Israel’s Security Paradox: Strength Without Psychological Closure

Benjamin Netanyahu’s long political dominance has coincided with one of the most turbulent phases in Israel’s modern security history. For his supporters, he represents strategic clarity in a hostile region. For critics, his era reflects the entrenchment of a permanent conflict mindset. Both interpretations, in different ways, touch the same underlying reality - Israel’s security condition today is defined as much by perception as by power.

Militarily, Israel remains one of the most capable states in the Middle East. Its intelligence infrastructure, air power, and multi-layered defence systems have significantly strengthened deterrence. Several adversaries are either weakened, fragmented, or operating under constraints not seen in previous decades. From a purely conventional standpoint, Israel’s strategic position appears more secure than in many earlier phases of its history.

Yet this is only one side of the equation. On the ground, security is not experienced in abstract balances of power. It is experienced through sirens, shelters, alerts, and the unpredictability of escalation. For civilians—particularly children growing up amid periodic conflict—security becomes a lived rhythm rather than a stable condition. Even when attacks are intercepted or contained, the psychological imprint of uncertainty remains. This is where Israel’s central paradox emerges - growing military strength has not translated into a proportional sense of psychological security.

The reason lies in the changing nature of conflict. Traditional wars between defined states have increasingly been replaced by asymmetric threats—rockets, proxy forces, cross-border raids, and regional instability. These forms of confrontation do not require parity to create disruption; they require only unpredictability. As a result, even a militarily dominant state can remain socially alert, frequently mobilized, and psychologically exposed.

Within Israeli society, this produces a dual perception. One strand believes Israel is stronger than ever, capable of managing multiple fronts simultaneously. Another strand, equally present, sees a country that remains encircled not necessarily by conventional armies, but by persistent and evolving threats that rarely disappear entirely.

Netanyahu’s political approach has reinforced this condition of “managed insecurity”—a doctrine in which deterrence is maintained not by eliminating threats, but by continuously containing them. This may strengthen strategic positioning in the short term, but it also prevents a full transition from conflict management to post-conflict normalcy.

The result is a society that oscillates between confidence and anxiety. Military superiority coexists with civilian vulnerability. Tactical successes coexist with strategic uncertainty. And periods of calm are often interpreted not as resolution, but as interludes between escalations.

The question is not whether Israelis believe their enemies are weaker or stronger. The more accurate question is whether they believe threats can ever be fully removed from their horizon.

For many, the answer remains uncertain. And it is in that uncertainty—more than in battlefield outcomes—that Israel’s modern security condition is ultimately defined.

Blockade of Strait of Hormuz: A Symptom, Not the Disease

The rising tension surrounding the Strait of Hormuz is once again dominating global headlines. Yet portraying the crisis merely as a maritime security dispute risks missing the broader geopolitical picture. The threat of disruption in one of the world's most critical energy corridors is not an isolated event; it reflects deeper and long-standing strategic tensions in the Middle East. Military posturing at sea may be the visible manifestation of the crisis, but the roots extend far beyond naval deployments.

At the center of the dispute lies the decades-long confrontation between the United States and Iran, shaped by disagreements over Tehran's nuclear ambitions, missile capabilities, regional influence, and economic sanctions. Successive rounds of sanctions have sought to pressure Iran into altering its strategic behavior, while Iran has argued that these measures amount to economic coercion intended to weaken its sovereignty and limit its regional role.

Supporters of sanctions maintain that economic pressure remains an important instrument for preventing nuclear proliferation and deterring regional escalation.

Critics, however, argue that prolonged sanctions have often generated unintended consequences, hardening positions rather than creating space for sustainable diplomacy. This divergence reflects one of the most enduring debates in international relations - whether coercive pressure changes behavior or merely deepens confrontation.

Questions regarding global non-proliferation policies have further complicated the debate. Critics often point to perceived inconsistencies in the international system, particularly concerning different approaches toward regional nuclear capabilities. Such perceptions, whether fully justified or not, contribute to mistrust and reinforce narratives of unequal treatment.

The Strait of Hormuz therefore should not be viewed solely through the narrow lens of maritime access or freedom of navigation. Any temporary reduction in tensions at sea may provide immediate relief to energy markets, but lasting stability is unlikely to emerge without addressing the wider political and economic disputes that continue to fuel confrontation.

The lesson is straightforward - blockades and naval tensions are symptoms of deeper geopolitical fractures. Addressing the symptom may calm markets for a time, but durable stability requires resolution of the underlying political disputes that continue to shape the region's strategic landscape.

Dubai’s Dangerous Drift

For decades, Dubai built its prosperity on neutrality, commerce, and strategic pragmatism. It transformed itself into the Middle East’s leading financial and logistics hub by staying open to all sides. Today that carefully cultivated image appears increasingly at risk as the emirate seems to drift into a broader US-led confrontation with Iran.

Recent tensions with Saudi Arabia, speculation surrounding its future role in OPEC, and growing American pressure to assume a larger regional security role have created an uncomfortable perception that Dubai may be abandoning neutrality for geopolitical adventurism.

That could prove dangerously costly.

Dubai’s economic strength depends overwhelmingly on foreign investment, tourism, trade, and financial services. Unlike larger regional powers, it possesses limited industrial and manufacturing depth to absorb prolonged geopolitical shocks. The moment investors sense instability, capital flight can begin rapidly. Financial centers survive on confidence, not military alliances.

Geography further magnifies the risk. Iran lies directly across the Gulf. In any military escalation, ports, airports, financial districts, and energy infrastructure become exposed targets. Even limited retaliation could disrupt shipping lanes, damage investors’ sentiments, and undermine Dubai’s carefully built reputation as a safe commercial gateway.

Another uncomfortable reality is often overlooked. While Israel may welcome Gulf normalization politically, it also views regional influence competitively. Dubai’s emergence as a dominant commercial and logistics hub does not necessarily align with Israeli ambitions to become the region’s undisputed technological and economic powerhouse.

Critical assets such as Jebel Ali Port and Port of Fujairah are central not only to Gulf trade, but also to global supply chains. Dubai became successful by avoiding regional confrontations. Abandoning that balance may expose the emirate to consequences far beyond its calculations.

Dubai’s Departure from Strategic Neutrality

For decades, Dubai’s greatest strength was not oil, military power, or ideology. Its success rested on something far more valuable - strategic neutrality. Long before the Abraham Accords, Dubai had developed deep commercial relations with Iran. Iranian traders, investors, and businesses contributed significantly to Dubai’s emergence as the Gulf’s financial and trading hub. Geography, commerce, and pragmatism kept the relationship functional despite periodic political tensions. That balance now appears dangerously fragile.

The recent regional escalation involving Israel, backed firmly by the United States, has fundamentally altered Gulf dynamics. Once confrontation expanded beyond rhetoric, countries hosting American military infrastructure inevitably became exposed to Iranian retaliation. The message from Tehran was unmistakable - no state facilitating strategic pressure against Iran can expect complete immunity from the consequences.

Dubai today faces a strategic contradiction. On one hand, closer ties with Israel promise access to advanced technology, intelligence cooperation, and stronger alignment with Western security interests. On the other hand, this growing partnership risks eroding the very foundations of Dubai’s economic model.

Global investors do not merely seek modern infrastructure or luxury skylines; they seek predictability and stability. Dubai’s ports, aviation industry, tourism sector, and re-export businesses all depend upon the perception that the emirate remains insulated from regional conflict. Persistent hostility with Iran threatens that perception.

The Gulf cannot afford a prolonged environment where trade routes remain vulnerable, energy corridors uncertain, and geopolitical tensions permanently elevated. Iran, despite sanctions and diplomatic isolation, remains a pivotal regional actor with influence over critical maritime routes and strategic leverage that cannot simply be ignored.

The real danger for Dubai is not military confrontation alone. It is the gradual loss of its carefully cultivated identity as a neutral gateway between competing powers. History shows that commercial centers flourish when they build bridges, not when they become extensions of geopolitical rivalries.

Dubai’s growing closeness with Israel may deliver short-term strategic gains, but if it destroys regional economic equilibrium, the long-term costs could far outweigh the immediate benefits.

Araghchi urges BRICS nations to condemn US-Israel aggression against Iran

Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi on Thursday urged BRICS nations to condemn what he called violations of ‌international law by the United States and Israel, including "their illegal aggression" against his country.

His remarks at a two-day meeting in New Delhi underscore divisions within the expanded BRICS bloc, as the US-Israeli war on Iran casts a shadow over the gathering of foreign ministers.

Araghchi criticized Washington, describing the war as "illegal expansionism and warmongering," and said Iran remained open to diplomacy while being ready to defend itself "with ⁠all available means."

"Iran therefore calls upon BRICS member states and all responsible members of the international community to explicitly condemn violations of international law by the United States and Israel," he said.

The conflict, which began on February 28, has heightened geopolitical tensions and sparked a global energy crisis.

In his opening remarks, Indian Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar struck a cautious tone, avoiding direct criticism while stressing the importance of stability.

"The conflict in West Asia merits particular attention," Jaishankar said, without naming specific countries.

He said unimpeded maritime flows through international waterways, including the Strait of Hormuz ⁠and the Red Sea, were vital for global economic well-being.

He also flagged concerns over the growing use of unilateral sanctions, a longstanding point of contention among BRICS members.

"There is an increasing resort to unilateral ⁠coercive measures and sanctions inconsistent with international law and the UN Charter," he said. "Such measures disproportionately affect developing countries. These unjustifiable measures cannot substitute dialogue, nor can pressure replace diplomacy."

Jaishankar added that emerging economies expect BRICS to play a "constructive and stabilizing role" at a time of rising geopolitical fragmentation and economic uncertainty.

The grouping, originally comprising Brazil, Russia, India and China, was expanded to include South Africa in 2011, and more recently admitted Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The expansion has boosted its global weight but also increased internal divergences on geopolitical issues. India holds the BRICS chair for 2026.

Iran's stance could make it difficult for BRICS — which operates by consensus — to agree on a joint statement, given the UAE’s presence on the opposing side.

Iran has launched numerous attacks on the UAE and other neighboring countries.

The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz — a ‌critical artery ⁠that handles roughly a fifth of global oil shipments — has triggered one of the biggest supply disruptions in recent history.

The curbs on tanker traffic have pushed crude prices sharply higher, fuelling fears of renewed inflation, tighter financial conditions and a potential global economic slowdown, particularly for energy-importing economies such as India.

Separately, India's foreign ministry said on Thursday that an Indian-flagged ship was attacked off the coast of Oman on Wednesday and all crew on board were safe.

"The ⁠attack ... is unacceptable and we deplore the fact that commercial shipping and civilian mariners continue to be targeted."

However, two LPG tankers announcing India as their destination have crossed the Strait of Hormuz between Wednesday and Thursday, ship tracking data indicates.

The Marshall Islands-flagged Symi and Vietnam-flagged NV Sunshine are the first India-bound energy tankers to transit the fraught waters of the Strait of Hormuz in nearly two weeks. Both the LPG tankers have stated Gujarat’s Kandla port as their intended destination.

So far, 10 India-flagged vessels—nine LPG tankers and one crude oil tanker—have crossed the Strait of Hormuz since early March.

 

Trump: Diplomat, Opportunist, Hypocrite or Simply a Gambler?

The latest headline in Nikkei Asia — “Trump calls Xi ‘great leader,’ vows ties will be better than ever” — once again exposes the extraordinary contradictions that define the politics of US President, Donald Trump. Only recently, Trump had declared that the United States did not require Chinese cooperation to deal with a possible blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, Washington continued tightening sanctions targeting the movement of Iranian oil to China while portraying Beijing as America’s principal strategic adversary.

The sudden shift in tone raises a serious question, who exactly is Donald Trump — a diplomat, an opportunist, a hypocrite, or simply a political gambler?

Diplomacy normally relies on consistency, credibility, and strategic clarity. Trump’s style appears fundamentally different. His statements often seem driven less by coherent long-term policy and more by immediate political or economic convenience. One-day China is accused of exploiting global trade, weakening American industry, and threatening international security. The next day, Xi Jinping is described as a “great leader” and bilateral relations are promised a bright future.

Such contradictions may energize domestic political audiences, but these simultaneously weaken America’s diplomatic credibility abroad. Allies struggle to understand Washington’s actual strategic direction, while rivals increasingly view American policy as transactional and unpredictable.

The contradiction becomes even sharper when examined alongside Trump’s broader policies. Sanctions on Chinese-linked Iranian oil trade, aggressive tariff rhetoric, restrictions on technology exports, and repeated efforts to economically isolate Beijing all reinforce the perception that Trump views China less as a business partner and more as a geopolitical foe. Yet whenever economic pressure begins unsettling American markets or threatening global supply chains, the rhetoric suddenly softens.

When a leader repeatedly alternates between portraying China as an existential threat and praising its leadership as indispensable, critics naturally begin questioning whether such statements reflect genuine policy or merely political convenience.

This is not classical diplomacy. It resembles high-stakes bargaining where confrontation and praise are alternated to maximize leverage. Trump appears convinced that unpredictability itself is a negotiating weapon. However, unpredictability may work in real estate deals; it becomes dangerous in global geopolitics.

Great powers can survive hostile rivals, but they struggle under inconsistent leadership. The real danger for America may not be China’s rise, but Washington’s inability to decide whether Beijing is an enemy to confront or a partner it ultimately cannot live without.

UAE and Fractured Middle East

Since endorsing the Abraham Accords, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has recast itself as a forward-looking state prioritizing economic opportunity over ideological rigidity. Normalization with Israel opened avenues in trade, technology, and finance, but it also stirred unease across sections of the Muslim world, where the move is still viewed as a departure from collective positioning on Palestine.

The discomfort is not merely rhetorical. Within parts of the Arab region, policy circles continue to debate whether such outreach weakens negotiating leverage on longstanding geopolitical disputes. Even in the United States—a principal architect of the accords—analysts have quietly flagged the risks of accelerated realignments that outpace regional stability.

Dubai’s rise as a global financial hub adds complexity to this equation. Increased capital flows, including those linked to Israeli networks, have energized its economy, but they also expose it to heightened scrutiny in an era of sanctions enforcement and financial transparency. Longstanding discussions in compliance circles about the emirate’s role in facilitating trade with Iran further underscore the delicate balance it must maintain.

Recent regional tensions have brought these vulnerabilities into sharper focus. Reports of attacks targeting strategic assets in Dubai—amid conflicting narratives about their origin—highlight a critical reality, economic hubs cannot remain insulated from geopolitical rivalries.

The UAE’s strategy reflects ambition and pragmatism, but also risk. In a region where alliances shift rapidly, economic integration without parallel security insulation may prove a fragile proposition.

US remains an uninvited guest in Persian Gulf

I am pleased to share one of my blogs posted on May 06, 2020, nearly six years ago, arguing that the United States has no legitimate role in the Persian Gulf and is effectively an “uninvited guest.”

A key theme is historical legitimacy. Iranian officials draw parallels with past foreign powers such as Britain and Portugal, noting that they eventually left the region, implying the United States will also have to withdraw.

The Persian Gulf is framed not only as a strategic waterway but as part of Iran’s identity, with claims that it has been protected by Iranians for thousands of years.

The blog also highlights Iran’s emphasis on military readiness. Rouhani and others stress that Iran’s armed forces—including the Revolutionary Guards, army, and associated units—are fully capable of securing the region.

Iranian officials describe the US presence as a source of instability, tension, and insecurity, insisting that regional security should be handled by neighboring countries.

Overall, the blog reflects a coherent narrative aimed at delegitimizing US presence while asserting Iran’s dominance and responsibility in the Persian Gulf.

To read details please click https://shkazmipk.blogspot.com/2020/05/united-states-uninvited-guest-in.html

Trump’s China Visit Under Scrutiny

Two important questions arise regarding Donald Trump’s proposed visit to China: Is this the right time? And does the United States still retain strategic supremacy over China?

On timing, the moment appears sensitive. Beijing’s concerns have grown in light of tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy flows. Given Iran’s role as a key oil
supplier to China, any perceived threat to Iranian exports naturally raises strategic anxieties in Beijing. As a result, the relationship is no longer confined to trade disputes; it is increasingly shaped by energy security considerations.

The second question—whether the United States continues to enjoy clear supremacy—is more nuanced. Washington may still hold significant military, technological, and financial advantages, the recent developments, including pressures on munitions supplies and a relatively reduced naval presence in the South China Sea, may influence perceptions of its negotiating position. In diplomacy, perception often complements reality.

At the same time, China continues to pursue long-term structural adjustments. Its efforts to promote trade settlement mechanisms beyond the US Dollar reflect a gradual attempt to diversify financial dependencies. While such shifts are unlikely to produce immediate transformation, they do indicate a broader strategic direction.

Market signals, including movements in gold and energy prices, suggest a degree of global uncertainty. However, linking these directly to a decisive shift away from the dollar would require careful qualification, as currency realignments tend to evolve over extended periods.

In sum, the proposed visit may be better understood as a cautious diplomatic engagement rather than a demonstration of dominance. The United States remains a central global power, but its position is increasingly subject to scrutiny. Navigating this evolving landscape will require both restraint and strategic clarity.

Who Truly Dominates the Arabian Peninsula?

The idea of a “superpower” in the Arabian Peninsula is often shaped by wealth, alliances, and perception. Remove external backing—particularly that of the United States—and the equation changes dramatically. What remains is a test of self-reliance, endurance, and the ability to fight alone.

At first glance, Saudi Arabia appears dominant. With one of the world’s largest defense budgets and a formidable arsenal of advanced aircraft and missile systems, it projects overwhelming strength. Yet this power is structurally dependent. Its military ecosystem relies heavily on imported platforms, foreign maintenance, and external logistical support. Without these, its technological edge risks rapid erosion.

Qatar, though financially powerful, lacks strategic depth. Its military is modern but limited in size and sustainability. In a prolonged conflict without external guarantees, it cannot realistically compete for regional military supremacy.

Turkey presents a more complex case. Though geographically outside the Arabian Peninsula, its influence is undeniable. It combines a large standing army with a growing indigenous defense industry, particularly in drones and naval assets. Unlike Gulf states, Turkey possesses the capacity to produce and adapt independently. However, its strategic priorities are divided across multiple theaters, diluting its focus on the Gulf.

This leaves Iran—a country long constrained by sanctions, yet shaped by them. Before the recent one-month war, Iran’s strength lay in its missile arsenal, dispersed military infrastructure, and doctrine of asymmetric warfare. It was built not to dominate, but to deter through the certainty of retaliation.

One month of sustained conflict has altered—but not erased—this reality. Iran’s military infrastructure has been significantly degraded. Missile sites, production facilities, and air defenses have suffered visible damage. By conventional metrics, it is weaker today than it was at the outset.

Yet the defining outcome lies elsewhere.

Despite these losses, Iran continues to operate, retaliate, and maintain strategic coherence. Its domestically sustained and decentralized military architecture has allowed it to absorb sustained strikes without collapsing. The objective of decisively neutralizing it remains unmet.

The conclusion is therefore unavoidable. In a no-alliance scenario, power is not measured by what survives untouched, but by what continues to function under fire. Iran emerges not as the strongest because it is unscathed, but because it has proven it cannot be decisively subdued.

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.