aircraft from British air bases over a potential Iranian threat raises an important question; has Washington finally realized that the risks of prolonging this war are becoming increasingly difficult to manage?

According to media reports, the US Air Force relocated ten refuelling aircraft from RAF Mildenhall in England to Germany, Spain and Scotland. Osprey transport aircraft were also moved to another nearby base. Security at two British air bases was reportedly raised to the second-highest threat level in the US military's protection system.

Although British authorities have maintained that there is no immediate or direct threat to these installations, the American decision to reposition military assets speaks for itself. This is not simply a routine movement of aircraft. It reflects growing concern about the vulnerability of US military infrastructure.

One wonders what has triggered such anxiety. Iranian aircraft, drones and missiles are unlikely to reach British military bases. However, the threat should not be assessed exclusively in terms of geographical reach or conventional military capability. Iran may have developed asymmetric capabilities that can disrupt navigation, communications and other critical systems over considerable distances.

If Iran can interfere with aviation and navigation systems beyond the immediate theatre of conflict, even the most sophisticated American military aircraft could become vulnerable. Modern warfare is no longer determined exclusively by the range of missiles or the number of aircraft deployed. Electronic warfare, cyber capabilities and disruption of critical infrastructure can neutralize expensive military hardware without physically destroying it.

The repeated relocation of American aircraft from British bases should therefore be viewed as a warning rather than an isolated security precaution. Washington must recognize that further escalation could expose its military assets, weaken its international standing and undermine its claim to be an invulnerable superpower.

Donald Trump must reconsider his strategy. Instead of committing additional resources to an increasingly unpredictable confrontation, he should declare a unilateral ceasefire and open the door to meaningful diplomacy.

There is no merit in escalating a war that is increasingly exposing the limitations of American military power. Knowing when to stop is also a demonstration of leadership.

Impact of Trump’s Midterm Defeat on Maritime

Donald Trump’s emphatic midterm setback could have far-reaching implications for US maritime policies, international shipping, energy markets, sanctions and de-carbonization. However, whether the electoral verdict will force his administration to change course remains an open question.

The Democrats’ sweeping victory has given them control of Congress and greater leverage over government spending. Trump has admitted that the Iran war was largely responsible for Republican losses, while Vice President JD Vance described it as the reason for their defeat. This political setback could make further military escalation against Iran considerably more difficult.

For the maritime industry, the most immediate concern is the Strait of Hormuz. Any prolonged disruption to shipping through this strategic waterway threatens global energy supplies, increases transportation costs and creates uncertainty for ship-owners, traders and consumers.

Rystad Energy's Chief Economist, Claudio Galimberti, believes that a Democratic-controlled Congress will increase the political cost of continuing the war. Although Trump retains considerable executive authority over military operations, Congress can complicate his agenda through funding restrictions, resolutions and delays in confirming key appointments.

Restoring uninterrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is essential for normalizing crude supplies and refined petroleum inventories. Consequently, diplomatic engagement with Iran could become more attractive than another round of military confrontation.

Sanctions policy is another area facing uncertainty. Trump's proposed purchase of Russian diesel to ease domestic energy costs has already attracted legal and political criticism. Shipping companies involved in such transactions could face considerable reputational and legal risks. As maritime analysts have pointed out, companies cannot selectively comply with sanctions when commercial opportunities arise.

De-carbonization presents another challenge. Trump's opposition to the International Maritime Organization's Net-Zero Framework has created uncertainty for the shipping industry. While additional environmental compliance costs remain a concern for ship-owners, climate advocates are urging IMO member states not to delay adoption of the framework.

Nevertheless, a change in congressional arithmetic does not automatically translate into a change in executive policy. Trump can still use executive orders and regulatory powers to pursue his agenda, although major legislation and government funding require congressional support.

The maritime industry now faces a critical question; will Trump's electoral setback encourage policy adjustments or prolong uncertainty across international shipping, energy security and environmental regulation?

The answer will depend not merely on Washington's political calculations but also on whether economic realities eventually take precedence over geopolitical confrontation.

Is Vance Being Presented as a Replacement for Trump?

The emphatic Republican defeat in the midterm elections has raised an important question: Is JD Vance being groomed to replace Donald Trump as the face of the Republican Party?

Vance's recent statement acknowledging voters' dissatisfaction with the administration deserves closer scrutiny. His reference to changing America's relationship with Israel, alongside concerns about the Iran war and economic insecurity, suggests an attempt to distance himself from Trump's increasingly unpopular policies.

Allow me state my opening observation: Vance appears to be playing a political mantra to disassociate himself from Trump. I also have a feeling that he enjoys the blessings of 'The Godfathers' who helped finance and facilitate his political ascent.

Trump is carrying an enormous baggage of failures, growing domestic disapproval, an unpredictable personality and controversial foreign policies. The midterm defeat provides the Republican establishment with an opportunity to reconsider its leadership and presidential prospects for 2028.

The question is, whom can Republicans nominate as a credible alternative? Given the paucity of acceptable personalities and limited time to rebuild political confidence, Vance appears to be a convenient choice.

I anticipate that the responsibility for the electoral debacle will increasingly be placed on Trump, while Vance will be presented as a potential saviour. He can promise to correct Trump's mistakes, acknowledge voters' grievances and revive the familiar slogan, "Make America Great Again".

However, this should not be mistaken for a genuine change of political direction. Vance's political ascent has been supported by influential billionaire networks, particularly Silicon Valley interests. His apparent moderation may simply be an exercise in repackaging the same political project under a more acceptable leadership.

Nor can it be ruled out that newly elected Democratic members will be portrayed as radicals, while Vance is assigned the mandate of restoring Republican dominance.

The ultimate objective could be to win the 2028 presidential election by hook or by crook and carry forward the legacy of American supremacy.

The face of the Republican Party may change, but will the interests controlling it change as well?

President Trump, You Committed Horrendous Mistakes, Please Pay the Price

Donald Trump and his cronies are now blaming the Iran war for their defeat in the midterm elections. By doing so, they are indirectly endorsing the argument of their critics: the war has not only tarnished America’s image as a superpower but has also transformed Iran into a more formidable regional adversary. I have a question for the entire US administration: Why did the world’s superpower become subservient to Benjamin Netanyahu?

Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and the debacle of the US embassy hostage crisis, successive American presidents have been advised against launching a direct military attack on Iran. Nevertheless, Washington continued to challenge the Iranian clergy through proxies, regime-change initiatives, and its maximum pressure strategy.

Keeping these historical developments in mind, President Trump committed a horrendous mistake by joining Israel’s war against Iran. What many now describe as the US-Israel war on Iran that has exposed the limitations of American strategic calculations.

The administration knew very well that deploying American ground troops inside Iran was neither a viable nor a politically sustainable option. Consequently, both the United States and Israel relied heavily on air strikes. However, military superiority failed to yield the desired political outcomes.

The use of military bases in GCC member countries further complicated the situation. Iranian retaliatory strikes inflicted considerable damage on US military bases and strategic installations in the Gulf, raising serious questions about Washington’s ability to protect its regional allies.

Some critics even argue that the United States failed to establish an effective blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, instead, demonstrated its ability to manage the entry and exit of ships, while oil exports of GCC countries suffered considerable disruption.

The consequences extend beyond military losses. America’s credibility, its security assurances to Gulf allies, and its image of unquestionable military supremacy have all been seriously challenged.

Trump must now confront an uncomfortable reality: a war fought to advance Israel’s strategic interests has instead weakened America’s global standing.

The president cannot escape responsibility by blaming the war for his electoral defeat. He must acknowledge his strategic miscalculations, reconsider his subservience to Netanyahu, and accept the political consequences of his decisions.

President Trump, you committed horrendous mistakes. Please pay the price.

Pakistan Likely to Pay the Cost of Following Trump

The humiliating failure of President Donald Trump’s doctrine of maximum pressure on Iran may have far-reaching consequences for Pakistan. Islamabad, having invested considerable diplomatic capital in facilitating Washington’s regional agenda, could find itself facing a difficult geopolitical and economic situation. Pakistan’s perceived alignment with US foreign policy has created serious challenges for its regional standing.

First, Islamabad risks further distancing itself from three countries with which it shares common borders. A foreign policy perceived as serving Washington’s interests rather than Pakistan’s national priorities could undermine its relationships with neighbouring states.

Second, Pakistan’s emergence as a key mediator between Washington and Tehran may lose its relevance. If the United States fails to achieve its strategic objectives, Islamabad’s diplomatic importance could diminish. Consequently, the political goodwill and economic concessions anticipated from Washington may not materialize.

Third, Pakistan may face a cold shoulder from China and Russia. Both countries have strategic interests in the region that are not necessarily compatible with Washington’s objectives. Islamabad cannot afford to jeopardize its longstanding relationships with these major powers in pursuit of uncertain American benefits.

Fourth, relations with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member countries could become less cordial. Although Pakistan maintains longstanding security and economic ties with Arab states, its perceived association with an unsuccessful US strategy may complicate regional diplomacy.

Fifth, Pakistan could face difficulties securing concessional loans, financial assistance and rollover facilities from its Arab brotherly countries. Given its persistent dependence on external financing, even a modest reduction in financial support could create substantial economic pressure.

Finally, the proposed US$10 billion exchange stabilization facility could remain elusive. If Washington decides to withhold the proposed support, Pakistan may discover that diplomatic alignment does not necessarily translate into financial rewards.

The fundamental question is whether Pakistan has adequately assessed the cost of its foreign-policy choices. A country surrounded by complex geopolitical realities cannot afford to place its strategic interests in a single basket.

Pakistan must urgently revisit its foreign policy, prioritizing national interests, regional stability and economic sovereignty over expectations of political patronage from Washington.

Diplomatic relevance is valuable, but it must not come at the expense of strategic independence.

Trump Must Be Condemned for Appointing Miller

President Donald Trump’s decision to appoint Stephen Miller as his new White House Chief of Staff deserves condemnation on several grounds. To begin with, it raises serious questions about the standards expected of someone occupying such an influential position in the US administration. Miller’s biggest disqualification, in the eyes of his critics, is his reputation for xenophobic and racist views and his uncompromising approach to immigration.

His appointment is particularly difficult to understand following the Republicans’ humiliating setback in the November 2026 midterm elections. Instead of acknowledging voters’ concerns and preparing to work with the incoming Democratic majorities, Trump has chosen someone widely regarded as a hardliner who prefers confrontation to compromise.

Someone sarcastically remarked that Miller is a gift to those who dared to vote Trump’s political opponents. There may be considerable truth in this observation. His elevation could provide Democrats with precisely the political ammunition they need to consolidate their position and challenge the administration’s policies.

Miller’s appointment also sends an unmistakable message that Trump intends to rely increasingly on executive authority, executive orders and regulations rather than building bridges with Congress. Even former Trump administration officials have expressed reservations, warning that this decision could take Washington towards two years of political confrontation.

However, the consequences may extend beyond partisan politics. Both chambers of Congress will face the responsibility of repairing the damage to America’s institutional credibility and international image. The appointment of a controversial hardliner at such a critical juncture hardly helps that effort.

Some analysts have already warned that if Trump continues to undermine American institutions and tarnish the country’s image, Congress may eventually have little choice but to consider impeachment. Whether such a move can secure the necessary political support remains another question.

Trump appears to have mistaken electoral defeat for an invitation to become more confrontational. By elevating Miller, he has strengthened his hardline camp, but he has also made life considerably easier for his political opponents. Sometimes, the greatest gift to an opponent is a decision made by one’s own leadership.

Eisenkot’s Entry, Netanyahu’s Exit: A Test for Peace

Israel’s President Isaac Herzog faces a defining moment on Sunday. His decision on whom to nominate to form the next government must be clear, decisive and guided by the long-term interests of the country rather than political expediency.

According to media reports, 67 lawmakers in the 120-member Knesset have recommended opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot, against 46 supporting Benjamin Netanyahu. Although the numbers appear decisive, mutual vetoes among political blocs have complicated the formation of a governing coalition.

Herzog must look beyond parliamentary arithmetic. His choice should reflect the urgent need to end the confrontation, to be precise, the war. Israelis have remained under a war-like situation since October 7, 2023. Continuing this cycle of hostility cannot be presented as a sustainable national strategy.

Eisenkot, despite receiving a majority of recommendations, faces a formidable challenge. Critics argue that he and Netanyahu represent two sides of the same coin. If he wishes to disprove this perception, he must demonstrate that his leadership can deliver a fundamentally different political and regional direction.

The most difficult, yet necessary, step would be to bring Arab parties into a governing alliance. Both Netanyahu and Eisenkot have reportedly ruled out such an arrangement, despite Arab lawmakers recommending Eisenkot. This contradiction exposes the limitations of Israel’s political inclusion.

Under the principle of “Mutual Coexistence,” Arab citizens must be treated as legitimate political stakeholders rather than convenient supporters whose votes are welcomed but whose participation is rejected.

Making Arab parties part of a governing coalition may prove to be one of the most difficult political tasks. However, if Israel genuinely seeks sustainable peace, this bitter pill has to be swallowed.

The peaceful transfer of power is a fundamental requirement of democracy. Netanyahu’s allegations of election irregularities, despite the Election Committee’s assurance that the integrity of the election was not compromised, should not be allowed to undermine public confidence.

Herzog must therefore nominate the candidate who offers the best opportunity to establish a government committed to reconciliation, inclusion and regional stability.

Eisenkot’s entry and Netanyahu’s exit could mark a turning point. However, changing the prime minister without changing the political mindset will merely reproduce the existing confrontation.

The real test is not who occupies the prime minister’s office, but who is prepared to end the war and build peace.

PSX benchmark index up 4.5%WoW

The Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) extended its gains during the outgoing week amid ongoing diplomatic efforts to end the Middle East conflict, including Qatar-mediated US-Iran talks, and a decline in international oil prices. The benchmark gained 7,477 points, up 4.5%WoW, to close at 173,887 on Friday, November 06, 2026, with average trading volume recorded at 1,021 million shares, but still down 7%WoW.

The US midterm elections were held on Tuesday, with Democrats winning control of both houses of Congress, leading to hopes of reduced geopolitical tensions and eased interest rates.

Brent crude eased by 15.9%WoW to US$98.8/ bbl as of Friday.

On the macroeconomic front, CPI inflation eased to 9.6%YoY in October 26, 2026 translating into 4MFY27 average inflation of 10.1%YoY as compared to 4.7% in the same period last year.

The Government of Pakistan (GoP) raised PkR393 billion through the latest PIB auction against the target of PKR350 billion, while cut-off yields declined by 11bps/10bps for the 3/5-year tenors and remained unchanged for the 2/10-year tenors.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased to US$21.6 billion as of October 30, 2026.

Petrol and HSD prices were reduced by PKR25.3/ltr and PKR18.4/ltr to PKR352.6/ltr and PKR382.3/ltr, respectively.

Cement offtakes increased 0.4%YoY to 4.8 million tons in October 2026, with local sales supported by recovering construction activity while exports declined amid the continued Afghan border closure.

OMC offtakes rose 4%YoY to 1.6 million tons, led by higher RFO sales as RLNG supply disruptions shifted power generation to RFO.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) IMF Executive Board meeting is expected next month, which could unlock around US$1.2 billion for Pakistan, 2) Pakistan LNG Limited issued tenders for two spot LNG cargoes, 3) GoP proposes LPG market reforms, 4) CPPA-G sought an increase of about 8% in the average power purchase price to PKR27.309/ kWh for CY27, and 5) Discos seek positive QTA adjustment of PKR1.34/kWh.

Top performing sectors were: Leasing, Modaraba, and Synthetic, while sectors that lagged the most were: Paper, Refinery, and Jute.

Major net buyers were Mutual Funds (US$27.8 million) and Companies (US$7.9 million). On the contrary, major selling was recorded by Banks (US$10.0 million) and Individuals (US$6.9 million).

Top performing scrips were: PSEL, PIOC, DGKC, GAL, and FCCL. On the other side, laggards included: CNERGY, ATRL, IMAGE, BWCL, and THCCL.

AKD Securities expects the market to improve on the back of strengthening economic indicators. Moreover, any positive development on Middle East conflict could moderate international oil prices and serve as a key trigger for market as it paves the way for monetary easing.

The market continues to trade at attractive valuations, with forward P/E of 6.3x. Our t

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

Pete Hegseth: Finally a Scapegoat Found

The November 4 midterm elections have created an unexpected political challenge for the Trump administration. The Democrats’ sweeping victory has intensified scrutiny of the US-Israel war on Iran, raising questions about its objectives, consequences, and the absence of a credible exit strategy.

In my November 4 blog, “America’s Tarnished Image: The Syndicate Must Find a Way Out,” I argued that The Syndicate might have to find a scapegoat to recast a negotiated settlement as strategic correction rather than an admission of defeat. The emerging controversy surrounding Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth appears to offer precisely such an opportunity.

Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky has threatened to reintroduce eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth unless he resigns. The allegations include extrajudicial killings, conducting wars without congressional authorization, and other abuses of power. Meanwhile, reports suggest that Republican lawmakers are increasingly blaming Hegseth for persuading President Donald Trump to attack Iran without a viable exit strategy.

The political irony is striking. Hegseth, one of the administration’s most enthusiastic advocates of military action, could eventually become its most convenient casualty. Vice President JD Vance has reportedly described the Iran war as a mistake, while congressional opposition to Hegseth is gaining momentum. Even the possibility of replacing him has reportedly entered White House discussions.

However, the question is whether sacrificing Hegseth would genuinely address the strategic failure or merely provide a temporary political cushion for the administration.

Trump has publicly defended his Defense Secretary, praising his performance and insisting that he has no immediate plans to remove him. Yet political loyalty can become expendable when electoral consequences threaten the administration’s survival. Hegseth’s removal could allow Trump to distance himself from the war’s disastrous consequences while shifting responsibility to one of its most vocal advocates.

The Syndicate may find it increasingly difficult to maintain a united front. A military campaign that promised strategic gains has instead exposed the limits of American power, intensified domestic political divisions, and damaged Washington’s international credibility.

Hegseth’s departure, whether through resignation, impeachment, or dismissal, could provide Trump with an opportunity to reposition himself. But replacing the architect of a failed strategy does not automatically produce a successful one.

The ultimate test will be whether The Syndicate chooses genuine strategic correction or simply searches for another scapegoat. America’s tarnished image cannot be restored by sacrificing one official while those responsible for the strategic miscalculation escape accountability.

What is more important, saving Netanyahu or Israel?

The political ground beneath Benjamin Netanyahu is shifting. Israel’s October 27 election delivered Likud the largest number of seats, but failed to preserve the parliamentary majority of his nationalist-religious coalition. Netanyahu’s political survival now appears increasingly uncertain. The election has exposed a deeper question: should Israel’s establishment protect one leader, or put the country’s interests above his ambitions?

Netanyahu’s longstanding allies are beginning to distance themselves. United Torah Judaism, a traditional coalition partner, declined to recommend any candidate to form the next government. Meanwhile, two Arab-led parties endorsed Gadi Eisenkot, Netanyahu’s rival, strengthening Eisenkot’s position in the presidential consultations.

The numbers remain complicated. Likud won 27 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while Netanyahu’s bloc secured 53—short of the 61 required for a majority. Eisenkot’s alliance of Jewish-led parties won 48 seats, with Arab parties holding 19. Whether Eisenkot can assemble 61 lawmakers remains uncertain. The momentum appears to be moving away from Netanyahu.

President Isaac Herzog faces a consequential decision. His responsibility is not to rescue a political heavyweight, but to identify the candidate most capable of forming a stable government. Israel’s security and diplomatic challenges, alongside its internal divisions, demand leadership that can restore public confidence.

Netanyahu has questioned the election’s integrity, alleging vote tampering and accusing Arab-led parties of stealing the vote. However, the Central Election Committee said the election was not compromised. Casting doubt on a legitimate result risks weakening the democratic institutions Israel claims to defend. The peaceful transfer of power is not a procedural inconvenience; it is a democratic foundation.

Since the US-Israel attack on Iran on February 28, I have argued that Washington appears to act as an Israeli proxy. Yet the rapid erosion of support for Netanyahu and Donald Trump suggests costs may be mounting.

If Eisenkot secures 61 seats and forms a government, Netanyahu’s political career could end—and legal accountability may follow, subject to due process and the presumption of innocence.

Israel must decide whether to save Netanyahu, or save its democracy, credibility and future. The country should come first.

Eisenkot’s Entry, Netanyahu’s Exit: Can They Bring Peace to the Region?

Benjamin Netanyahu enjoys the distinction of being Israel’s longest-serving prime minister. Over the years, he has pursued a policy of eliminating Israel’s perceived enemies, particularly Iran. The devastation in Gaza, where nearly 80,000 people have reportedly been killed, mostly women and children, has earned him widespread condemnation and allegations of war crimes. His decision to wage war on Iran in collaboration with the United States has further turned his perceived achievements into liabilities. The conflict has also exacted a political price in Washington, with the Iran war being cited as a major factor behind Donald Trump’s defeat in the midterm elections.

Removing Netanyahu from the political scene, at least temporarily, may be a prudent approach to prevent Israel from earning further condemnation. Having initiated the confrontation with Iran, Netanyahu is hardly the most credible figure to pursue meaningful negotiations. He should hand over the task of “washing the dirty linen” to someone capable of changing course.

Management teaches the importance of succession planning. Netanyahu, however, positioned himself as the indispensable “savior of Israel,” leaving little room for alternative leadership.

Gadi Eisenkot offers a potential alternative. Israel needs political courage to break the existing deadlock. Eisenkot should explore an arrangement with Arab parties to form a coalition government. Such cooperation would demonstrate that Israel’s political future need not depend on excluding its Arab citizens.

Eisenkot could then stand tall—not as another architect of an endless war, but as a leader willing to end it. His mandate should be to facilitate diplomacy, regional coexistence and a negotiated settlement, rather than perpetuate military escalation.

Israelis need peace and a congenial environment in their neighborhood. This requires abandoning the policy of keeping Palestinians subjugated and giving the two-state solution a genuine chance. Without addressing the Palestinian question, regional stability will remain elusive.

The war is approaching its ninth month. Netanyahu’s departure and Eisenkot’s emergence may not guarantee peace, but they could open a political and diplomatic door that remains firmly shut under the incumbent.

Eisenkot’s entry and Netanyahu’s exit could provide the political reset necessary to end the US-Israel war on Iran and begin rebuilding regional stability.

America’s Tarnished Image: The Syndicate Must Find a Way Out

Losing its majority in both houses of Congress may constrain Donald Trump, but it does not strip him of executive authority. The president retains veto power and can take certain actions without prior Senate approval, subject to constitutional and statutory limits. Apparently, little has changed in Washington’s political arithmetic.

Let us examine the continuity of US policy through two priorities: favouring Israel and maintaining an uncompromising posture toward Iran. I tend to believe that business will continue as usual, with Trump still enjoying the blessing of what I call “The Syndicate”—powerful interests sustaining this strategic orientation.

The two failed attempts to impeach Trump also invite scrutiny. In my view, they have not succeeded without The Syndicate’s tacit blessing. Another attempt may emerge, but the probability of success remains low. Congressional opposition alone may prove insufficient to reverse the administration’s course.

One possible source of pressure is the diaspora, which could take the lead in mobilizing domestic constituencies in the name of protecting the “have-nots.” Such mobilization could compel Washington to reconsider the resources and political capital being expended on overseas conflicts.

Yet the biggest challenge is restoring the tarnished image of the United States as a superpower. Ending the US-Israel war on Iran is not an easy task. It requires accepting the reality that Washington has not succeeded in bringing Tehran to its knees. An overt retreat would be portrayed as defeat; an outcome the administration would be reluctant to acknowledge.

Here lies a possible way out: The Syndicate has to find a scapegoat. A senior official, military adviser, or policy architect could be held responsible for misjudgment, flawed intelligence, or unrealistic war objectives. This would provide the administration with a political mechanism to recast a negotiated settlement as strategic correction rather than an admission of defeat.

However, scapegoating alone cannot end the conflict. A mediated ceasefire, reciprocal security assurances, and phased de-escalation, with Iran’s sovereignty respected, must form the foundation of a durable settlement.

Washington could claim that its strategic objectives had been achieved, while Tehran would avoid the humiliation of capitulation.

Ultimately, the challenge is not merely to end the war, but to create a narrative that allows the United States to retreat without appearing defeated. Can The Syndicate engineer such an exit, or will America’s quest for strategic dominance further tarnish its global image?

Trump's Midterm Defeat: The Writing on the Wall

The inevitable has happened. Donald Trump has suffered a sweeping midterm defeat, with Democrats capturing control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. This is not merely a Republican setback; it is also the defeat of The Syndicate that chose Trump to contest the presidential election and continued to provide him with overwhelming support during his second term.

Trump's defeat was the writing on the wall. His administration's policies have increasingly hurt ordinary Americans, who are struggling with inflation, rising energy costs and economic uncertainty. The electorate has delivered a clear message: political rhetoric cannot indefinitely compensate for the failure to address people's economic concerns.

The election results also reflect growing disillusionment with Washington's traditional approach to foreign policy. American presidents have repeatedly committed enormous amounts of taxpayers' money to military campaigns without achieving their declared objectives. The world's most powerful military has demonstrated that overwhelming firepower does not necessarily translate into strategic victory.

The Iran war has arguably become the last nail in the coffin of Trump's political fortunes. The administration's inability to achieve its stipulated objectives, despite pursuing maximum pressure and military escalation, has exposed the limitations of its strategy. Rather than compelling Tehran to submit, the confrontation has inflicted substantial economic costs and further tarnished America's international image.

The electoral backlash was particularly significant because Democrats made gains in traditionally Republican strongholds, including Texas, South Carolina and Iowa. Trump's personal intervention, endorsements and campaign rallies failed to reverse the tide. Voters were not simply choosing between political parties; they were expressing dissatisfaction with presidential leadership and demanding greater congressional oversight.

The implications extend beyond domestic politics. Democratic control of Congress could constrain Trump's ability to pursue an aggressive foreign policy, although it would not automatically bring a fundamental change in America's strategic priorities.

The defeat of Trump and The Syndicate should serve as a cautionary lesson. A superpower cannot indefinitely sustain its global ambitions by transferring the costs of strategic miscalculations to its citizens. Economic well-being, political accountability and diplomatic credibility remain essential pillars of national strength.

The American electorate has drawn its line. Whether Trump acknowledges this verdict or doubles down on confrontation will determine the trajectory of his remaining presidency.

Arab Parties in Israel: Democratic Representation or Political Exclusion?

Israel’s recent election has brought Arab political parties into the limelight, raising an intriguing question: are these parties genuinely accepted as legitimate participants in Israeli democracy, or are they merely tolerated when their parliamentary strength becomes politically indispensable?

The election has exposed a fundamental contradiction. Arab-led parties secured 19 seats in the 120-member Knesset, placing them in a potentially decisive position in the formation of the next government. Yet their participation in a governing coalition remains controversial among Jewish political leaders.

The reality deserves closer examination. Arab citizens constitute approximately 21% of Israel’s population, with Muslims forming the overwhelming majority of this community. They are not an insignificant minority. They are citizens entitled to vote, contest elections and participate in the country's political institutions. Their electoral representation is, therefore, a legitimate expression of democratic rights.

However, Israel’s political establishment remains deeply divided over the acceptability of Arab parties as coalition partners. Some Jewish politicians regard their participation as incompatible with Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, while others acknowledge that excluding a substantial segment of the electorate undermines democratic inclusiveness.

The Arab political landscape is itself diverse. Ra’am has demonstrated a pragmatic willingness to participate in a Jewish-led government, having joined the Bennett-Lapid coalition in 2021. Other Arab-led parties place greater emphasis on Palestinian national rights, equality and opposition to Zionism. Treating them as a single political entity would be misleading.

The present election has nevertheless created an opportunity. If Arab parties can influence the formation of a government, they may secure greater attention to crime, housing, employment, education and the persistent socioeconomic disparities affecting Arab communities.

The larger question is whether Jewish political leaders are prepared to accept Arab representatives as partners rather than convenient parliamentary numbers.

Democracy cannot be selectively applied. If Arab citizens are eligible to vote and their representatives are elected through a legitimate electoral process, their exclusion from political bargaining requires justification beyond ethnic or religious identity.

Israel’s political future may depend not merely on who forms the next government, but on whether its democracy can accommodate the political aspirations of its Arab citizens.

The ultimate test is simple: can Israel reconcile its Jewish national identity with equal democratic participation for its Arab population?

 

Isn’t Netanyahu Occupying Office Illegitimately?

Israel’s October 27, 2026 election has raised a fundamental question about the country’s political leadership: Is Benjamin Netanyahu justified in continuing to occupy the prime minister’s office after failing to secure a parliamentary majority or assemble a viable coalition government?

The election outcome represents more than a parliamentary setback. It reflects growing dissatisfaction with Netanyahu’s leadership and the consequences of his policies. Although Likud emerged as the largest party, Netanyahu’s bloc secured only 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, falling short of the 61 required to govern. The opposition’s failure to establish a viable coalition does not automatically restore his political mandate.

The distinction between electoral survival and political legitimacy deserves serious academic consideration. Winning the largest number of seats does not necessarily mean that voters have endorsed the incumbent’s policies. Equally, the inability of rival parties to agree on a coalition cannot be interpreted as an endorsement of Netanyahu’s leadership.

His erratic and imprudent policies have arguably inflicted considerable damage on Israel’s international image. Rather than strengthening regional stability, prolonged military confrontations have intensified hostility, deepened insecurity and complicated Israel’s diplomatic relationships.

Iran, meanwhile, has increasingly been portrayed as an existential threat. Netanyahu’s political narrative has helped transform Tehran into a larger strategic phantom, potentially obscuring the need for a more pragmatic assessment of regional realities. Security concerns are legitimate, but their persistent amplification can become politically counterproductive.

Israeli citizens have endured years of conflict, military mobilization and uncertainty. The continuation of such conditions raises questions about the responsibility of political leadership to pursue sustainable peace rather than perpetuate confrontation.

Netanyahu’s caretaker status may be legally permissible under Israel’s parliamentary framework. However, the absence of a fresh governing mandate and the failure to secure coalition partners raise legitimate questions about the political wisdom of his continued tenure.

The sooner Netanyahu vacates the office and allows a new political arrangement to emerge, the better it may be for Israel. Ultimately, national security cannot be measured exclusively through military power; it must also be assessed through public confidence, diplomatic credibility and the ability to provide citizens with a peaceful future.

The question is not merely whether Netanyahu can remain in office, but whether he should.

 

 

US Midterms: The Syndicate Must Revisit Its Iran War Strategy

The November 03, 2026, US midterm elections may deliver a significant verdict on President Donald Trump and his administration. However, irrespective of whether Trump and the Republican Party win or lose, I believe Washington’s policies will remain Israel-centric, with an increasingly brutal approach towards Iran. An extensive US-Israeli air assault on Iran after the midterms remains a distinct possibility.

My verdict is unequivocal: even another round of military assaults will not change the fate of this war. The United States has already lost strategically, having failed to achieve its declared objectives. Military superiority and the ability to inflict enormous destruction do not automatically translate into victory.

Ironically, the Trump administration has not swallowed this bitter reality. It continues to live under the illusion that the United States, in collaboration with Israel, can overpower Iran and compel it to surrender. This refusal to acknowledge strategic failure could lead Washington into another costly military adventure.

The prolonged, yet non-yielding, war has given Iran considerable time to revamp its military strategy and strengthen its strategic relationships with China and Russia. Although there is little discussion of this evolving cooperation in conventional and social media, its implications for the regional balance of power should not be underestimated.

Meanwhile, Arab allies hosting US military bases have had a bitter experience. Their critical assets have remained vulnerable, raising serious questions about the United States' ability to protect its regional partners. The presence of American military installations has not provided the security guarantees these countries had expected.

In my opinion, the time has come for “The Syndicate” to revisit its US war strategy. I can understand that even the Syndicate is not prepared to accept American defeat. However, refusing to acknowledge reality will only compound the consequences of strategic miscalculation.

Today, I suggest that Washington de-escalate, or even retreat, and take time to devise a new strategy. It must remember that the maximum-pressure policy has failed. Continuing to pursue the same approach while expecting a different outcome is an exercise in strategic adventurism.

A new, accommodating policy towards Iran is essential to ending this prolonged confrontation and the energy crisis it has unleashed. Global economies, including the US economy, are paying a heavy price.

The United States must recognize that another military assault cannot reverse a strategic defeat. The time has come to abandon the illusion of overpowering Iran and pursue a policy that can bring this war to an end.