Iran sinks US Ship carrying 30,000 Interceptors

Please watch and save this video, because shortly it may be removed. This narrates a story of Iran sinking a US Supply Ship USNS Robert E. Peary in Red Sea, where 30,000 interceptors were lost in 20 minutes. To hear details click https://youtu.be/WqAPNl-36NU?si=f-2ngZJCnc96BVCt

Lebanon Remains Israel’s Perpetual Battlefield

At first glance, Israel’s continued military engagement in Lebanon appears excessive, even perplexing. If Hezbollah is widely seen as a proxy of Iran, why does the conflict endure despite constraints on Iranian support? The answer lies not in territorial ambition, but in a doctrine shaped by insecurity and hard-learned lessons.

The origins of this confrontation trace back to the 1982 Lebanon War—a campaign aimed at neutralizing threats, not annexing territory. Yet it produced an unintended outcome: the rise of Hezbollah, a force far more adaptive and deeply embedded within Lebanon’s socio-political fabric than any of its predecessors. Its resilience stems not merely from external backing, but from local legitimacy, making it difficult to dismantle through conventional warfare.

Israel, mindful of the costs of past entanglements, no longer seeks occupation. Its strategy is narrower, yet relentless: degrade Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, disrupt its operational capacity, and maintain distance between the group and its northern frontier. This is not victory in the traditional sense—it is the management of a persistent threat.

Geography reinforces this reality. Southern Lebanon offers terrain ideally suited for asymmetric warfare, enabling even a weakened Hezbollah to project force into Israeli territory. For Israeli planners, restraint carries risk; periodic military action becomes a calculated necessity rather than a choice.

At a broader level, Lebanon serves as a proxy arena in the rivalry between Israel and Iran. Each strike on Hezbollah is also a signal to Tehran—asserting limits without crossing into direct war. This calibrated tension sustains a fragile but enduring equilibrium.

The conclusion is uncomfortable but clear. Lebanon is unlikely to witness lasting peace in the near term—not because Israel seeks to occupy it, but because it remains central to a conflict that thrives on continuity. In this unresolved contest between deterrence and resistance, stability is not the objective—only its temporary illusion.

Trump faces fate worse than Bush faced in Iraq

On March 17, 2026, I posted a blog titled “Washington’s Miscalculation: War It Can't Win”. Its opening paragraph was, I quote “Since the Iranian Revolution, the United States has pursued not coexistence with Iran, but its submission. Nearly five decades of sanctions, covert operations, and proxy confrontations have produced results Washington resists admitting - Iran has not weakened — it has adapted, and in many respects, hardened”. Today, March 21, 2026 Reuters ran a story with a caption “How Trump's stated reasons, goals and timeline for Iran war have shifted”.

 According to the report, President Donald Trump and his top officials have offered shifting objectives and reasons for the US-Israeli war on Iran, which critics say shows a lack of planning for the conflict and its aftermath.

Stated objectives and expected timeline have varied, including toppling Iran's government, weakening Iran's military, security and nuclear capabilities and its regional influence, as well as supporting Israeli interests.

Here is how Trump described his ​war goals and timeline:

FEBRUARY 28: CALLS FOR IRANIANS TO TOPPLE THEIR GOVERNMENT

The Iranian people should "take over" governance of their country, Trump said in a video on ‌social media as the US and Israel launched their attacks. "It will be yours to take," he added. "This will be probably your only chance for generations."

Trump described the attacks as "major combat operations."

FEBRUARY 28: WEAKEN IRAN'S MILITARY, INFLUENCE

Trump said Washington would deny Iran the ability to have a nuclear weapon, although Tehran has insisted its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Iran does not have nuclear weapons while the United States does. Israel is also widely believed to ​be the only Middle Eastern country with nuclear weapons.

Trump insisted he would end what he described as Tehran's ballistic missile threat. "We're going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile ​industry to the ground," he said. "We're going to annihilate their navy."

Trump claimed Iran's long range missiles "can now threaten our very good friends and allies ⁠in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland."

His remarks echoed the case of President George W. Bush for the Iraq war, which had false claims. Neither experts nor ​US intelligence support Trump's assertions and both assess that Iran's ballistic missile program was years from threatening the US homeland.

MARCH 2: SHIFTING TIMELINE

Trump said the war was projected to last four to five ​weeks but could go on longer.

"We're already substantially ahead of our time projections. But whatever the time is, it's okay. Whatever it takes," Trump said at the White House. In a social media post, Trump said there was a "virtually unlimited supply" of US munitions and that "wars can be fought 'forever,' and very successfully, using just these supplies."

In a notification to Congress, Trump provided no timeline. Trump earlier told the Daily Mail the war could take "four weeks, ​or less," then told The New York Times four to five weeks and subsequently said it could take longer.

MARCH 2: RUBIO SAYS US ATTACKED IRAN BECAUSE ISRAEL DID

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told ​reporters Israel's determination to attack Iran forced Washington to strike.

"We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if ‌we didn't preemptively ⁠go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties," Rubio said.

MARCH 3: TRUMP CONTRADICTS RUBIO

Trump said he ordered US forces to join Israel's attack on Iran because he believed Iran was about to strike first.

"I might have forced their (Israel's) hand," Trump said. "If we didn't do it, they (Iran) were going to attack first."

MARCH 04: CALL TO 'DESTROY' SECURITY INFRASTRUCTURE

Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said the goal was to "destroy Iranian offensive missiles, destroy Iranian missile production, destroy their navy and other security infrastructure."

MARCH 06: 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' CALL

"There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER," Trump wrote on social ​media.

MARCH 8-11: JUST THE START BUT ALSO 'PRETTY MUCH ​COMPLETE'

Hegseth told CBS News in an interview aired ⁠March 08 strikes on Iran were "only just the beginning."

A day later, Trump told the same network "I think the war is very complete, pretty much."

"We've already won in many ways, but we haven't won enough," Trump told reporters later on the same day. When asked if the war was beginning ​or complete, he said: "Well, I think you could say both."

On March 11, Trump again said he thought the US had won but: "We've got ​to finish the job."

MARCH 13: ⁠SOFTENS CALL FOR INTERNAL UPRISING

In a March 13 interview, Trump told Fox News the war will end "when I feel it in my bones."

Trump softened his call for Iranians to topple their government. "So I really think that's a big hurdle to climb for people that don't have weapons," Trump said.

MARCH 19: HEGSETH SAYS NO TIME FRAME

Hegseth said Washington was not setting a time frame for the war and Trump would ⁠decide when to ​stop.

"We wouldn't want to set a definitive time frame," the Pentagon chief said. "It will be at the president's choosing, ​ultimately, where we say, 'Hey, we've achieved what we need to.'"

MARCH 20: TRUMP CONSIDERS WINDING DOWN BUT NO CEASEFIRE

Trump posted on Truth Social, "we are getting very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts" in ​the Iran war. Earlier in the day, Trump told reporters "I don't want to do a ceasefire" when asked about the war.

 

Riyadh Returns to Iran Threat Narrative

In the aftermath of Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the United States recalibrated its regional strategy, increasingly presenting Tehran as the principal source of instability in the Middle East. Over time, this framing found resonance in several Arab capitals, particularly in Saudi Arabia, shaping a security outlook that continues to influence regional policy choices.

This perception was reinforced through tangible measures. The expansion of US military infrastructure across the Gulf—most prominently in Qatar—was justified largely on the premise of countering Iranian influence. Simultaneously, Washington sustained economic pressure on Tehran over its nuclear program, despite Iran’s status as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, in contrast to Israel’s longstanding ambiguity.

Historical episodes added further complexity. The Iran-Iraq war entrenched regional rivalries, while later diplomatic efforts—including the nuclear agreement under President Barack Obama and the China-brokered rapprochement between Riyadh and Tehran—offered brief openings for recalibration. Yet such initiatives have struggled to overcome deeply embedded mistrust, particularly amid shifting US policies and competing geopolitical interests.

Recent remarks by Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan reflect a return to a more cautious, if not hardened, posture. His assertion that trust in Iran has been “completely shattered,” alongside allegations of destabilizing activities across the region, underscores Riyadh’s growing concerns about security and sovereignty. These claims are rooted in reported attacks on energy infrastructure and maritime navigation, which Saudi Arabia and its partners attribute to Iran.

Tehran, however, has consistently rejected such accusations, framing its actions as defensive and, at times, suggesting that regional escalations are shaped by broader geopolitical contestation. Independent verification of specific incidents remains contested, contributing to a narrative environment marked as much by perception as by provable fact.

What emerges is not merely a dispute over actions, but over interpretation. Saudi Arabia’s current stance appears closely aligned with a long-standing US strategic framing that positions Iran as the central regional threat. While this perspective reflects genuine security concerns, it also risks narrowing the analytical lens through which complex regional dynamics are understood.

The persistence of this narrative suggests that, despite episodic diplomacy and shifting alliances, foundational perceptions remain largely intact. In effect, Riyadh’s position today echoes a familiar refrain—one shaped over decades—where Iran continues to be viewed as the primary challenge to regional stability.

Time Is on Iran’s Side

Despite the overwhelming military might of the United States and Israel, time may ultimately favor Iran in the ongoing conflict, as mounting political and economic pressures strain the Trump administration.

Since launching Operation Epic Fury, US forces have reportedly struck some 6,000 Iranian targets, damaging naval vessels, missile launch sites, and other military infrastructure. The US Central Command says more than 90 Iranian vessels have been neutralized. Experts argue that Iran anticipated such attacks and structured its defense around confronting conventionally superior foes.

Analysts note that Iran is deliberately prolonging the conflict, betting it can endure military pressure longer than the US can withstand domestic political fallout. Rising oil prices, disruptions in global energy markets, and attacks on US allies in the Gulf have intensified the economic and diplomatic costs of the war. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has pushed oil prices near US$100 per barrel, adding further pressure on the global economy.

Military analysts suggest that Iran’s definition of victory is simple - survival. Removing the current leadership in Tehran would require far greater military commitment than the United States has so far deployed. Pentagon officials reported that the war cost over $11.3 billion in just the first six days. The conflict has also taken a human toll - seven American service members have died, and roughly 140 have been wounded.

In his first statement as Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and continue military pressure on regional adversaries. The US is considering naval escorts for oil tankers through the waterway. Analysts warn that as the conflict drags on, rising economic costs, political divisions in Washington, and potential casualties could erode domestic support for what some critics describe as an “optional war.”

While US and Israeli forces dominate tactically, Iran’s endurance strategy could make the political and economic cost of the conflict unsustainable for the United States, leaving the regime in Tehran intact and the strategic balance in the Gulf uncertain.

Who Is Benefiting From War on Iran?

As the conflict involving United States and Israel against Iran intensifies, the humanitarian cost has understandably dominated headlines. Yet wars are rarely judged only by the destruction they cause. Equally important is a harder question: who ultimately benefits from the economic and geopolitical consequences of war?

Daily Brief: PSX and Global Markets

Pakistan’s equity market ended almost flat on Wednesday, while trading in silver contracts remained suspended at the Pakistan Mercantile Exchange (PMEX). Meanwhile, Asian equities declined on Thursday as oil prices surged. Both crude benchmarks jumped about 9%, the safe-haven US dollar hovered near its strongest levels of the year, and gold prices held broadly steady. US stocks also closed lower on Wednesday. To read details click https://shkazmipk.com/capital-market-review-49/

Early estimates suggest Washington may be spending close to a billion dollars a day on military operations. While the figure appears staggering, such expenditures often circulate within the American economy itself. The vast defense ecosystem surrounding the United States Department of Defense thrives during prolonged military engagements. Demand rises for missiles, air defense systems, surveillance equipment and logistical support produced by companies such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, and Northrop Grumman. In that sense, war can act as a powerful economic multiplier for the military-industrial complex.

Energy markets provide another revealing dimension. The Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint, carries nearly one-fifth of global crude supplies. Any disruption or closure immediately pushes oil prices higher. Ironically, such instability may strengthen the position of the United States, which has emerged as one of the world’s leading oil and liquefied natural gas exporters. Higher global prices make American energy exports more profitable while opening opportunities to capture market share in Europe and Asia.

For Gulf producers, the situation is more complex. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar depend heavily on secure maritime routes to ship oil and gas to global markets. If traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is disrupted, export volumes could decline even while prices surge. In such a scenario, higher prices may not fully offset reduced shipments.

Geopolitical instability may also reinforce the dominance of the United States Dollar in global energy trade. Efforts by emerging economies to establish alternative settlement mechanisms often lose momentum when markets retreat toward the perceived safety of dollar-based transactions.

Meanwhile, elevated oil prices could still deliver additional fiscal space for Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, helping finance ambitious transformation initiatives such as NEOM and other development plans.

None of this proves that economic gain is the sole driver of conflict. But history repeatedly shows that wars reshape markets and redistribute advantages. When the guns fall silent, the question will remain: was this merely a geopolitical confrontation, or a conflict whose economic dividends were quietly anticipated from the start?

Donald Trump’s War Without Wisdom

At a time when nuclear negotiations were reportedly moving in a constructive direction, the United States—reportedly in coordination with Israel—launched strikes on Iran, abruptly escalating tensions in an already volatile region. The attacks targeted military and nuclear installations and reportedly eliminated senior Iranian commanders. What might have been intended as a strategic show of force has instead opened the door to a far more dangerous confrontation.

The shift from diplomacy to military action marks a critical turning point. Washington and its allies appeared to believe that overwhelming military superiority would quickly deter Tehran and force strategic concessions. Yet such assumptions often overlook the political realities of the Middle East, where military pressure rarely produces the swift outcomes external powers anticipate.

Iran’s response was swift and predictable. Tehran vowed retaliation against American bases across the Gulf region as well as against Israeli targets. More significantly, the crisis has threatened shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical energy corridors. Even the possibility of disruption in this narrow passage has unsettled global markets, as a substantial share of the world’s oil and gas supplies transit through it.

The episode underscores a recurring strategic miscalculation: the tendency of powerful states to underestimate the capacity of regional actors to retaliate through asymmetric means. Iran may not match the conventional military strength of the United States or Israel, but it possesses the capability to impose serious economic and geopolitical costs.

Equally troubling is the humanitarian dimension. Escalating strikes inevitably increase civilian suffering and deepen instability across the region. Experience shows that conflicts in the Middle East rarely remain contained; instead, they tend to trigger broader geopolitical ripple effects that extend far beyond the immediate battlefield.

The central question now is whether military escalation can achieve what diplomacy could not. History suggests otherwise. Wars launched without a credible political endgame often evolve into prolonged strategic traps.

For the international community, the priority must now be de-escalation. Continued confrontation risks destabilizing the Gulf, disrupting global energy markets, and entrenching hostility for years to come. Strategic restraint, however difficult, remains the only path toward preventing a wider and far more destructive regional conflict.

Only Time Will Tell Who Survives? Mojtaba Khamenei or Donald Trump

The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s new Supreme Leader marks a dramatic turning point in the region’s already volatile geopolitics. Coming in the aftermath of the killing of his father, Ali Khamenei, during recent strikes against Iran, the succession signals continuity rather than change within the Islamic Republic’s power structure. Yet the broader question now emerging is not simply about leadership transition in Tehran, but about the intensifying confrontation between Iran and the United States.

The powerful Assembly of Experts, the constitutional body responsible for selecting Iran’s Supreme Leader, announced Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment after what it described as a decisive vote. For years, Mojtaba had been viewed as a leading contender due to his influence within Iran’s clerical establishment, security institutions and the vast economic networks that developed under his father’s long rule. His elevation therefore suggests that Iran’s hardline establishment remains firmly in control despite the shock caused by the assassination of its previous leader.

The geopolitical temperature rose further after remarks by Donald Trump, who declared that Washington should have a say in Iran’s leadership transition. The US president warned that the new leader might not “last long” without American approval. Such statements are unusual in diplomatic practice, as leadership succession is traditionally regarded as an internal matter of sovereign states.

At the same time, Israel had reportedly warned that whoever succeeded Ali Khamenei could become a target. These developments transform what might have remained an internal political transition into a potentially dangerous regional confrontation involving multiple actors.

History suggests that external pressure often produces unintended consequences in Iran. Rather than weakening the ruling establishment, foreign threats frequently reinforce internal cohesion and strengthen the narrative of resistance promoted by the Islamic Republic.

Ultimately, geopolitical contests are rarely decided by bold statements or threats alone. Political survival depends on domestic legitimacy, strategic endurance and the unpredictable shifts of international power.

As tensions escalate between Tehran and Washington, one reality remains clear - history, not rhetoric, determines political longevity. Only time will tell who ultimately survives this unfolding confrontation — Mojtaba Khamenei or Donald Trump

US Lust for Oil Reserves of Venezuela and Iran

Venezuela and Iran possess the largest and third-largest energy reserves in the world, respectively. Both nations have long faced persistent pressure from United States in the form of sanctions, political isolation, and attempts at regime change. While access to vast hydrocarbon wealth is an obvious factor, the issue goes beyond mere economics. Control over global energy flows remains central to sustaining geopolitical dominance, a principle reflected in Washington’s long-standing strategic doctrines emphasizing “energy dominance” and global power projection.

The contest surrounding Venezuela and Iran reflects a broader struggle between great-power dominance and national sovereignty. While temporary accommodations may emerge, the geopolitical rivalry over energy resources, political independence, and global influence is unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

For both Venezuela and Iran, sovereign control over their hydrocarbon resources is essential for maintaining even a limited degree of political independence. Historically, both countries challenged Western dominance of their energy sectors. In Iran, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry in 1951, triggering a CIA-backed coup that removed him from power. Venezuela followed a similar path when it consolidated its oil industry under the state company Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., a process later reinforced during the presidency of Hugo Chávez. As founding members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), both countries sought to strengthen collective leverage against Western oil dominance.

Their resistance to the US-led international order also shaped their broader foreign policies. Iran emerged as a central actor in regional resistance movements and a vocal supporter of Palestinian rights. Venezuela similarly backed Palestinian self-determination and severed diplomatic ties with Israel in 2009, while maintaining strong relations with Cuba and other governments critical of US foreign policy.

Washington’s response has largely taken the form of sanctions and political pressure. In 2015, US President Barack Obama declared Venezuela an “extraordinary threat” to US national security, opening the door for unilateral coercive measures. These pressures were intensified under Donald Trump, whose administration pursued “maximum pressure” campaigns against both Caracas and Tehran. Targeted killings, including that of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, further demonstrated Washington’s willingness to employ force to advance its strategic objectives.

Energy markets also play a role in shaping geopolitical timing. Escalation with Iran has frequently coincided with concerns about global oil supply, particularly the vulnerability of shipments passing through the strategic Strait of Hormuz. In such circumstances, Venezuela’s vast oil reserves are often viewed as a potential buffer capable of stabilizing global supply if disruptions occur in the Middle East.

Despite years of sanctions and pressure, Venezuela has demonstrated notable political resilience. Even amid attempts to isolate the government of President Nicolás Maduro, leadership continuity under Vice President Delcy Rodríguez has helped maintain state authority. Diplomatic engagement between Washington and Caracas has intermittently resumed, reflecting the reality that even adversaries must sometimes negotiate.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.