Significance of Iranian President's visit to Pakistan

The world knows that Iran was the first country to recognize Pakistan’s independence in 1947 and open its embassy in Karachi, which was then the capital of Pakistan. Likewise, Pakistanis were the first to officially recognize the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979.

The people of both countries share cultural, linguistic, historical, and religious ties, and have supported each other in both bitter and sweet moments throughout history. The cultural commonalities between the two nations are such that citizens of either country do not feel estranged or alien when traveling to the neighboring country.

In Tehran, prominent places such as Mohammad Ali Jinnah Highway and Pakistan Street exist. Likewise, in major Pakistani cities, including Karachi, street signs bearing names like Iran Avenue and streets named after Iranian poets like Ferdowsi, Saadi, Hafez, Khayyam, and others can be found.

Islamabad, the capital of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hosted Dr. Pezeshkian, President of Iran, and his accompanying delegation from August 02 to 03, 2025. This was, in fact, Pezeshkian’s first official visit to Pakistan since winning Iran’s 14th presidential election.

It is worth noting that in April 2024, the martyred Ayatollah Raisi also made a three-day visit to Pakistan, including the cities of Lahore, Karachi, and Islamabad, where he was warmly welcomed by the people and officials of that country. Following the helicopter crash and martyrdom of Ayatollah Raisi and his companions, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif of Pakistan, along with other officials, traveled to Tehran to pay their respects and attend the memorial ceremony.

In May of this year, Shehbaz Sharif once again visited Tehran to express his gratitude for Iran’s stance regarding the India-Pakistan war. Therefore, Dr. Pezeshkian’s recent visit was in response to Shehbaz Sharif’s invitation and, essentially, a reciprocation of his visit to Tehran.

Dr. Pezeshkian began his official visit in Lahore, the capital of Punjab province, by paying respects at the mausoleum of Allama Iqbal, the Pakistani philosopher and poet. It is said that over 8,000 verses of Iqbal’s poetry comprising 70% of his total works are written in Persian.

During the continuation of the visit in Islamabad, the Iranian delegation met with the Prime Minister, President, Foreign Minister, Army Chief, Speakers of the Senate and National Assembly, and Pakistani business community, seeking to implement the "Neighbor First" policy in practice. 

The current volume of annual trade between the two countries is about US$3 billion, yet many economic and commercial potentials remain untapped. During this recent visit, 12 cooperation agreements were signed in areas such as transportation, science and technology, tourism, and free trade, which, if implemented, could significantly boost bilateral relations.

One indicator of strong political relations is the frequent travel of officials between countries. In less than two years, top officials from Iran and Pakistan have visited each other’s countries four times, not including the meetings held on the sidelines of key regional and international summits. These frequent meetings highlight the close bond and significance of the relationship particularly now, when there is a growing need to expand cooperation.

Over the past few decades, Iran-Pakistan relations have enjoyed relative stability, and mutual visits and exchanges between officials have been a regular occurrence. What gives special importance to the recent presidential visit to Pakistan is the unique political situation and the developments that have taken place in recent months in South and West Asia and even globally.

The four-day war between India and Pakistan in May 2025, as two nuclear powers, created a highly sensitive situation in the region. Although brief, the consequences of this conflict continue to affect both countries and the broader region and world.

Additionally, the ongoing war and genocide in Gaza have significantly influenced global politics. In this context, the stances of Islamic countries such as Iran and Pakistan are of great importance. Tehran and Islamabad have consistently adopted shared, firm positions and have emphasized full support for the Palestinian cause. The 12-day imposed war by Israel on Iran drastically altered the geopolitics of the region and the Islamic world.

Pakistan’s positions as one of the largest and most influential Muslim nations and a nuclear power have been crucial, and the Iranian public and officials have always appreciated Pakistan’s brave and brotherly stance.

Islamabad's officials have expressed their appreciation, in various ways, for Iran’s goodwill and initiative in offering to mediate between the two countries, and for the highly important visit of Iran’s Foreign Minister Dr. Araghchi to Pakistan and India to reduce the tensions.

A key factor linking Iran and Pakistan’s foreign policies is the sensitivity of public opinion in both nations toward the Palestinian issue and their mutual opposition to Zionist occupation and crimes in Gaza. This shared stance is rooted in the principled policies laid down by the founding leaders of both nations, Imam Khomeini and Muhammad Ali Jinnah and continues today. Currently, there is deep concern over the joint illegal actions of the Zionist regime and the United States against Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the potential for similar scenarios to be repeated elsewhere.

The condemnation of the Zionist regime’s aggressive attack on Iran by Pakistan’s permanent representative at the UN Security Council, as a non-permanent member and rotating president, was well-received. Pakistan’s support for dialogue and negotiation and its affirmation of Iran’s right to nuclear knowledge were also reflected in the joint press conference held by Shehbaz Sharif and Dr. Pezeshkian.

Iranian and Pakistani officials have come to a shared understanding that the 900 plus km border between the two nations should transition from being a security border to an economic one. The two sides have created joint mechanisms to improve coordination in the fight against terrorism. There exists an ocean of untapped potential in both countries, which requires serious political will to activate. The travel of hundreds of thousands of Pakistani pilgrims as part of religious tourism is one such opportunity.

Currently, two land borders at Rimdan and Mirjaveh are operational, facilitating travel for tourists and traders. Strengthening infrastructure is essential for increasing travel between the two peoples. People-to-people ties and citizen interactions can play a critical role in raising awareness of each other’s capabilities. 

Meeting mutual needs given that the two economies complement each other should be a top priority for private sectors and businesspeople in both nations. Much of what Iran imports from other countries is easily accessible in Pakistan, and Pakistan exports goods that Iranians also import from various sources.

Pakistan can meet many of its needs through Iranian producers and benefit from the proximity and low logistics costs. There is an urgent need to upgrade the joint Iran-Pakistan Chamber of Commerce to play a more significant role.

An Iranian proverb says, “A good neighbor is better than a distant relative.” Pakistan is both a good neighbor and a good relative and we Iranians are grateful for this valued neighbor.

Courtesy: Tehran Times

 

BRICS leaders gather at Rio de Janeiro

According to Reuters, leaders of the growing BRICS group of developing nations were set to gather in Rio de Janeiro on Sunday, calling for reform of traditional Western institutions while presenting the bloc as a defender of multilateralism in an increasingly fractured world.

With forums such as the G7 and G20 groups of major economies hamstrung by divisions and the disruptive "America First" approach of US President Donald Trump, expansion of the BRICS has opened new space for diplomatic coordination.

"In the face of the resurgence of protectionism, it is up to emerging nations to defend the multilateral trade regime and reform the international financial architecture," Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva told a BRICS business forum on Saturday.

BRICS nations now represent over half the world's population and 40% of its economic output.

The BRICS group gathered leaders from Brazil, Russia, India and China at its first summit in 2009. The bloc later added South Africa and last year included Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates as full members. This is the first leaders' summit to include Indonesia.

"The vacuum left by others ends up being filled almost instantly by the BRICS," said a Brazilian diplomat who asked not to be named. Although the G7 still concentrates vast power, the source added, "It doesn't have the predominance it once did."

However, there are questions about the shared goals of an increasingly heterogenous BRICS group, which has grown to include regional rivals along with major emerging economies.

Stealing some thunder from this year's summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping chose to send his prime minister in his place. Russian President Vladimir Putin is attending online due to an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court.

Still, many heads of state will gather for discussions at Rio's Museum of Modern Art on Sunday and Monday, including Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa.

Over 30 nations have expressed interest in participating in the BRICS, either as full members or partners.

Brazil, which also hosts the United Nations climate summit in November, has seized on both gatherings to highlight how seriously developing nations are tackling climate change, while Trump has slammed the brakes on US climate initiatives.

Both China and the UAE signaled in meetings with Brazilian Finance Minister Fernando Haddad in Rio that they plan to invest in a proposed Tropical Forests Forever Facility.

Expansion of the BRICS has added diplomatic weight to the gathering, which aspires to speak for developing nations across the Global South, strengthening calls for reforming global institutions such as the United Nations Security Council and the International Monetary Fund.

The growth of the bloc has also increased the challenges to reaching consensus on contentious geopolitical issues.

Ahead of the summit, negotiators struggled to find shared language for a joint statement about the bombardment of Gaza, the Israel-Iran conflict and a proposed reform of the Security Council.

To overcome differences among African nations regarding the continent's proposed representative to a reformed Security Council, the group agreed to endorse seats for Brazil and India while leaving open which country should represent Africa's interests, a person familiar with the talks told Reuters.

The BRICS will also continue their thinly veiled criticism of Trump's US tariff policy. At an April ministerial meeting, the bloc expressed concern about "unjustified unilateral protectionist measures, including the indiscriminate increase of reciprocal tariffs."

 

OPEC Plus likely to accelerate oil output hike

OPEC Plus is likely to announce an increase in oil output for August at its meeting on Saturday, July 05, 2025. It will be larger than the 411,000 barrels per day (bpd) hikes announced in May, June and July, reports Reuters.

Oil futures slipped slightly due to US Independence Day holiday on Friday, as the market looked ahead to this weekend's OPEC Plus meeting and the likelihood that member countries will decide to raise output. Brent crude futures settled down at US$68.30 a barrel while US West Texas Intermediate declined US$66.50 at 1700 GMT.

Eight members of the group - Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Iraq, Kazakhstan and Algeria - are scheduled to meet online on Saturday to decide their oil output policy for August.

OPEC Plus made a radical change in policy this year when the eight members started to unwind their most recent output cut of 2.2 million bpd starting in April. They then accelerated the hikes in May, June and July to 411,000 bpd for each month, despite the extra supply weighing on crude prices.

Earlier on Friday, other sources told Reuters the group was expected to agree to an increase of 411,000 bpd for August, which remains a possible outcome of Saturday's meeting.

The total number of active drilling rigs in the US has been on the decline, reaching its lowest level since late 2021 in June 2025, driven by lower oil prices, a focus on shareholder returns over production increases, and strategic shifts within the energy sector. As of early July 2025, the total US rig count was reported at approximately 539, down from 547 the previous week and 581 a year ago, with oil rigs seeing the most significant decrease.

The acceleration of the output hikes came after some OPEC Plus members, such as Kazakhstan, produced way over their targets, angering other members that were sticking more closely to agreed cuts.

Kazakh output returned to growth last month and matched an all-time high, as the Chevron-led Tengiz field ramped up.

OPEC Plus, comprising of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and allies led by Russia, is looking to expand its market share against the backdrop of growing supplies from other producers like the United States.

The group pumps about half of the world's oil. As of their decision for July output, the OPEC Plus eight have made or announced production increases of 1.37 million bpd. This is 62% of the production cut of 2.2 million bpd that they are unwinding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding US and Russian policies towards Taliban

Russia has become the first country to recognize Taliban government in Afghanistan. It is on record that the United States and Russia have had different policies toward Taliban due to their distinct strategic interests, historical experiences, and regional alliances. Here’s a breakdown of some of the key reasons behind this divergence:

The United States has fought Taliban directly for over two decades after 9/11, viewing them as terrorist allies of al-Qaeda. This includes the US led NATO invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 to topple the Taliban regime.

Interestingly, Russia has not fought Taliban directly but has a history of conflicts in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion (1979–1989), where the US and others supported the Mujahideen, some of these are now termed Taliban).

Russia sees Taliban as part of the post-Soviet regional security dynamic, not necessarily as a direct enemy.

Most interesting is the US perspective because it considers Taliban a threats to US homeland and allies. The history shows that Afghans/ Taliban never attacked the United States. It is also said that Osama bin Laden was a Saudi, which supported Mujahideen in averting the USSR attack on Afghanistan to get access to the warm waters.

The US, which never wanted to leave Afghanistan believes that Taliban rule could once again turn the country into a safe haven for global jihadis like al-Qaeda or ISIS-K. Some analysts openly say that be it al-Qaeda or ISIS-K, these are ‘B’ teams of CIA.

The prime focus of Russia is more on Central Asian stability and drug trafficking from Afghanistan. Russia fears spillover of extremism into its southern borders but engages pragmatically with Taliban to keep its influence in the region.

Both the US and Russia are keen in engaging with Taliban. The US was initially hostile, but later engaged diplomatically, courtesy Doha talks, culminating in the 2020 US-Taliban agreement. After the 2021 withdrawal, the US maintains non-recognition and economic sanctions, demanding women rights, inclusivity, and action against terrorism.

As against, Russia has hosted Taliban delegations for talks in Moscow and calls for inclusive governance but does not condition engagement as strictly as the US. Russia did not officially recognize the Taliban either, but it was more flexible in diplomacy.

Strategic Interests

The US claims, to that many do not agree, that the super power is busy in global fight against terrorism and avoids getting entangled again in the Afghan conflict. Since withdrawal of troops the US has kept Taliban under pressure through sanctions and diplomatic isolation, including freezing foreign exchange reserves of Afghanistan.

The prime Russian interest is, ending US hegemony in the region. It also wants to protect its interests in Central Asia (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan). On top of all Russia seems to be keen in developing regional alliances that include Taliban as a reality, not a pariah.

Over the decades, the United States has maintained its hegemony through regional alliances, working closely under the NATO umbrella. The US policy towards Taliban is part of a broader Western approach tied to liberal values and counterterrorism.

Realizing its limitations Russia works closely with China, Iran, Central Asian republics. It often coordinates with anti-Western powers and is less constrained by democratic or human rights norms.

To get control over countries two of the world’s largest super powers, the United States as well as Russia have often used arsenal power. As against this China has used diplomacy and economic assistance to establish its influence.

During the election campaign Donald Trump had promised to pull the United States out of wars, but his unconditional support to Israeli genocide in Gaza and direct attacks on Iran prove he is also the tout of military complexes and would never like to end wars where the United States is involved directly or indirectly.

 

Russia becomes first country to recognize Taliban government of Afghanistan

Russia said on Thursday it had accepted the credentials of a new ambassador of Afghanistan, making it the first nation to recognize the Taliban government of the country, reports Reuters.

In a statement, the Russian Foreign Ministry said Moscow saw good prospects to develop ties and would continue to support Kabul in security, counter-terrorism and combating drug crime.

It also saw significant trade and economic opportunities, especially in energy, transport, agriculture and infrastructure

"We believe that the act of official recognition of the government of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan will give impetus to the development of productive bilateral cooperation between our countries in various fields," the ministry said.

Afghan Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi said in a statement, "We value this courageous step taken by Russia, and, God willing, it will serve as an example for others as well."

No other country has formally recognized the Taliban government that seized power in August 2021 as US-led forces staged a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan after 20 years of war.

China, the United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Pakistan have all designated ambassadors to Kabul, in a step towards recognition.

The Russian move represents a major milestone for the Taliban administration as it seeks to ease its international isolation.

It is likely to be closely watched by Washington, which has frozen billions in Afghanistan's central bank assets and enforced sanctions on some senior leaders in the Taliban that contributed to Afghanistan's banking sector being largely cut off from the international financial system.

Russia has been gradually building relations with the Taliban, which President Vladimir Putin said last year was now an ally in fighting terrorism. Since 2022, Afghanistan has imported gas, oil and wheat from Russia.

The Taliban was outlawed by Russia as a terrorist movement in 2003, but the ban was lifted in April this year. Russia sees a need to work with Kabul as it faces a major security threat from Islamist militant groups based in a string of countries from Afghanistan to the Middle East.

In March 2024, gunmen killed 149 people at a concert hall outside Moscow in an attack claimed by Islamic State. US officials said they had intelligence indicating it was the Afghan branch of the group, Islamic State Khorasan (ISIS-K), that was responsible.

The Taliban says it is working to wipe out the presence of Islamic State in Afghanistan.

Soviet troops invaded the country in December 1979 to prop up a Communist government, but became bogged down in a long war against mujahideen fighters armed by the United States.

Can China and Russia end US hegemony?

Ever since Donald Trump has taken over as President of United States, started trade war with China and European allies take custody of Gaza, China and Russia are not only perturbed, but also considering plan to cause dent to the US hegemony in the Middle East and North Africa, to begin with.

We are of the opinion that China and Russia may be serious in ending the US hegemony, but achieving the target is highly unlikely in the near term.

No one can deny that the United States still Holds a strong Position because of:

Military Presence

The US maintains major military bases and alliances in the region (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, and others).

Energy Security Ties

Despite shifting energy priorities, US influence over global oil markets via relationships with Gulf states remains strong.

Diplomatic Leverage

The US plays a key role in peace negotiations, arms deals, and counterterrorism efforts.

Soft Power

US culture, education, and tech continue to have significant appeal in parts of the region.

Growing Role of China and Russia

China

Economic Influence

China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has deepened economic ties, particularly through infrastructure investment and oil imports from Gulf states and Iran.

Diplomacy

Recently brokered the Saudi-Iran détente (2023), signaling growing diplomatic credibility.

Non-Interference Model

Appeals to regimes wary of Western pressure on human rights or democratization.

Russia

Military Intervention

Russia has demonstrated staying power in Syria and maintains naval bases in the eastern Mediterranean.

Arms Sales and Security Cooperation

Offers military support without political conditions.

Energy Deals

Competes with and collaborates on energy projects, particularly in gas.

Challenges to Ending US Hegemony

Use of US dollar in international trade

The single largest point that gives the United States unequivocal strength is use of Greenback in international trade and its absolute control over payment and settlement system.

Lack of Unified Strategy

China and Russia do not have a cohesive alliance or unified vision for the region.

Regional Dependence on US

Many MENA states still rely on US military support and arms.

Distrust Toward Russia and China

Some countries remain skeptical of long-term Chinese or Russian motives.

Way Forward

Though, China and Russia are eroding US dominance through economic, diplomatic, and military inroads, but the US retains deep-rooted strategic advantages. A complete end to US hegemony requires a far greater realignment of regional security and political interests.

Unless China and Russia are able to come up with an alternative currency and payment/ settlement system, they just can not cause dent to the US hegemony in any significant manner.

Xi-Putin pledge to stand together against US

Chinese President Xi Jinping told Russia's Vladimir Putin on Thursday their two countries should be "friends of steel", as they pledged to raise cooperation to a new level and "decisively" counter the influence of the United States.

At talks in the Kremlin, the two leaders cast themselves as defenders of a new world order no longer dominated by the US.

In a lengthy joint statement, they said they would deepen relations in all areas, including military ties, and "strengthen coordination in order to decisively counter Washington's course of 'dual containment' of Russia and China.

The two countries said the Ukraine conflict could only be settled by removing its "root causes" - a phrase that Russia has frequently used when arguing that it was forced to go to war to prevent the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. Ukraine and its Western allies say that was a false pretext for what they call an imperial-style invasion.

Xi is the most powerful of more than two dozen foreign leaders who are visiting Moscow this week to mark Thursday's 80th anniversary of the end of World War Two - a celebration of huge significance for Putin.

Xi's participation - and the joint statement aligning China with Russia's view of the conflict - provide Putin with an important boost as Russia comes under pressure from the United States to end the war.

Russia says it wants to repair relations with Washington, which sank to post-Cold War lows because of the conflict in Ukraine, and that it sees the potential for lucrative business deals. But talks have failed to produce a ceasefire and President Donald Trump has threatened to walk away, unless there is clear progress.

Xi, whose country is currently engaged in a tariff war launched by Trump, said China and Russia should solidify the foundations of their cooperation and "eliminate external interference".

The two countries should "be true friends of steel that have been through a hundred trials by fire", he told Putin.

In another implied reference to the US, Xi said Russia and China would work together to counter "unilateralism and bullying".

Xi and Putin have met dozens of times and signed a "no limits" strategic partnership in February 2022, less than three weeks before Putin sent his army into Ukraine. China is Russia's biggest trading partner and has thrown Moscow an economic lifeline that has helped it navigate Western sanctions.

 

Is Saudi Arabia Letting Oil Crash, On Purpose?

Traders often say that OPEC’s primary role is to support oil prices. That’s been the dominant narrative for decades. However, this week told a very different story — one that has raised eyebrows across the global energy market.

Brent crude plunged by 8%, a significant drop by any standard, yet Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s de facto leader and most influential member, showed almost no visible concern. There was no emergency meeting, no surprise production cut, and no immediate attempt to stabilize the market. It’s a silence that speaks volumes.

At first glance, most headlines pointed to the familiar explanation, questions around OPEC discipline, compliance, and coordination. But when one looks at the numbers and the timing of key decisions, it becomes increasingly clear that something far more strategic may be unfolding behind the scenes.

Crude oil is now trading at levels not seen in four years, and OPEC’s upcoming meeting — one that could potentially shift the trajectory of global oil markets — has been rescheduled for May 03. Notably, the day many major markets will be closed or have limited activity due to global holidays. The timing feels less like coincidence and more like tactical maneuvering.

In this week’s Global Energy Alert, its analysts take a deep dive into the broader implications of Saudi Arabia’s recent moves. It examines what Riyadh’s evolving production strategy truly signals about its underlying priorities.

Is this part of a long-term play to accommodate the anticipated return of Iranian oil exports?

Or perhaps a quiet recalibration in response to Russia’s unpredictable role in OPEC+?

Analysts also explore the lesser-known geopolitical undercurrents — including ongoing US–Saudi discussions around defense cooperation and civilian nuclear development, both of which may carry hidden oil-related stakes.

OPEC’s next decision could mark a turning point. The market may be lulled into complacency, but the pieces are being set for a potentially dramatic reset. If you’re not paying close attention, you might just miss the most important setup of the year.

 

 

 

 

=================================

Traders often say OPEC’s job is to support prices. But this week, Brent crude dropped 8% — and Saudi Arabia barely blinked.

The headlines say it’s about OPEC discipline. But the numbers — and the timing — suggest something bigger is unfolding.

And now, oil is trading at four-year lows just as the group’s meeting shifts to May 3, conveniently when markets are closed.

In this week’s Global Energy Alert, our analysts break down:

What Riyadh’s production strategy signals about its real priorities

How Saudi Arabia could be prepping for Iran’s return — and hedging its bets on Russia

The hidden stakes in U.S.–Saudi defense and nuclear talks tied to oil

OPEC’s next move could reset the market — and if you're not watching closely, you'll miss the setup.

 

Trump’s First 100 Days: Good, Bad, and Ugly

I posted my review of first 100 says of Donald Trump as President of United States. Many may have ignored it knowing that I am not a US citizen. Today, I am sharing excerpts from an article by *Christopher Calton. He has talked about Trump’s early actions on trade, education, immigration, and more, offering a clear-eyed analysis of what Americans can expect in the years ahead.

On the first day of his second term, Trump issued a record-breaking 26 executive orders, and in the weeks that followed, he added more than 100 additional orders alongside other memorandums and proclamations. Some have been entirely positive, while others have been downright eyeroll-inducing, such as renaming the Gulf of Mexico and declaring the day the order was signed a national holiday.

The trillion-dollar military budget seems consistent with Trump’s hawkish foreign policy. Both of Trump’s electoral victories reflected a mandate to finally stop subsidizing foreign conflicts and end America’s forever wars. Trump has, at least, withheld funding for Ukraine, though his approach seems more an effort to cater to Putin than to achieve peace.

Elsewhere, the president has doubled down on America’s support for Israel’s destruction of Gaza, has threatened war with Iran, and has commenced a horrible bombing campaign against Yemen. Just as in his first term, when he neglected to fulfill his promise to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Trump is again proving to be a war-happy commander in chief.

President Trump’s second term threatens to be even more of a disaster than his first in many arenas, particularly trade and foreign policy. His immigration measures are consistent with his campaign promises, but his lack of concern for due process and rule of law should be concerning to even the most ardent supporters of border security.

Trump’s approach to spending seems an improvement over his first term, but is nonetheless disappointing after what appeared to be a promising start with DOGE.

The silver lining to Trump’s first 100 days is that he is providing a positive counterweight to the left’s growing radicalism in the culture wars, as demonstrated by his education policies. 

*Christopher J. Calton is the Research Fellow in Housing and Homelessness at the Independent Institute.

 

How high could gold price go?

Gold prices have been on an upward trajectory in 2025, recently reaching a record high of US$3,244.60 per ounce. Now a question is being asked, how high could gold price go. Several key factors are contributing to this surge, these include:

Geopolitical Tensions

The introduction of sweeping tariffs by President Donald Trump, especially those targeting China with rates up to 145%, created upheaval in global financial markets. These policies have led investors to question the reliability of traditional safe assets like US Treasuries and the dollar, prompting a shift towards gold as a more stable alternative.

Economic Uncertainty

Concerns about a potential US recession have intensified, with Goldman Sachs estimating a 45% probability of such an event within the next year. This economic uncertainty enhances gold’s appeal as a hedge against downturns, contributing to its rising demand and price.

Purchases by Central Banks

Central banks worldwide are increasing their gold reserves, partly as a strategy to reduce reliance on the US dollar. This trend of de-dollarization supports higher gold prices, as nations seek to diversify their holdings amid shifting global economic dynamics.

Currency Depreciation

Persistent inflation is eroding the value of paper currencies, prompting investors to turn to gold as a means of preserving purchasing power. As the US dollar weakens, gold's role as a hedge against inflation becomes increasingly significant.

Safe-Haven Demand

The volatility in global markets, exacerbated by trade tensions and economic uncertainties, has led investors to seek refuge in gold. Its status as a safe-haven asset during turbulent times further drives its demand and price upward.

Way Forward

Analysts remain bullish on gold prospects, with forecasts suggesting prices could touch US$3,500 by June end 2025, US$ 4,000 by end December 2025 and US$5,000 by end December 2026. However, a point to remember is that if the trade war intensifies, the price may rise at a faster pace.

A more disturbing fact is that confidence of people around the world in the US administration – as a trustworthy friend and US$ as a dependable currency is eroding. The talk about an alternate currency to replace US dollar is getting louder.

Iran: Tangled nuclear dispute with the West

Iran and the United States are scheduled to hold talks on Saturday on Iran's nuclear program, with US President Donald Trump having threatened military action if they cannot agree a deal. Iran's nuclear program has been the subject of a long dispute between it and Western countries that fear it wants to build an atomic bomb, which Tehran denies. Here is a timeline of the dispute:

1957 - Iran and United States signed a nuclear cooperation deal and the United States delivers a research reactor to Iran a decade later.

1970 - Iran ratified the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), giving it the right to a civilian nuclear program but barring it from seeking an atomic bomb.

1979 - Iran's Islamic revolution upended its ties to major powers, turning former ally the United States into its main foe.

1995 - Russia agreed to finish construction of Iran's planned nuclear power plant at Bushehr, originally started by Germany and shelved after the revolution.

2003 - The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), alleged Iran has not complied with NPT after the revelation it has secretly built a uranium enrichment plant at Natanz and a heavy water plant for plutonium at Arak.

Both can be used to make fuel for nuclear power but they can also be used in atomic warheads.

Iran accepted European proposals for more transparency in its nuclear program including snap IAEA inspections.

2004 - The IAEA said Iran did not provided the transparency it promised. Iran said it would not suspend uranium enrichment activity.

2005 - Russia offered to supply Iran with fuel for Bushehr to stop it developing its own fuel by making enriched uranium or plutonium.

IAEA said Iran was not in compliance with agreements and EU countries halted negotiations.

2006 - Iran resumed work at Natanz, said in April it had enriched uranium for the first time to about 3.5%, far short of the 90% needed for a warhead.

World powers the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany - later known collectively as the P5+1 offered Iran incentives to halt enrichment.

The United Nations Security Council imposed sanctions on Iran over its enrichment.

2009 - Western countries alleged Iran was building another secret uranium enrichment facility under a mountain at Fordow near Qom.

2010 - Iran started making 20% enriched uranium. The UN Security Council expanded sanctions including an embargo on major weapons systems, as the US and EU tighten their own sanctions.

A computer virus - Stuxnet - deployed aimed at paralyzing the Natanz plant, the start of direct operations against Iranian facilities that Tehran blames on Israel.

2011 - Bushehr nuclear plant started operations. Iran said it was using more advanced centrifuges to expand its 20% enrichment program.

2013 - Former nuclear negotiator Hassan Rouhani was elected Iranian president offering new proposals. He and US President Barack Obama hold a first call between leaders of the countries since 1979.

Iran-P5+1 talks in Geneva resulted in a Joint Plan of Action with steps required by both sides including reducing Iran's enriched uranium stockpile, more IAEA access and some sanctions relief.

2014 - Negotiations on a final deal continued through the year, with Iran halting uranium enrichment to 20% and work at Arak and getting access to oil revenue frozen by sanctions.

US allies in the region, Israel and Saudi Arabia, repeatedly cautioned Washington against a deal, saying Iran could not be trusted and citing its growing sway in the region.

2015 - Iran and the P5+1 agreed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) deal that limits Iran's nuclear work, allowing more inspections and a loosening of sanctions.

2016 - IAEA said Iran had met its commitments under the JCPOA, leading to UN sanctions tied to the nuclear program being lifted.

However, Iran's long-range ballistic missile tests prompt unease despite Tehran saying they could not carry nuclear warheads.

2017 - New US President Donald Trump declared the JCPOA was the "worst deal ever" and unilaterally pulled out. Despite Trump promising a better deal there have been no new talks.

2018 - The US reimposed on Iran.

2019 - With ties between Iran and the West deteriorating, a string of attacks on Gulf oil tankers and other regional energy facilities were blamed by the US on Iran.

2020 - A blast rocks Iran's Natanz plant and a nuclear scientist is assassinated near Tehran with Iran blaming both incidents on Israel.

2021 - With Trump out of the White House, the US and Iran resumed indirect talks but there was little progress.

Iran started enriching uranium to 60% - not too far from 90% needed for a bomb.

There were attacks on Iran's Natanz and a centrifuge factory in Karaj.

2022 - The IAEA accused Iran did not answer questions over uranium traces found at more sites. Iran stopped IAEA inspections and installed more new centrifuges at Natanz.

2025 - Trump returns to the White House and declared Iran must agree to a nuclear deal or there will be bombing.

 

Who is responsible for the killing of Gazans?

The question of who is responsible for the killing of Gazans is complex and deeply tied to the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Responsibility depends on the context, perspective, and the specific events being referred to. In this post an attempt is being made to understand the present situation and propose a plausible solution:

Humanitarian perspective:

The Israeli military is often held responsible for a significant number of civilian casualties in Gaza, especially during major military operations. Israel says it targets Hamas and other militant groups, but these operations have resulted in many civilian deaths due to the densely populated nature of Gaza

Hamas and other armed groups in Gaza are also accused for operating from within civilian areas, use human shields, or launch rockets indiscriminately into Israeli territory, provoking retaliatory strikes and contributing to the cycle of violence.

International perspective:

International organizations, like the United Nations and human rights groups ‑ Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch ‑ accuse both Israel and Palestinian armed groups for the lingering conflict resulting in huge loss of human lives, particularly women and children.

Israel often accused of disproportionate use of force and blockade policies that severely impact civilians.

Palestinian groups are condemned for indiscriminate rocket attacks and operating in ways that endanger Israeli civilians.

Structural and political responsibility:

Long-term occupation, blockade, and lack of a viable peace process can be termed as structural causes of repeated violence.

Israel controls most of Gaza’s borders, airspace, and resources, while Hamas governs internally but with limited capacity.

International actors, including the United States, Egypt, Iran, and others, also play roles through military aid, political backing, or indirect support.

Crux of the Matter:

Direct military actions causing deaths are typically attributed to the Israeli military or Palestinian armed groups, depending on perspective of on lookers. Broader responsibility lies with political leaders, ongoing occupation, militant governance, and an international community that has often failed to resolve the underlying issues.

Way Forward:

Israel, now fully supported by US President Donald Trump wants complete cleansing/ exit of Gazans. During the ongoing conflict nearly 100,000 Gazans, mostly women and children have been killed. However, Gazans resolve has sustained are they are not ready to desert their homeland.

The other and more civilized option is creation of two states, Israel and Palestine. Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim countries support this.

United States also initiated Abraham Accords paving way for the recognition of Israel. However, many supporters of this initiative want Israel to go back to its original borders and let the Palestinians manage their own state.

Gaza 'Riviera of the Middle East'

Now the real stumbling block is US President Trump's plan to make Gaza 'Riviera of the Middle East' which requires all the 2.2 million residents to vacate the strip. This vision involved the United States taking control of Gaza, relocating its approximately two million Palestinian residents to neighboring countries, and redeveloping the area into a luxury resort destination. Trump suggested that Gaza's coastal location could make it "better than Monaco" if redeveloped appropriately.

This proposal received strong support from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, who viewed it as a means to disarm Hamas and alter the region's dynamics. However, it faced significant criticism internationally. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres labeled the plan as "ethnic cleansing," emphasizing that forcibly transferring populations violates international law. Arab nations, including Jordan, also rejected the proposal, with Jordan's King Abdullah II expressing firm opposition to the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza.

The plan also sparked debate within the United States, with bipartisan concerns about its feasibility and ethical implications. Critics argued that it misread the interests of Arab partners and could destabilize the region further. Facing mounting opposition, President Trump later stated that he would "recommend" but not enforce the plan, indicating a step back from the initial proposal.

 

 

 

 

Pakistan: Navigating an Uncertain Global Order

The world is undergoing a profound shift toward protectionism and unpredictability. Global institutions are weakening, long-standing norms are eroding, and power dynamics are replacing cooperative frameworks. In this volatile environment, Pakistan must stay alert and prepare for the challenges ahead.

This transformation is already in motion. US President Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs signaled a move away from multilateralism. The shift toward unilateralism and economic nationalism has been ushered in. The rules-based global order, which once promoted free trade and transparency, is on the decline.

For decades, the US championed institutions like the WTO, enabling developing countries, including Pakistan, to engage in global trade under shared rules. Now, the rise of "reciprocal tariffs" and deal-making based on narrow self-interest marks a rejection of that system. In such an environment, even close allies are vulnerable.

This shift is especially alarming for countries like Pakistan. Larger powers may use economic tools or coercion to advance their agendas, sidelining smaller economies. A coordinated international backlash to protectionist policies is likely. While Pakistan may avoid retaliation, others might not, raising the specter of a global trade war.

Trade wars have historically led to severe economic disruptions. Pakistan, with low foreign exchange reserves and heavy reliance on institutions like the IMF, lacks the resilience to absorb such shocks. Unlike wealthier nations, it cannot offer major stimulus measures or safety nets.

Thus, Pakistani policymakers must proactively engage with global powers, diversify trade relationships, and strengthen internal governance. Strategic partnerships with like-minded nations and regional initiatives like CPEC are essential, but overreliance on any one partner is risky. A multi-vector foreign policy is key.

Domestically, political stability and unity are crucial. A fragmented leadership weakens Pakistan’s ability to respond to global shifts. The world order we knew is unlikely to return soon. Only countries that are agile, united, and forward-looking will succeed.

Pakistan must not be passive. With vigilance, decisive leadership, and strategic focus, it can navigate this turbulent global landscape and secure a stable future.

US dollar faces crisis of confidence

In times of market panic investors tend to rush to the safety of greenback, but when stocks swooned in response to US tariffs this week, they ran away from it. Investors say it's a sign that the greenback’s global standing may be eroding.

There is perception that greenback has an inherent competitive advantage. It's backed by the world's largest economy, the deepest capital markets and an established rule of law. There is no real alternative in the near term. However, after the trade war initiated by Donald Trump the creation of an alternative currency seems certain.

The dollar, for decades a safe haven, on Thursday fell about 1.7% in its biggest daily drop since November 2022, after President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on imports at levels not seen since the early 1900s. Stock markets also tanked, as tariffs ignited recession worries.

In interviews and published markets commentaries, many investors and analysts pointed to the Trump administration for the anomaly. Its protectionist policies, upending of the global economic order in place since World War II, and a growing US debt pile have been chipping away at the dollar's appeal, they say. Left unchecked, a crisis of confidence in the dollar could also undermine its position as the world's reserve currency, they added.

"What we're seeing today is a further indication that the structure and nature of the US dollar’s relationship to global markets has changed," said Thierry Wizman, global foreign exchange and rates strategist at Macquarie in New York.

"There's an underlying basis for this, which is the changing role of the US in the world."

Any erosion of the dollar's standing as a safe-haven is bad news for investors and policymakers - at least in the near term.

For investors, who have piled trillions of dollars into buoyant US markets in recent decades, a sharp dollar fall could result in higher interest rates for longer. That's because price pressures at home could make it harder for the Federal Reserve to cut rates.

A rapid strengthening of currencies against the dollar is a headache for other central banks navigating a weaker economic outlook, as it makes their exports more expensive and potentially harder for them to revive growth. The euro, for example, just had its best day against the greenback in more than two years.

The recent depreciation in the dollar showed that concerns about the currency's status had "left footprints in financial markets already," Sweden's central bank deputy governor Per Jansson said at an event in London on Tuesday.

"If the dollar's status would change, that would be a big change for the world economy ... and would basically create a mess," he told Reuters afterwards. "I really do not hope the US goes there."

 

 

OPEC+ agree to ramp up output in May

According to the Saudi Gazette, Saudi Arabia, Russia and six other OPEC+ countries, agreed on Thursday to boost oil supply in May 2025. The OPEC+ countries, which also include Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria, and Oman, agreed to raise production by 411,000 barrels per day (bpd) in May.

The OPEC+ countries had been scheduled to raise output by 135,000 bpd in May as part of a plan to gradually unwind their most recent layer of output cuts. But after a meeting of the eight countries held virtually on Thursday, the group announced it would boost output by 411,000 bpd in May. OPEC attributed this to continuing healthy market fundamentals and the positive market outlook.

The group emphasized that these gradual increases could be paused or reversed depending on market conditions, with the flexibility intended to help stabilize oil prices. "This comprises the increment originally planned for May in addition to two monthly increments," OPEC said in a statement referring to the volume. "The gradual increases may be paused or reversed subject to evolving market conditions," it said.

The OPEC+ meeting on Thursday reviewed global market conditions and outlook. "In view of the continuing healthy market fundamentals and the positive market outlook, and in accordance with the decision agreed upon on December 05, 2024, and subsequently reaffirmed on March 03, 2025, to start a gradual and flexible return of the 2.2 million barrels per day voluntary adjustments starting from April 01, 2025, the eight countries will implement a production adjustment of 411000 bpd, equivalent to three monthly increments, in May 2025," the statement said.

"The gradual increases may be paused or reversed subject to evolving market conditions, and this flexibility will allow the group to continue to support oil market stability. The eight OPEC+ countries also noted that this measure will provide an opportunity for the participating countries to accelerate their compensation," the statement noted.

The OPEC+ countries reaffirmed their commitment to the voluntary production adjustments agreed at the 53rd JMMC meeting on April 03, 2024. They also confirmed their intention to fully compensate any overproduced volume since January 2024 and to submit updated front-loaded compensation plans to the OPEC Secretariat by April 15, 2025.

China and Russia reject US maximum pressure

Lately, China, Iran, and Russia held talks in Beijing, urging diplomacy over “pressure and threats” and calling for an end to “illegal unilateral sanctions” on Iran.

The meeting, led by deputy foreign ministers from the three nations, comes as China positions itself as a key player in resolving Iran’s nuclear issue.

This follows US President Donald Trump’s statement that Iran faces two options: a deal or military action.

China’s Executive Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu emphasized eliminating the root causes of the crisis, rejecting sanctions and force.

The joint statement called for avoiding escalation and fostering a diplomatic resolution. The urgency grows as the UN nuclear watchdog warns of Iran’s expanding uranium stockpile, though Iran maintains its program is peaceful.

Beijing opposes US sanctions and the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign, which began after the US withdrew from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

The deal’s looming October deadline could trigger a “snapback” of UN sanctions unless a new agreement is reached.

China, alongside European powers, hopes to salvage the JCPOA or craft a new deal. Trump remains open to negotiation but maintains pressure through sanctions, while Iran’s leadership rejects talks under US duress.

China’s diplomatic push aligns with its goal of emerging as a global leader, especially as Trump’s "America First" policy shifts US foreign strategies. The Beijing meeting also showcased non-Western approaches to global issues.

For Iran, the talks offered a chance to reinforce ties with China and Russia — key allies amid Western sanctions. Tehran and Moscow have deepened cooperation, particularly through military support in Ukraine, while China remains a vital economic and diplomatic partner.

China seeks to balance its relationships across the Middle East, including ties with Saudi Arabia, and mitigate potential risks to its businesses from US pressure on Iran.

Analysts note that China’s limited experience in Middle Eastern diplomacy and Iran’s independent stance could restrict its role as a deal broker. Despite this, China’s efforts signal growing influence and alignment with Russia and Iran against Western pressure.

West Asia can ensure its security, claims Iranian commander

Iran's Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Shahram Irani, stated that countries in West Asia are capable of handling their own security and urged external actors to rethink their involvement in the region. 

Speaking to Al Jazeera, he emphasized that regional nations are no longer as vulnerable as they once were and possess the means to protect themselves.

“The region is no longer what it used to be, and its countries are equipped to ensure their safety; therefore, foes must change their policies and respect regional nations,” The commander stressed.

Admiral Irani also asserted that Iran rejects isolation and will operate within international legal frameworks.

“The behavior of Iranians, particularly in the current regional context, aligns with international laws,” he noted. 

“Regional instability will harm the global economy,” Admiral Iravani said, adding that Iran is offering expertise to West Asian regional countries. 

The statement came as Iran, Russia, and China wrapped up a joint maritime exercise dubbed “Maritime Security Belt 2025” in the Indian Ocean on Wednesday, alongside observers from several other nations.

In related remarks on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi congratulated Admiral Irani on the successful execution of the exercises, emphasizing the Navy's strength and international dominance.

The top diplomat said the drills, beginning on March 10, demonstrated the Navy's decisive attitude and global operational capabilities.

He also stressed the importance of an assertive presence in expansive oceanic areas for maritime security and development.

“Iran has an unwavering determination to maintain and enhance the security of the strategic and sensitive Persian Gulf region, the strategically crucial Strait of Hormuz within it, the Sea of Oman, and beyond. These exercises were a reflection of that resolve.” Araghchi noted. 

 

Iran showcases prowess with China and Russia

Iran has reaffirmed its pivotal role in regional security by leading the seventh iteration of the Maritime Security Belt-2025 joint naval exercises alongside China and Russia, being held March 10–13 near the strategic port of Chabahar, reports the Tehran Times.

The drills, marked by advanced tactical operations and aerial maneuvers, underscored Tehran’s commitment to safeguarding vital maritime routes while strengthening alliances with global powers in the face of shifting geopolitical dynamics.  

The exercises featured synchronized day and night aerial target shooting, tactical formations, mock rescue missions, and a grand naval parade, demonstrating heightened interoperability among the three nations.

Rear Admiral Mostafa Tajeddini, deputy operations commander of Iran’s Navy, hailed the drills as a testament to Iran’s technical sophistication and leadership.

“The execution of these operations demands precise coordination and step-by-step orders,” he stated, emphasizing the seamless integration of the Iranian Navy and Islamic Revolution Guards Corps Navy with Chinese and Russian fleets.

Notably, this year’s drills expanded operational scope, deploying helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft in deeper waters—a strategic leap from prior iterations.

Tajeddini underscored the significance of such advancements, describing them as critical to countering “external threats” and ensuring regional stability.

Rear Admiral Tajeddini also reiterated Iran’s uncompromising stance: “We will not tolerate any threats or incursions into the nation’s maritime borders.”

“Unity at sea today ensures stability onshore tomorrow,” he added.

Since their inception in 2019, the Maritime Security Belt drills have evolved in scale and complexity, mirroring Iran’s geopolitical ambitions.

The 2025 edition coincides with heightened tensions in the Red Sea and Arabian Sea, where Western-led coalitions have increased patrols.

By contrast, Iran’s collaboration with Beijing and Moscow offers an alternative security framework, prioritizing regional sovereignty over external intervention.

The choice of Chabahar as the drills’ focal point highlights its unparalleled strategic value. Situated on the Gulf of Oman, Iran’s sole oceanic port bypasses the congested Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of global oil transits.

Chabahar’s direct access to the Indian Ocean positions it as a gateway for the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), a 7,200-km trade artery linking India to Central Asia and Europe via Iran.  

Historically, US sanctions somewhat complicated Chabahar’s development, yet partnerships with Eastern allies have helped improve its outlook.

India’s initial investments in the port’s infrastructure, aimed at accessing Afghanistan and Central Asia, have been complemented by China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), weaving Chabahar into broader Eurasian connectivity projects.

The port now serves as a military and economic nexus, enabling Iran to project influence while mitigating reliance on Western-dominated trade routes.

The 2025 drills signal a deepening alignment among Iran, China, and Russia, reflecting shared opposition to unilateralism.

Analysts note that the exercises, occurring near the Strait of Hormuz and Chabahar, symbolize a collective resolve to secure energy corridors and trade lanes critical to the Global South.

Some experts view these exercises as more than just defensive actions; they are seen as opportunities to create a unified vision for maritime security.

This partnership also counters Western isolation efforts. By anchoring military cooperation in the Indian Ocean, 
Furthermore, the inclusion of aerial units and night operations—a first in the tripartite drills—signals Iran’s growing confidence in asymmetric warfare capabilities, crucial in deterring adversarial naval presence.

 

Iran, Russia and China to participate in naval drill in Indian Ocean

Iran, Russia, and China are set to conduct a large-scale joint naval exercise in the northern Indian Ocean, focusing on maritime security operations and strategic military coordination.

The drill, named Security Belt-2025, will take place in early and mid-March near Iran’s southeastern Chabahar Port, involving various branches of the three nations' naval forces.  

The Chinese Defense Ministry announced the exercise on Sunday via its official Weibo account, detailing that the drill will include multiple training operations such as maritime target strikes, VBSS (visit, board, search, and seizure), damage control, and joint search and rescue missions.  

According to the ministry, the primary goal of Security Belt-2025 is to enhance military trust and strengthen practical cooperation between the participating forces. China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy is set to deploy a destroyer and a replenishment ship for the exercise.  

A Chinese military analyst emphasized that the drill will contribute to safeguarding security in a strategically critical region, particularly one that serves as a key transit route for global energy shipments.  

Security Belt-2025 marks the fifth joint naval exercise between Iran, China, and Russia since 2019.

Over the past few years, the three nations have conducted multiple military drills to reinforce regional maritime stability and safeguard international trade routes.  

In addition to countering piracy and maritime terrorism, these exercises have facilitated intelligence sharing on naval rescue operations and the exchange of tactical and operational expertise.  

In March 2024, the Iranian Navy, along with Chinese and Russian naval and airborne units, participated in the Maritime Security Belt-2024 drills.

Observers from Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Oman, Pakistan, and South Africa attended the exercises, reflecting the growing interest in multilateral maritime cooperation.  

The joint maneuvers were designed to strengthen maritime security, bolster international trade protection, combat piracy, and enhance operational coordination among naval forces.

The drills also served as a demonstration of the participants' collective commitment to global peace and stability at sea.  

As part of the upcoming exercises, the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) will deploy two advanced vessels: the Shahid Nazeri and the Shahid Sayyad Shirazi.  

Commissioned into the IRGC Navy in September 2016, the Shahid Nazeri is a high-speed patrol and reconnaissance vessel designed for extended operational reach. With a length of 55 meters, a width of 14 meters, and a height of 13 meters, the vessel significantly enhances the IRGCN’s maritime capabilities, extending its operational range up to 10,000 kilometers.  

The Shahid Nazeri features a specialized twin-hull (SWATH – Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull) design, providing enhanced stability in high-speed operations and rough seas. Its design ensures that it remains steady even at high speeds, reducing the risk of capsizing.  

Equipped with a helicopter landing pad, the vessel can conduct surveillance and reconnaissance missions across various maritime zones, making it a valuable asset for intelligence gathering and patrol operations.  

The Shahid Sayyad Shirazi is a newly commissioned stealth warship from the Shahid Soleimani class, officially joining the IRGC Navy in February 2024. This catamaran-style ocean-going vessel is designed for high-speed operations, with a maximum speed of 45 knots.  

Armed with a wide array of offensive and defensive missile systems, the Shahid Sayyad Shirazi is equipped with vertical-launch Nawab air defense missiles and Sayyad cruise missiles with a strike range of 700 kilometers.  

With a length of 67 meters, a width of 20 meters, and a displacement of 600 tons, the vessel is powered by four engines, enabling long-distance operations. It has an operational range of 5,500 nautical miles and is capable of carrying three missile-launching fast attack boats along with an armed combat helicopter.  

 

What gives the US authority to impose sanctions on other countries?

It is believed that the United States has the legal authority to impose sanctions based on a combination of constitutional powers, legislative acts, executive orders, and national security considerations. Sanctions can be imposed for a range of reasons, from counterterrorism efforts to enforcing international law or responding to violations of human rights or international norms. However, the time has come to reject these power, which cause difficulties for the nations the US does not like.

Sanctions are often imposed for reasons related to US national security. This could include targeting foreign governments or groups that support terrorism, are involved in weapons proliferation, or engage in activities that harm US foreign policy objectives.

While US sanctions are often unilateral, they can also be part of multilateral efforts. The US may align its sanctions with those of international organizations, such as the United Nations or the European Union, especially when it comes to issues like nuclear proliferation, terrorism, and human rights violations. In this context, sanctions are seen as part of broader international diplomatic efforts.

The President has the authority to issue executive orders to implement sanctions without needing Congressional approval. These orders often cite national security concerns, international obligations, or the need to enforce specific laws (like the IEEPA) to restrict economic relations with certain countries or individuals.

 

Here's a breakdown of the key legal and institutional bases for US sanctions:

1. US Constitution

• Executive Powers (Article II): The President of the United States, as the head of the executive branch, has the authority to conduct foreign policy and engage in international relations. This includes the power to implement sanctions as a tool of diplomacy and national security.
• Congressional Powers (Article I): Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and declare war. This allows it to pass laws that authorize sanctions, and the executive branch often implements those laws.

2. Specific Legislation

Several US laws grant the authority to impose sanctions, including:

• International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) (1977): This law grants the President broad powers to regulate international trade and economic transactions in response to national emergencies. Under this act, the President can block financial transactions, freeze assets, and prohibit trade with foreign governments or entities that pose a threat to U.S. interests.
• Trading with the Enemy Act (1917): Initially passed during World War I, this law allows the President to regulate or prohibit trade with foreign nations deemed enemies during wartime or national emergencies.
• The USA PATRIOT Act (2001): This law expanded the President's powers to combat terrorism and the financing of terrorist activities, enabling sanctions targeting individuals and entities linked to terrorism.
• Magnitsky Act (2012): This law allows the U.S. government to impose sanctions on individuals involved in human rights violations and corruption, even if they are not from countries officially designated as threats to U.S. security.
• Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) (2017): This law specifically targets countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea, providing a legal framework for imposing sanctions against foreign governments and individuals involved in activities that threaten U.S. security or foreign policy.