China and Russia reject European move to restore sanctions on Iran

UN Security Council permanent members China and Russia backed Iran on Monday in rejecting a move by European countries to reimpose UN sanctions on Tehran loosened a decade ago under a nuclear agreement, reports Reuters.

A letter signed by the Chinese, Russian and Iranian foreign ministers said a move by Britain, France and Germany to automatically restore the sanctions under a so-called "snapback mechanism" was "legally and procedurally flawed".

China and Russia were signatories to Iran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, along with the three European countries, known as the E3. President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the agreement in his first term in 2018.

The Europeans launched the "snapback mechanism" last week, accusing Iran of violating the deal, which had provided relief from international financial sanctions in return for curbs to Iran's nuclear program.

The letter published by Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi in a post on X on Monday said that the course taken by Britain, France, and Germany "abuses the authority and functions of the UN Security Council".

Iran has long since broken through the limits on uranium production set under the 2015 deal, arguing that it is justified in doing so as a consequence of Washington having pulled out of the agreement. The deal expires in October this year, and the snapback mechanism would allow sanctions that were lifted under it to take effect again.

Iran and the E3 held talks aimed at a new nuclear agreement after Israel and the US bombed Iran's nuclear installations in mid-June. But the E3 deemed that talks in Geneva last week did not yield sufficient signals of readiness for a new deal from Iran.

"Our joint letter with my colleagues, the foreign ministers of China and Russia, signed in Tianjin, reflects the firm position that the European attempt to invoke snapback is legally baseless and politically destructive", Iran's foreign minister said in his post on X.

 

 

Duality of standards for Iran and Israel

Many readers like me are unable to understand why the United States, Britain, France and Germany are adamant at imposing sanction on Iran, but are not asking Israel to stop bombarding Gaza?

The apparent contradiction reflects how strategic interests, alliances, and global optics intersect in United States and Britain, France and Germany foreign policy. Let me break it down:

Iran Nuclear Program

The United States, Britain France and Germany have long opposed Iran’s uranium enrichment, seeing it as a path to nuclear weapons. Sanctions are their primary leverage tool.

Regional Rivalries

Iran’s support for Hezbollah, Houthis, and other groups hostile to Israel and the West makes it a “destabilizer” in their eyes.

Alliance Pressures

Many Gulf Arab states are partners of Israel, US, Britain, France and Germany and they view Iran as a strategic threat, pushing Western powers to maintain maximum pressure.

Domestic Politics

In Washington and Europe, appearing “soft on Iran” is politically costly. Sanctions serve as a signal of toughness.

Israeli attacks on Gaza

Israel’s strikes in Gaza have caused massive civilian deaths. Western governments face pressure from international institutions (UN, ICC), NGOs, and their own publics.

The US, Britain France and Germany consider themselves defenders of international law. Unchecked Israeli bombing undermines their stance on Ukraine, human rights, and global order.

Escalation in Gaza risks dragging in Lebanon, Syria, and potentially Iran—threatening oil supplies and broader Middle East stability, which Europe especially fears.

In the US and Europe, large pro-Palestinian movements, especially among younger voters and immigrant communities are creating political pressure to rein in Israel.

Core Contradiction

On Iran, the West uses sanctions as a pressure tool because Iran is seen as an adversary.

On Israel, despite being an ally, the West uses diplomatic urging rather than sanctions—because Israel is a strategic partner, but its Gaza actions are politically damaging to the West’s global image.

In essence, Iran is a strategic opponent and super powers use sanctions as pressure

They consider Israel a strategic ally and want to save it from any external pressure, the statements are rhetoric only.

This double standard is being viewed in non-Western capitals (Beijing, Moscow, Global and South) as dual standard and Western stance weakens their credibility globally.

The non-Western world views this double standard of sanctions on Iran but “restraint pleas” for Israel.

China points out that the US, Britain, France and Germany are punishing Iran harshly for alleged destabilizing actions, but shield Israel diplomatically despite Gaza bombings.

By calling for ceasefires and humanitarian aid, China portrays itself as a “responsible global mediator,” contrasting with the West’s selective morality.

Iran is a vital energy partner for China under its Belt and Road Initiative. Sanctions make Tehran more dependent on Beijing, strengthening Chinese influence.

Russia

Russia terms the West’s “rules-based order” biased. They argue: “If bombing cities in Ukraine is a war crime, why not Gaza?”

Iran is often accused of supplying drones and partnering with Russia under sanctions, so Moscow benefits from Tehran’s isolation.

Russia frames itself as standing with the oppressed (Palestinians) against Western-backed aggression, resonating in Arab and African states.

Colonial Echoes

Many see the West’s defense of Israel and punishment of Iran as a continuation of imperial “divide and rule.”

Western claims about human rights and international law are viewed as selective—undermining their authority when they criticize others (African leaders, Asian governments).

Countries like Turkey, Brazil, and South Africa amplify calls for accountability against Israel, while trading more with Iran outside the dollar system.

Strategic Impact

The West’s inconsistency weakens its moral standing globally.

Non-Western powers gain diplomatic and economic space by filling the “justice gap.”

Iran, despite sanctions, finds sympathy in many Global South societies as a victim of Western double standards—while Israel risks becoming diplomatically isolated outside the Western bloc.

Moral of the story

The contradictory stances of US, Britain France and Germany may preserve short-term alliances, but they’re eroding their credibility in the long run, especially in the Global South.

 

Trump-Putin meeting and implications for East Asian allies

Nikkei Asia claims it focuses on writing about Asia from an Asian perspective. Even when writing about the current occupant of the White House, it tries to look at what his rhetoric and policies mean for this region.

Much of the world's media focused on the direct implications for Europe stemming from US President Donald Trump's summit last weekend with Vladimir Putin and his subsequent meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and a group of European leaders.

James D.J. Brown looked at the implications for East Asia stemming from these diplomatic gatherings.

Brown writes that the US president's pandering to the Russian dictator and failure to support Ukraine bodes ill, not just for Europe, but for US allies in East Asia.

He makes three key points:

1- In rolling out the red carpet for Putin, a man subject to an arrest warrant for war crimes from the International Criminal Court, Trump is flaunting his disregard for a rules-based international order. This matters enormously to countries in East Asia, including Japan, whose security and prosperity is based on the principle that larger states cannot seize territory from weaker neighbors through military force.

2- The concern is that, having dealt with Putin over the heads of the Ukrainians, Trump could do the same with China, and make 'a big, beautiful' deal with Xi Jinping regarding Taiwan.

3- US allies in the region will be concerned about Trump's increasing unreliability and impressionability as shown by his flip-flopping on Russia policy.

Also on the American leader, William Pesek argues that Xi must be loving how Trump is remaking the US in China's image.

He writes, "Trump's Chinafication project can be seen in his effort to morph the Federal Reserve into the People's Bank of China, obscure economic data, defang the courts, take government stakes in major companies like Intel and demand a 15% cut of Nvidia's chip sales to China. The White House getting a 'golden share' stake free of charge in Nippon Steel's deal for US Steel pulsates with Politburo energy.”

"The circus atmosphere pervading Trump 2.0 means time is on China's side. Optimism that Xi will be the one making an offer Trump cannot refuse has Shanghai traders ready to pop the champagne corks. And, who knows, they may be right," Pesek adds.

Outside of the Trump-sphere, Vivian Toh explains why Huawei's HarmonyOS has struggled to adopt smaller apps, while Ben Cordier and Eve Yang make the case for Asian job markets being able to weather global economic uncertainty.

 

Geopolitical stunts are created to maneuver oil prices

It may not be wrong to say that geopolitical stunts (or deliberate political maneuvers) are often used to influence oil prices. The time proves that oil is one of the most geopolitically sensitive commodities, and even the perception of instability can trigger price movements. Here are some ways this happens:

Military Conflicts and Threats

Tensions in oil-producing regions (Middle East, Russia, and Ukraine) raise fears of supply disruptions. Even without actual disruption, rhetoric, military drills, or strikes can cause speculative buying, lifting prices.

Sanctions and Embargoes

Sanctions on major producers (Iran, Venezuela, and Russia) reduce their exports, tightening supply. Announcements of new sanctions, even before implementation, often drive markets up.

OPEC Plus Announcements

OPEC and allies strategically announce production cuts or increases to move prices. Sometimes the timing is politically motivated — for example, cuts ahead of US elections or global summits.

Diplomatic Stunts

Leaders may signal alliances, threats, or peace talks to calm or unsettle oil markets. For instance, US–Saudi or US–Iran engagements often coincide with volatility in oil futures.

Domestic Politics

Countries that depend heavily on oil revenues (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela) may trigger or amplify tensions abroad to keep oil prices high. Conversely, big consumers (United States, China, and European Union) may release strategic oil reserves to cool prices.

Media Amplification

Headlines about “possible war,” “pipeline sabotage,” or “shipping lane blockades” often move markets more than the actual underlying event. Traders react to expectations and fear, not just physical supply-demand.

Therefore, it could be concluded that oil markets are not purely economic — they are political battlegrounds, and states often use geopolitical stunts as levers to maneuver prices in their favor.

Here are three recent real world examples (2025) where geopolitical maneuvers clearly influenced oil prices—either via threat driven surges or optimism amid shifting sanctions and diplomacy.

Threat to Close the Strait of Hormuz

In June 2025, escalating attacks between Israel and Iran triggered a spike in oil prices—Brent crude climbed to US$70 per barrel amid concerns over supply disruptions and potential threats to the vital Strait of Hormuz.

On June 14, 2025, Iran explicitly threatened to close the Strait, which handles nearly 20% of global oil traffic. Analysts warned this could push prices even higher—possibly into the US$100 to US$150 per barrel range.

While a full closure didn’t materialize, the mere threat created a sharp short-term price shock, echoing how geopolitical risk can rapidly alter market sentiment.

Russia Ukraine Peace Talks

In August 2025, oil markets closely tracked developments—or lack thereof—in high-profile diplomatic efforts involving Russia, the United States, and Ukraine.

When President Trump proposed a trilateral summit (Putin–Zelenskiy–himself), Brent crude briefly climbed—markets anticipated that a ceasefire could eventually ease sanctions and boost supply.

Conversely, when the Trump–Putin summit yielded no binding oil or policy changes, markets cooled; analysts noted the event lacked the "magic lever" to relieve supply constraints.

Ongoing sanctions and inventory draws in the US—especially amid strong demand—continued to support prices amid supply uncertainty.

OPEC Plus Production Moves

In June 2025, OPEC Plus surprised markets by announcing a modest output increase of around 411,000 barrels per day, despite prevailing worries of oversupply. This unexpected move served as a geopolitical reminder of OPEC Plus ability to tweak supply—and kept oil prices elevated.

This came at a time when global crude production was running high, yet the announcement shaped expectations that geopolitical coordination could still swing the market.

Geopolitical Stunts Still Matter

Perception matters:

Markets often react more sharply to the fear of disruption—like threats to chokepoints—than to actual events.

Short-term risk channel:

As historical analyses show, geopolitical shocks typically drive short-term price spikes via risk premiums, though long-term economic slowdown may offset these gains.

Strategic signaling:

Diplomatic posturing—summits, threats, tariffs—can sway trader sentiment and pricing, even without concrete policy shifts.

Can there be an end to India-China animosity?

Relations between China and India are on a “positive trend” towards cooperation, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Indian counterpart in New Delhi.

The world’s two most populous nations are intense rivals competing for influence across South Asia, and fought a deadly border clash in 2020.

India is also part of the Quad security alliance with the United States, Australia and Japan, which is seen as a counter to China.

Caught in global trade and geopolitical turbulence triggered by US President Donald Trump’s tariff war, the countries have moved to mend ties.

During talks on Monday with Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India’s foreign minister, Wang said the two countries should “view each other as partners and opportunities, rather than adversaries or threats”.

He pointed to the resumption of “dialogue at all levels” and “maintenance of peace and tranquility in border areas” as evidence that bilateral ties were on a “positive trend of returning to the main path of cooperation”.

Wang is also expected to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his three-day visit.

According to Indian media, Modi might visit China this month, which would be his first trip since 2018.

Relations have improved since October, when Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping met for the first time in five years in Russia.

Chinese and Indian officials have said in recent weeks that the two countries were discussing the resumption of border trade, which has been halted since 2020.

Its resumption would be symbolically significant, and follows discussions to resume direct flights and issue tourist visas.

At this juncture it is necessary to examine the factors responsible for the confrontation between China and India.

Point blank it could be said that the omnipresent confrontation is rooted in a mix of historical, geopolitical, economic, and strategic factors.

While both the countries are major Asian powers and share a long border, their relations have been tense for decades. The reasons include:

Border Disputes

The 3,488 kilometers (2,167 miles) boundary between China and India is not formally demarcated. Two main disputed Areas are: 1) Aksai Chin (controlled by China, claimed by India) and 2) Arunachal Pradesh (controlled by India, claimed by China as “South Tibet”). Repeated standoffs (Doklam 2017, Galwan 2020) occur due to patrol overlaps and differing perceptions of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Historical Legacy

The 1962 Sino-Indian War left a deep scar. China defeated India and occupied Aksai Chin. India still feels betrayed, as relations before 1962 were publicly friendly under “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai” (India-China brotherhood).

Strategic Rivalry in Asia

Both nations see themselves as dominant Asian powers. China views India’s rise and its closeness with the US, Japan, and Australia (Quad alliance) as a counterbalance to Beijing.

Similarly, India sees China’s moves in the Indian Ocean (ports in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Myanmar) as strategic encirclement, often called the “String of Pearls.”

China–Pakistan Nexus

China is Pakistan’s closest ally, providing military, economic, and diplomatic support. The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passes through Gilgit-Baltistan, a territory claimed by India. This deepens India’s suspicion that China aims to strategically contain it.

Tibet and the Dalai Lama

India hosts the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharamshala. China sees this as interference in its internal affairs and a threat to its sovereignty over Tibet.

Economic Competition

India sees Chinese dominance in trade and technology as a threat. After the 2020 border clashes, India banned over 200 Chinese apps and tightened FDI rules from China.

Both China and India compete for influence in South Asia, Africa, and global institutions.

Military Build-up

Both nations are rapidly modernizing and militarizing their borders. China has built extensive infrastructure (roads, rail, and airstrips) along the LAC. India is catching up with new highways, forward bases, and troop deployments.

Nationalism and Domestic Politics

In both countries, leaders use nationalist rhetoric to project strength. In India, strong responses to China are politically popular. In China, the Communist Party portrays territorial claims as non-negotiable to maintain legitimacy.

Geopolitics

China is wary of India’s growing ties with the US (Indo-Pacific strategy, defense pacts). India distrusts China’s closeness with Russia and Pakistan. Both are competing in international organizations (UN, BRICS, SCO, and G20).

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.