Four vessels struck in Hormuz in 24 hours

According to Seatrade Maritime News, UKMTO has published four warnings of attacks in the Strait of Hormuz which took place on September 28 and 29.

The first of the late reports states that a vessel was struck by an unknown projectile late on September 28, leading to a fire onboard, which was later extinguished. The crew were reported as safe. The IMO’s list of confirmed attacks in the region now carries a September 28 incident involving VLCC Al Funtas in the Strait of Hormuz, reporting damage to the ship and no pollution. The ship is owned and operated by Kuwait Oil Tanker Company.

The UKMTO report was filed as suspicious activity, rather than an attack, even though it confirms an attack on the ship.

On September 30, three more late reports were published regarding incidents that took place on September 29. The first report is of a crude oil tanker struck on the port side, identified by Vanguard Tech as 2008-built VLCC Mersin Prosperity. According to Equasis data, the ship is managed by ADNOC.

The second report is of a tanker transiting inbound being struck by an unknown projectile, identified by Vanguard as Sinbad, a Liberian-flagged tanker managed by Anglo-Eastern.

The third report of a tanker struck by an unknown projectile regards Al Ruwais, according to Vanguard, which it identified as an LNG tanker, although the vessel appears to be a Liberia-flagged LR2 owned and operated by ADNOC.

All of the attacks were within the Strait of Hormuz.

Of the three ships identified by Vanguard, only Sinbad appears on Iran’s list of non-compliant vessels it claims have breached Tehran’s rules for transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Vessels on the list, administered by the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), are subject to fines, detention, or confiscation during future passages of the Strait of Hormuz, PGSA has warned.

“The extent of damage to the three vessels remains unclear at current,” said Vanguard.

The series of late reports from UKMTO is unusual, and follows Iranian claims to have attacked 19 vessels on September 25 and 26. UKMTO relies on a voluntary reporting scheme and acts as a point of contact for emergency response in the region, and so its reporting capability would be limited should vessels and organizations choose not to report incidents.

 

US Forces Exit Iraq After Two Decades

Is the US exiting Iraq by choice—or under pressure?

I am not surprised by the announcement that US forces are leaving Iraq. The withdrawal was agreed in 2024 under President Joe Biden and is now being implemented by Donald Trump’s administration. Yet the timing is intriguing - America is leaving Iraq while simultaneously confronting Iran in a widening regional conflict.

The obvious interpretation is that Washington has concluded that its military mission in Iraq has run its course. But geopolitics rarely ends with the departure of troops. America may be leaving Iraq militarily without necessarily leaving the Iraqi theatre strategically.

The withdrawal removes a long-standing American military presence that acted as a counterweight to Iran's influence. Iran and its allies are already celebrating the departure as a victory, while some Iraqi officials fear that the resulting security gap could strengthen Iran-backed militias. At the same time, Islamic State sleeper cells remain active, creating another potential source of instability.

This raises a more provocative question; could the withdrawal ultimately facilitate another phase of the US-Iran confrontation rather than bring it to an end?

There is no evidence that Washington intends to use Islamic State as a proxy. Yet the possibility deserves consideration. Iraqi commanders have reported increased movement by sleeper cells following news of the withdrawal, while the loss of American intelligence, drones and logistical support could give the group greater operating space.

A security vacuum, if it develops, could provide militants with an opportunity to revive—and governments with a pretext for renewed intervention.

Iraq's oil resources add another strategic dimension. Any prolonged instability affecting exploration, production or export infrastructure would have consequences far beyond Iraq. Whether such an outcome is intended or simply emerges from a deteriorating security environment remains an open question.

Therefore, America's departure should not automatically be interpreted as the end of its Iraqi engagement. Troops may be leaving, but American strategic interests are unlikely to disappear with them.

The real question begins after September 30, will Iraq finally exercise greater sovereignty, or will the vacuum created by the withdrawal become the opening chapter of another US-Iran proxy confrontation?

The Syndicate That Brought Trump Is Losing Patience

Donald Trump returned to the White House with the support of a broad coalition of political, business, media, energy, technology and investment interests. Many expected his second presidency to deliver decisive results. Nearly two years later, some members of this coalition may be confronting a widening gap between expectations and reality.

Iran is perhaps the clearest example. The US-Israeli war on Iran, which began on February 28, has entered its seventh month, yet Tehran has not surrendered. Iran has endured sustained military pressure while retaining significant leverage, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. Diplomatic efforts are continuing, but Washington and Tehran remain far apart.

The economic consequences are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore. US diesel prices have climbed above US$6 per gallon, while concerns over shortages are intensifying. Trump has considered restricting diesel exports, but the oil industry has resisted, warning that such a move could disrupt refinery operations and ultimately worsen supplies.

The oil market presents another uncomfortable reality. Brent crude has moved above US$100 per barrel, but the much-discussed US$200 target remains elusive. More significantly, the spread between Brent and West Texas Intermediate has widened, reflecting a market increasingly distorted by geopolitical risk rather than controlled by policy.

The media was among the first constituencies to become increasingly critical. Energy companies are now showing greater resistance, while investors are becoming more selective about technology and AI valuations. The military-industrial complex, meanwhile, continues to receive substantial attention, but the prolonged conflict raises questions about the sustainability and strategic payoff of escalating military expenditure.

This growing friction also has a political dimension. A fresh impeachment resolution was tabled in the House on September 15 by 232–147, with 47 members voting present. It therefore did not proceed to a Senate trial. Yet another attempt cannot be ruled out, particularly if political control of Congress changes.

The larger question is whether the diverse interests that helped bring Trump back to power can remain united when geopolitical ambitions collide with energy prices, corporate interests, financial markets and domestic political pressures.

“The Syndicate” may never have been a formal organization. It was a convergence of interests. The real test now is whether that convergence can survive the widening gap between expectations and results.

PSX closes the week almost flat

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during the week ended on September 25, 2026. The benchmark Index gained 372 points or 0.22%WoW to close the week at 170,885 points.

Yemeni Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia's East-West Pipeline forced the closure of a key export route, pushing Brent crude to a 4-month high of US$109.7/bbl. However, oil prices eased during the final two days.

The index recovered on fading concerns over immediate Saudi supply disruptions, outweighing fears of a broader Middle East conflict.

The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) kept the policy rate unchanged at 11.50% on Monday, in line with broad market consensus.

The current account deficit narrowed sharply by 70%YoY to US$98 million in August 2926.

Foreign exchange reserves held by SBP hit a record high of US$21.4 billion, pushing the country's import cover past three months for the first time in 5-Years.

Furthermore, yields on 3 and 6-month T-Bills declined in the last auction.

FDI increased by 80%YoY to US$316 billion during August 2026.

Auto industry sales increased by 11%YoY to 17,485 units in August 2026.

IT exports rose 17%YoY to US$394 million.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) GoP presents IMF plan to retire PkR3.6tn gas-sector circular debt, 2) Pakistan eyes to seek an expansion of its 30-billion-yuan swap line with China, 3) Pakistan cotton arrivals rises by 19%YoY to 2.4 million bales as of September 3026, 4) Auto financing in August 2026 reached record high of PKR393 billion, and 5) GoP approves PKR75 billion subsidy for fuel relief scheme.

Leading sectors were: Synthetic and Rayon, Leasing Companies, and Real Estate Investment Trust, while laggards included: Textile Weaving, Paper and Board, and Leathers and Tanneries.

Major buyers were Individuals (US$11.0 million) and Banks (US$2.6 million). On the contrary, major selling was recorded by Mutual Funds (US$12.7 million) and Foreigners (US$3.4 million).

Top performing scrips were: PSEL, IBFL, and CPHL. On the other side, laggards included: GHNI, GAL, and NBP.

Pakistan’s leading brokerage house, AKD Securities expects the market to improve on the back of strengthening economic indicators, with the upcoming IMF review in the next week to remain a key near-term catalyst. A potential US-Iran deal could moderate international oil prices from current elevated levels.

The market continues to trade at attractive valuations. The brokerage house forecasts the benchmark Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2026.

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

 

 

Pezeshkian vows no surrender in war with US

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has accused President Donald Trump of a "bullying ​mentality", saying Iran would not surrender in the war with the United States, but remained open to diplomacy to end the conflict.

In a wartime address to the 193-member UN General Assembly on Wednesday, Pezeshkian said threats would only harden Iran's resolve, rejecting Trump's warning that he could annihilate Iran if no deal were reached.

"The resistance of the Iranian people will only increase in the face of sanctions, increased pressure, increased bullying," Pezeshkian said, responding to Trump's threat to "annihilate" the Islamic Republic if a deal is not reached soon.

There was no immediate comment from the US, whose delegation walked out of the chamber at the start of Pezeshkian's address.

"The US president described us as terrorists. We have been the victims of terrorism," Iran's president told the UN General Assembly.

He then held up a photo of the country's late Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in a strike on his residence when the US and Israel launched a joint attack in late February.

He also presented pictures of some of the more than 175 civilians, two-thirds of them children, who Iranian authorities say were killed in missile strikes on a primary school in Minab and a sports complex in Lamerd that day. "Our innocent people have been the targets of cowardly attacks and aggressions imposed on our country. And we defended ourselves with utmost strength," Pezeshkian said.

In his address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday, Trump said he faced a "big decision" - either negotiate a deal that would allow Iranians to rebuild their country, or "annihilate the Islamic Republic and do it quickly".

Pezeshkian said the threat was "a sign of a bullying mentality".

"[Trump] must know that the resistance of the Iranian people will only increase in the face of sanctions, increased pressure, increased bullying. We will never bow our head or bend the knee," he said.

But he added, "We are ready for dialogue and diplomacy and negotiations without accepting the language of force."

Pezeshkian made clear that the US blockade would have to end as part of any deal.

"It cannot be the case that everyone benefits from the Strait of Hormuz while we are denied access to shipping through this waterway," he said.

He also reiterated that Iran would not give up its right to have a civilian nuclear program and that it would not seek to develop nuclear weapons.

"We say it clearly: no nuclear weapons and no limitations on peaceful nuclear technology."

Trump argued in his speech that the war had prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb and demanded that its leaders "relinquish their nuclear ambitions".

On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and US envoy Steve Witkoff held indirect talks brokered by Qatari mediators on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

Witkoff said he hoped the discussions – the first since June – would "prove constructive and promising", adding that the mediators would continue their work.

But Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baqai said the talks were "not anything new" and that Araghchi had maintained Iran's conditions, including the end of the US blockade and the release of frozen Iranian assets.

In June, the US and Iran reached a preliminary agreement to end the war and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but it collapsed within weeks after the Iranian attacks on shipping resumed and the US reinstated its blockade.

 

Other GCC Members Must Listen to Qatar

Qatar’s call for a regional security framework bringing the Gulf states and Iran together deserves serious attention from all GCC members. Speaking at the Qatar Economic Forum on the sidelines of the 81st UN General Assembly in New York, Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani described the recent regional war as a “wake-up call” for the region.

His argument is straightforward; Iran is a geographical reality and a permanent neighbour of the Gulf states. Sustainable security, therefore, cannot depend exclusively on military alliances or arrangements that leave one or more regional states permanently exposed to insecurity. Doha is advocating a framework based on sovereignty, non-aggression, confidence-building and dialogue.

This does not require the GCC to overlook Iran’s actions or security concerns. Rather, it recognizes that deterrence and diplomacy have different but complementary roles. Military preparedness may deter aggression, but it cannot by itself eliminate the sources of recurring confrontation.

Recent developments have demonstrated how quickly a regional conflict can affect energy supplies, shipping routes, investment, trade and global markets.

Sheikh Mohammed described the economic consequences of the US-Israel war on Iran as an “earthquake” whose shock waves extended far beyond the Middle East.

The Gulf states have strong reasons to coordinate their security policies. But coordination among GCC members alone cannot address every source of regional tension. Geography makes coexistence with Iran unavoidable, while economic interdependence makes prolonged instability increasingly costly.

Qatar has also emphasized mediation, maintaining communication channels and working with regional and international partners to reduce tensions. Such efforts may not resolve fundamental differences, but they can create mechanisms for managing them.

The real question is therefore not whether the GCC should abandon deterrence or its external security partnerships. It is whether these arrangements should be complemented by a regional security architecture in which Gulf states and Iran can address threats, build confidence and prevent crises from escalating into wider conflicts.

Other GCC members may indeed have much to consider in Qatar’s proposal. A durable Gulf security system will ultimately require regional ownership, mutual confidence and sustained communication—including with Iran.

Is the US Gulping Middle Eastern Oil?

More than one billion barrels of crude oil have transited the Strait of Hormuz in recent months under a US military blockade, US Central Command (CENTCOM) said Saturday.

“CENTCOM forces have supported more than 1 billion barrels of crude oil leaving the Gulf,” Adm. Brad Cooper said in remarks released by the command.

US forces have also assisted more than 2,000 commercial vessel transits through the strategic waterway by providing coordinated protection. The strait’s primary transit lanes had been cleared of mines, allowing thousands of ships to pass through the waterway.

At the same time, Cooper said Iran had exported “zero barrels” of oil, attributing the halt to what he described as the US “ironclad blockade.”

The volume of crude oil, cargo and liquefied natural gas moving through the strait over the past two weeks was higher than at any point during the previous six months.

US has been working with Gulf Cooperation Council countries, insurers and shipping companies to further increasing traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s key energy transit routes.

 

Multinational Maritime Coalition: But Where Is the Real Problem?

The latest meeting of the Multinational Maritime Defense Coalition raises a basic question: what exactly is this coalition being created to achieve? The question becomes even more pertinent when representatives of 41 countries, including 154 naval commanders, planners, ambassadors and European Union officials, gather in Jeddah to prepare for operational deployment. The coalition now has 28 liaison officers and has reached Initial Operational Capability.

Its declared objective is straightforward - protect freedom of navigation, maritime routes and strategic straits through a coordinated multinational defensive framework.

But here lies the paradox. If freedom of navigation is the objective, why is the Strait of Hormuz not at the center of the discussion?

I do not subscribe to the narrative that Iran alone is responsible for the disruption of navigation through Hormuz. The present crisis followed the US-Israeli attack on Iran on February 28, while negotiations were reportedly underway. Since then, a cycle of military action and retaliation has continued, with attacks on strategic assets and shipping followed by Iranian responses.

The consequences extend well beyond Iran. The disruption is also hurting the oil-producing Arab economies of the Gulf, whose exports depend heavily on secure maritime routes. Hundreds of ships and thousands of seafarers have reportedly remained unable to sail safely through the strait for months.

This creates an uncomfortable contradiction. A coalition established in the name of maritime freedom cannot effectively address the problem by treating only one side of the conflict as responsible.

The immediate requirement is therefore not another layer of military coordination. It is de-escalation and restoration of freedom of navigation.

The United States should remove restrictions affecting Iranian shipping and work with all relevant parties to restore safe and unhindered passage through the Strait of Hormuz, including for Iranian-owned and Iranian-operated vessels.

Freedom of navigation cannot be selective. If it is genuinely a shared international interest, it must apply to everyone—or the principle itself is undermined.

PSX benchmark index closes almost flat

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during the week ended on September 18, 2026. The benchmark Index gained 372 points or 0.22%WoW during the week to close at 170,885 points.

Yemeni Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia's East-West Pipeline forced the closure of a key export route, pushing Brent crude to a 4-month high of US$109.7/ bbl.

Oil prices eased during the final two days, with the index recovering as fading concerns over immediate Saudi supply disruptions ultimately outweighed fears of a broader Middle East conflict.

The GoP reintroduced austerity measures in an effort to conserve fuel.

Pakistan’s central bank kept the policy rate unchanged at 11.50% on Monday, in line with broad market consensus.

Current account deficit narrowed sharply by 70%YoY to US$98 million in August 2026.

Foreign exchange reserves held by SBP forex hit a record high of US$21.4 billion, pushing the country's import cover past three months for the first time in 5-Years.

Yields on 3 and 6 month T-bills declined to 11.38% and 11.70%, respectively, in the latest auction.

FDI increased by 80%YoY to US$316 million during August 2026.

Auto industry sales increased by 11%YoY to 17,485 units in August 2026, while IT exports rose 17%YoY to US$394 million.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) GoP presents IMF plan to retire PKR3.6 trillion gas-sector circular debt, 2) Pakistan eyes to seek an expansion of its 30 billions yuan swap line with China, 3) Pakistan cotton arrivals rose by 19%YoY to 2.4 million bales as of September this year, 4) Auto financing in August 2026 reached record high of PKR393 billion, and 5) GoP approves PKR75 billion subsidy for fuel relief scheme.

Leading sectors were: Synthetic and Rayon, Leasing Companies, and Real Estate Investment Trust.

while the lagged included: Textile Weaving, Paper & Board, and Leathers & Tanneries.

Major buyers were Individuals (US$11.0 million) and Banks (US$2.6 million). Major selling was recorded by Mutual Funds (US$12.7 million) and Foreigners (US$3.4 million).

Top performing scrips of the week were: PSEL, IBFL, and CPHL, while the laggards included: GHNI, GAL, and NBP.

AKD Securities expects the market to improve on the back of strengthening economic indicators, with the upcoming IMF review in the next week to remain a key near-term catalyst.

A potential US-Iran deal could moderate international oil prices from current elevated levels, the market continues to trade at attractive valuations.

The brokerage house forecasts the Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2026.

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

Hormuz Shuttle Tankers: An Evolving Trend Amid the US-Israel war on Iran

According to a report by Seatrade Maritime News, the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is creating a new pattern in the regional oil trade - shuttle tankers are increasingly moving crude from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, where cargoes are transferred ship-to-ship (STS) for onward delivery.

The trend is illustrated by the Hong Kong-flagged VLCC Cospearl Lake, which recently reached Dalian, China, carrying about two million barrels of crude loaded through an STS transfer in the Gulf of Oman rather than directly from a Persian Gulf terminal. Such operations allow exporters and buyers to keep oil moving while reducing exposure to the increasingly risky and costly Hormuz transit.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has emerged as a key player in this shuttle trade. Regional exporters are using tankers to transport crude through the Strait and transfer it to waiting vessels outside the Gulf. This complements conventional voyages by tankers that continue directly to their destinations.

The Mombasa B provides an important example. The VLCC, chartered by UAE's ADNOC from Sinokor Maritime, entered the Persian Gulf in April and subsequently began shuttling between Gulf loading terminals and the Gulf of Oman. Since June, many of its voyages through Hormuz have been conducted as “dark transits,” with AIS signals switched off.

The risks, however, remain substantial. On July 13, Iranian forces targeted the Mombasa B with cruise missiles while it was transiting the waterway. One Indian crew member was killed and eight others injured. Although the tanker suffered material damage, it remained operational and subsequently resumed Hormuz crossings. The vessel has since been placed on Iran's list of “non-compliant” ships.

The UAE is nevertheless expanding its capacity. In August, ADNOC Logistics & Services announced the acquisition of six additional VLCCs. Other regional exporters, including Kuwait, are also using tankers in shuttle operations. Some ADNOC vessels have reportedly carried Iraqi Basrah crude, indicating that the system is evolving into a wider regional network rather than serving only UAE exports.

Kpler data shows that Persian Gulf crude and condensate loadings reached about 5.8 million barrels per day in August, including Gulf of Oman STS transfers, and have risen toward 8 million bpd in September. Iraq has also reportedly offered buyers the option of collecting crude through STS transfers outside Hormuz.

Yet shuttle tankers remain a wartime workaround rather than a replacement for normal trade routes. They require additional vessels, increase costs and operational complexity, and remain vulnerable to attack. With Iranian oil exports reportedly falling sharply and tensions continuing around the Omani corridor, Tehran may have greater incentive to disrupt these alternative supply chains.

The emerging shuttle trade therefore demonstrates the adaptability of the global oil market—but also highlights how deeply the Iran war has altered the economics, logistics and security of energy transportation through the Gulf.

Will Another Media Narrative Push the Muslim World Towards War?

The Western media, which played a major role in building the narrative that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, appears to be following a familiar script in the Middle East. This time, Iran is being projected not merely as an adversary of the United States and Israel, but increasingly as a threat to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Since the US and Israel jointly attacked Iran on February 28, the narrative surrounding Iran has intensified. For decades, Western policymakers and media outlets have repeatedly presented Iran as a greater threat to the region than Israel. The question is whether this narrative is now being expanded to create a direct confrontation between Iran and the Arab Gulf states.

There is another important distinction that deserves attention. The United States maintains military facilities and assets in several GCC countries. When Iran retaliates against American military targets, reports can easily create the impression that Iran is attacking the territory of the Gulf state hosting those facilities. The distinction between an attack on a US military asset and an attack on the host country should not be lost.

When attempts to pressure or destabilize Iran failed to produce the expected outcome, the familiar sectarian card also appeared. Reports involving the alleged killing of a Sunni cleric were circulated with the potential to inflame Shia-Sunni tensions, although subsequent developments did not substantiate the dramatic interpretation initially suggested.

Now comes an even more sensitive issue, reports that the Houthis targeted Mecca.

Saudi authorities say a Houthi drone was intercepted south of Mecca, while the Houthis deny targeting the holy city. Such a serious allegation demands independent verification, not sensational headlines.

The danger is obvious. Mecca and Medina are not Saudi-Iranian, Shia-Sunni or Arab-Persian issues. They belong to the entire Muslim Ummah.

The Iraq WMD narrative demonstrated how devastating a questionable intelligence narrative can become when it is converted into political justification for war. The consequences were measured not merely in headlines but in human lives and regional instability.

Muslims should therefore reject attempts to exploit the sanctity of the holy cities for geopolitical or sectarian purposes. If the Houthis actually targeted Mecca or Medina, the evidence should be established transparently. If they did not, the allegation must not be allowed to become the spark for a much larger conflict.

The Muslim world cannot afford another war manufactured through narratives, rumours and sectarian emotions. The first responsibility should be to verify—not to mobilize.

The 2026 US Primaries: Politics Full of Surprises

The 2026 US primary season has delivered an unusual series of surprises, exposing growing pressures within both the Democratic and Republican parties ahead of November’s congressional elections.

On the Democratic side, progressive and democratic-socialist candidates made significant gains by defeating several established lawmakers. Their victories reflected the strength of anti-establishment sentiment among sections of the Democratic electorate and demonstrated that incumbency is no longer an assured advantage.

Republicans, meanwhile, continued to feel the influence of President Donald Trump. His decision to endorse Ken Paxton rather than Senator John Cornyn in the Texas Senate runoff underlined his continuing role in Republican politics. Trump also backed successful primary challenges against several Republican critics, including Cornyn, Representative Thomas Massie and Senator Bill Cassidy.

Trump's influence was not absolute. He suffered notable setbacks in several gubernatorial contests, while the broader primary results showed that his endorsements do not automatically determine outcomes.

The season also raised questions about political polling. Candidates expected to dominate races in Michigan and Wisconsin encountered much stronger competition than anticipated. The revelation that fake polls had circulated in two major contests further damaged confidence in an already scrutinized industry.

Another unexpected development came from Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, whose appearance at a Republican convention and praise for Republican Senator Dave McCormick highlighted the ideological and political tensions within the Democratic Party.

In Maine, Graham Platner's rapidly rising campaign collapsed following allegations of sexual misconduct and scrutiny of controversial past posts, forcing Democrats to select a replacement candidate.

Meanwhile, a Supreme Court ruling affecting the Voting Rights Act triggered new congressional redistricting in several Southern states, potentially altering the balance of House seats.

With Election Day only weeks away, the primaries have revealed a fluid American political landscape in which incumbents, party establishments, polling expectations and even traditional party loyalties face increasing pressure.

Why Is the President Outside the Stock-Trading Net?

A Bloomberg analysis has raised an intriguing question about the relationship between political power and financial markets in Washington. President Donald Trump and his financial managers reportedly executed nearly 28,700 securities transactions during the 17 months following his second inauguration through June 2026—more than the roughly 22,200 transactions reported collectively by members of Congress over the same period.

The scale is remarkable. Trump’s transactions reportedly involved accounts worth more than US$858 million and covered individual stocks, bonds and cryptocurrencies. This represents a notable shift from his first term, when his assets were primarily associated with real estate.

The volume of trading, does not by itself establish wrongdoing. Trump’s representatives and the Trump Organization have maintained that the accounts are managed by independent third parties and computer-driven models, and that neither Trump nor his family receives advance notice of or exercises control over individual transactions.

Yet the issue raises a broader question of public policy. The United States already has rules against government officials using non-public information obtained through their positions for financial gain. The 2012 Stock Act clarified that insider-trading prohibitions apply to Members of Congress and other government officials. Congressional records also show that lawmakers have repeatedly proposed going further by restricting or banning securities trading by elected officials.

Here the question becomes particularly relevant, if Members of Congress are considered sufficiently exposed to potential conflicts of interest to justify restrictions on their personal investments, why should comparable safeguards not apply to the President?

Not all proposed legislation treats the President differently. Indeed, the proposed Ethics Act would cover Members of Congress, the President and Vice President, while other measures have focused specifically on lawmakers.

That variation itself deserves scrutiny. The President exercises enormous influence over policies involving taxation, tariffs, regulation, energy, defence, trade and international relations—areas capable of affecting the value of financial assets. Even when investments are managed independently, the question of public confidence remains.

The debate, should not be reduced to whether any particular Trump transaction was lawful or unlawful. The more fundamental issue is whether America's conflict-of-interest framework should apply consistently to all elected officials.

If Congress believes that stock trading can create either an actual conflict or the appearance of one, the same principle merits consideration at the highest level of government.

After all, public trust should not depend on whether an elected official occupies a seat on Capitol Hill—or sits in the Oval Office.

Are Houthis Attacking Saudi Oil Tankers - or Is There a Bigger Story?

The reports that Yemen’s Houthis are attacking Saudi oil tankers deserve closer examination. Not because such attacks are impossible, but because the emerging narrative may be more complicated than it appears.

During the height of Israel’s assault on Gaza, the Houthis declared that their maritime campaign was directed primarily against Israeli-owned or Israel-linked vessels and ships carrying goods to and from Israel. Their stated objective was to pressure Israel over Gaza. Against this background, the reported targeting of Saudi tankers represents a significant development.

There is little doubt that Houthi military operations have disrupted commercial shipping in the Red Sea and surrounding waters. But disruption of Saudi shipping does not necessarily mean that every incident represents a deliberate Houthi campaign against Saudi Arabia. The Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb and Suez Canal form one interconnected maritime corridor. Once security deteriorates, vessels of different nationalities become exposed.

This distinction matters because the dominant Western narrative - “Iran-backed Houthis are attacking Saudi oil tankers and installations” - can simplify a complex regional conflict. Attribution should be based on evidence, while the political context surrounding each incident deserves equal attention.

There is another question that cannot simply be dismissed as conspiracy theory, who benefits from heightened insecurity around Saudi Arabia?

A prolonged Houthi threat could encourage Riyadh to deepen its security relationship with Washington, strengthen arguments for a US security umbrella, increase American arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, and potentially create greater pressure for Saudi Arabia to move closer to the Abraham Accords.

None of these possibilities proves that another actor is secretly attacking Saudi ships. Claims about covert operations or CIA-linked groups require evidence and should not be presented as established fact.

Yet history demonstrates that major geopolitical confrontations rarely involve only the actors appearing on the battlefield. Different powers can exploit the same crisis to advance their own strategic interests.

Therefore, the real issue may not simply be whether Houthis are attacking Saudi oil tankers. The more important question is whether Houthi attacks—and the narrative surrounding them—are becoming instruments in a much larger struggle over Saudi Arabia’s security choices, regional alignments and America’s continuing influence in the Gulf.

Iran attacks damage US diplomatic facilities

US diplomatic facilities in four Gulf countries suffered around US$184 million in estimated damages from Iranian military strikes, reports The Hill.

These facilities are located in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), says a Pentagon 44-page report, the first one since the US and Israel launched the war in late February. 

The heaviest damage was sustained in Iraq with over US$157 million in costs, followed by Kuwait with more than US$14 million in damages and US$11.5 million in Saudi Arabia.

In the UAE, the US diplomatic post suffered US$125,000 in damages.

The US mission in Iraq experienced over 600 Iranian attacks. 

The Iranian military has targeted various US military bases in the Gulf since Operation Epic Fury kicked off on February 28 this year.

Tehran has also inflicted heavy damages on diplomatic and intelligence outposts in those countries. 

From February 28 to June 29, the Pentagon has estimated the cost of war to be US$33.4 billion, but that does not include costs for infrastructure repairs.

In July, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Senate lawmakers that the Iran war’s estimated cost was US$37.5 billion, a sum that some experts argued was a low estimate. 

The State Department, meanwhile, reported that as of June 2, it had incurred US$113 million in costs related to the war and “as it continues to assess damage, costs are likely to rise.”

In addition, 18 US service members have been killed and some 800 wounded in the more than six-month war.

About 50,000 American troops are still deployed to the region, with the Trump administration yet to provide a clear exit strategy from the deeply unpopular conflict. 

Top administration officials have at times downplayed the damages Iranian one-way attack drones and missiles have inflicted on US military bases, aircraft and other assets in the US Central Command (Centcom) theater. 

Last week, President Trump denied news reports that several US military jets were damaged in Iran’s attack on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. 

“None whatsoever. No damage. No nothing,” the president said in an interview with The Hill’s sister network NewsNation when asked about one A-10 Thunderbolt losing a wing and eight F-15s sustained light damage. 

More than 50 US aircraft have been damaged or destroyed since the Iran war began, according to the watchdog’s report, including 4 F-15Es, seven KC-135 refueling aircraft, four AH-6 helicopters and at least 30 MQ-9 Reaper drones. 

But some top officials were more candid. 

“They blew the hell out of Bahrain,” the acting US Navy Secretary Hung Cao said in an interview last week with The Epoch Times when asked about the level of damage Naval Support Activity Bahrain (NASB), which serves as the headquarters for US Naval Forces Central Command and the US Fifth Fleet, had sustained since the conflict began. 

The Navy has used the NASB as its main logistics hub in the Middle East. The service branch is weighing what to do with the base, including if it should be repaired. 

“I have a task force that’s looking at that,” Cao said.

 

Iran advises crew to abandon tankers in Bahrain and Kuwait

According to Seatrade Maritime news, following strikes on five Iranian tankers by US forces, Iran has announced to strike commercial tankers in Bahrain and Kuwait. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) Navy issued what Iranian media described as an “urgent warning” in response to the US attacks.

The warning told all tanker crews in Bahraini and Kuwaiti to immediately abandon their vessels, whether at anchor or at berth in ports, as they would be targeted by the IRGC Navy.

Kuwait and Bahrain, hosting US military bases have come under consistent attack by Iran since the war with the US started at the end of February.

Maritime security firm Vanguard Tech said it assessed the warning as credible enough to require "immediate operational consideration", although an attack was not inevitable.

It noted the warning was unusually specific in terms of vessel type and location, it was consistent with past Iranian behaviour in terms of targeting Bahrain and Kuwait, and a widening of the rationale for attacks to cover vessels in particular port associated with the US military regardless of flag or ownership.

The threat to commercial tankers in Bahraini and Kuwaiti ports follows the US strikes on five Iranian owned or linked tankers which US Central Command described as having “destroyed the vessels” after crews were directed to abandon ship.

The Iranian-flagged NITC VLCC Derya was targeted near Kharg Island. US forces also fired on four vessels in the Gulf of Oman – the Aframaxes Kaviz and Riesco, the oil/ product tanker Charminar, and the LPG carrier Horizon 1. 

Video from US Central Command showed four of the vessels being struck towards the stern while the Riesco was shown with fires raging on its deck and around the accommodation block.

The strikes on the Iranian linked tankers were in response to two IRGC attacks on a US warship, which US Centcom said had failed.

The threat to commercial shipping in the region has ratcheted up significantly in recent weeks with the US striking eight Iranian owned or linked tankers and Iran attacking at least four commercial tankers in the Strait of Hormuz including the Bahri VLCC Sidr which resulted in the deaths of two Filipino seafarers and the Sinokor VLCC Senegal Prosperity which was abandoned and listing following an attack on August 30, 2026.

 

Linking Iran with 9/11: A Badly Woven Story

This morning, I burst into laughter when I read a report in The Hill quoting President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth linking the Iran war to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. What an extraordinary attempt to rewrite history!

For nearly a quarter of a century, the world has been told that Osama bin Laden, a Saudi national, and his al-Qaeda accomplices masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Yet the Trump administration now appears to be drawing Iran into that narrative by suggesting that the Islamic Republic’s hostility toward America is somehow a continuation of the war launched after 9/11.

Hegseth reportedly said that the United States has fought an Islamic theocracy that “cheered on 9/11.” Such a sweeping assertion demands evidence. Hostility toward the United States is not evidence of responsibility for an attack carried out by al-Qaeda. Nor does opposition to American foreign policy establish Iranian involvement in 9/11.

For those born after 9/11, a reminder of history is important. The United States imposed sanctions on Iran soon after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and subsequently supported Iraq during its nearly eight-year war against Iran. For decades, Washington maintained pressure on Tehran through sanctions, diplomatic isolation and military deployments, while Israel repeatedly targeted Iranian strategic installations and Iranian nuclear scientists.

Iran has therefore remained in Washington’s crosshairs for nearly half a century. But transforming this long-running confrontation into an extension of the 9/11 war is an entirely different matter.

The timing is equally revealing. Trump has indicated that the war with Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, could continue until the November midterm elections and then “end immediately.” This inevitably raises questions about the political utility of prolonged warfare.

The world should be extremely cautious about historical revisionism. The 9/11 tragedy was used to launch America’s “war on terror,” which lasted nearly two decades. Attempting now to rhetorically associate Iran with that tragedy, without presenting credible evidence of Iranian responsibility, risks turning history into a political instrument.

This is not merely an inaccurate narrative. It is a badly concocted story that deserves scrutiny rather than applause.

PSX benchmark index declines 2.7%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained under pressure during the week ended on September 11, 2026. The benchmark Index declined 4,817 points or 2.7%WoW to close at 170,512 level. Market activity also weakened, with average daily trading volume declining by 17.5%WoW to 801 million shares.

Escalating attacks along key shipping routes by both US and Iran and Houthis targeting Saudi energy facilities, raised concerns about energy supplies and pushed global oil prices higher. Domestically, fuel prices also increased.

On a positive note, Moody’s highlighted that Pakistan absorbed the current conflict shock better than the 2022 crisis, supported by improved macroeconomic indicators.

The Workers’ Remittances in August 2026 rose by 17%YoY to US$3.7 billion.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) rose to US$18.3 billion as of September 4, 2026.

The Prime Minister approved the draft auto policy for FY27-31, although IMF approval remains pending.

RDA inflows rose 58%YoY to US$259 million in August 2026.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) IMF review talks scheduled to start on September 22, 2026, 2) Qatari LNG cargo bound for Pakistan cleared Strait of Hormuz, 3) GoP cuts HSD refining margin cap to US$30/ bbl, 4) Pakistan signs cybersecurity cooperation agreement with Saudi Arabia, and 5) Pakistan- Australia likely to finalize investment agreement soon.

Major selling was recorded by Foreigners (US$7.2 million) and Mutual Funds (US$5.3 million), while the major buyers were Individuals (US$10.8 million) and Companies (US$5.5 million).

Top performing scrips were: PSEL, AICL, and LCI, while the laggards included: PGLC, SSGC, and CHCC.

AKD Securities expects the market to improve on the back of strengthening economic indicators.

Upcoming IMF review and monetary policy announcement to remain key near-term catalysts.

A potential US-Iran deal could moderate international oil prices from current elevated levels.

Market continues to trade at attractive valuations. The brokerage house forecasts the Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2026.

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

 

Trump’s Imprudent Policies Are Making Iran a Bigger Phantom

The latest US-Israel war on Iran, which began on February 28, 2026, appears to have produced an outcome very different from what Washington may have anticipated. Despite intense military and economic pressure, Iran has not capitulated. Instead, the conflict seems to have reinforced national cohesion and strengthened Tehran’s determination to resist external coercion.

Iran’s economy has certainly suffered. Years of sanctions have produced weak growth and high inflation, while the war has damaged critical industrial facilities and disrupted trade through the Strait of Hormuz. The IMF has estimated a sharp contraction in Iranian GDP, while inflation and currency depreciation have reached alarming levels. Yet economic pain has not translated into political surrender. Iranian businesses have spent years adapting to sanctions, maintaining substantial inventories and developing alternative trade channels. These practices have provided a degree of resilience even as supply chains and maritime trade have come under severe pressure.

Trump’s repeated appeals to Iranians to rise against their government may also be producing the opposite effect. External pressure can deepen public grievances, but it can simultaneously strengthen nationalist sentiment and resistance to perceived foreign interference. Iran’s leadership has demonstrated an ability to transfer much of the economic burden onto ordinary citizens while preserving the state’s capacity to resist.

There is another, potentially more consequential, dimension. Iranian attacks on US military facilities in Gulf countries have forced Arab states to reconsider the assumptions underlying their security arrangements. If the American military presence cannot prevent attacks on regional assets, questions naturally arise over whether Washington’s security architecture primarily serves Arab interests or Israel.

The Strait of Hormuz presents an equally serious dilemma. Disruptions may constrain Iranian oil exports, but Arab economies are also exposed through attacks on energy infrastructure, US-linked assets and reduced energy exports. A wider disruption extending toward the Red Sea, particularly through Houthi action, could impose an even heavier cost on regional economies.

The paradox is becoming increasingly clear - Washington may be capable of inflicting enormous pain on Iran, but pain alone has not delivered submission. Donald Trump’s imprudent policies may therefore be making Iran a “Bigger Phantom”—not necessarily more powerful, but more resilient, more unpredictable and increasingly costly to contain.

 

Strait of Hormuz: Release the Seafarers Held Hostage

For months, entry and exit of merchant ships into/ from the Strait of Hormuz has remained at the lowest level due to the US blockade, though President Trump holds Iran responsible for this blockade.

The biggest losers are shipping companies because these ships are stuck and cannot be deployed on any other voyage. But even worse hit are the seafarers, who are stranded at sea for months, separated from their families and uncertain about when they will be able to return home.

The scale of this humanitarian crisis is staggering. According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), around 6,000 seafarers remain stranded aboard vessels unable to leave the Persian Gulf safely. The UN human-rights office has reported that at least 6,000 seafarers aboard some 400 vessels remain stranded in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

These 6,000 people are not soldiers. They are not combatants. They are ordinary men and women doing their jobs to keep global trade moving. Yet they have become innocent victims of a geopolitical confrontation in which they have no stake.

These seafarers, stranded at sea, face disruption in food supplies, drinking water, medicines and other essential items. Prolonged confinement, uncertainty and separation from their families are placing an enormous psychological and physical burden on them.

A conclusion can be drawn that these ships and seafarers have been held “hostage” by the United States.

Iran, suffering from economic sanctions, has offered safe exit to these ships if they pay a toll. It is believed that shipping companies were willing to pay the toll for safe exit, but the US Navy denies exit even after payment of the toll.

Many analysts term US attacks on Iran illegal and the detention of ships and seafarers tantamount to “Maritime Terrorism.”

Whatever the legal or political arguments, one fact should concern the entire world - approximately 6,000 human beings are trapped at sea. They have families waiting for them. They have homes to return to. They have done nothing to become victims of this conflict.

The international community cannot remain silent while thousands of seafarers spend months trapped aboard ships.

May be the time has come for shipping companies to stop delivering cargo to, or taking cargo from, US ports unless the ships stranded at the Strait of Hormuz are allowed safe exit.

This is no longer merely a dispute between the United States and Iran. It is a humanitarian crisis.

All stakeholders - the US administration, Iran, shipping companies, maritime organizations, seafarers' unions and the international community—are requested to join hands for the immediate release and safe passage of these seafarers.

Political differences can wait. Economic disputes can wait. But human beings cannot wait indefinitely. The world must raise its voice for those who have no voice.

Release the ships. Release the seafarers.