US must promise not to attack Iran before talks begin

The United States must rule out any further strikes on Iran if it wants to resume diplomatic talks, Tehran's deputy foreign minister told the BBC.

Majid Takht-Ravanchi says the Trump administration has told Iran through mediators it wants to return to negotiations, but had "not made their position clear" on the "very important question" of further attacks while talks are taking place.

Israel's military operation, which began in the early hours of June 13, scuppered a sixth round of mainly indirect talks set to take place in Muscat two days later.

The US became directly involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran last weekend when it targeted three Iranian nuclear sites in a bombing raid.

Takht-Ravanchi also said Iran will "insist" on being able to enrich uranium for what it says are peaceful purposes, rejecting accusations that Iran was secretly moving towards developing a nuclear bomb.

He said Iran had been "denied access to nuclear material" for its research program so needed "to rely on ourselves".

"The level of that can be discussed, the capacity can be discussed, but to say that you should not have enrichment, you should have zero enrichment, and if do you not agree, we will bomb you — that is the law of the jungle," the deputy foreign minister said.

Israel began its attacks, targeting nuclear and military sites as well as assassinating commanders and scientists, in Iran on June 13, claiming Tehran was close to building a nuclear weapon.

Iran responded by attacking Israel with missiles. Hostilities continued for 12 days, during which the US dropped bombs on three of Iran's nuclear sites: Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan.

The extent of the damage caused to Iran's nuclear program by US strikes has been unclear, and Takht-Ravanchi said he could not give an exact assessment.

Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said the strikes caused severe but "not total" damage, while US President Donald Trump declared that Iran's nuclear facilities were "totally obliterated".

Grossi also said Iran had the capacity to start enriching uranium again in "a matter of months". In response, Takht-Ravanchi said he did not know if that would be the case.

Iran's relationship with the IAEA has become increasingly strained. On Wednesday, its parliament moved to suspend cooperation with the atomic watchdog, accusing the IAEA of siding with Israel and the US.

Trump has said he would "absolutely" consider bombing Iran again if intelligence found that it could enrich uranium to concerning levels.

Takht-Ravanchi said no date had been agreed upon for a possible return to talks and he did not know what would be on the agenda, after Trump suggested discussions could take place this week.

Iran's deputy foreign minister said "right now we are seeking an answer to this question: are we going to see a repetition of an act of aggression while we are engaging in dialogue?"

He said the US had to be "quite clear on this very important question" and "what they are going to offer us in order to make the necessary confidence required for such a dialogue".

Asked if Iran could consider rethinking its nuclear program as part of any deal, possibly in return for sanctions relief and investment in the country, Takht-Ravanchi asked, "Why should we agree to such a proposal?"

He reiterated that Iran's program, including enriching uranium to 60%, was "for peaceful purposes".

Under a 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, Iran was not permitted to enrich uranium above 3.67% purity — the level required for fuel for commercial nuclear power plants — and was not allowed to carry out any enrichment at its Fordo plant for 15 years.

However, Trump abandoned the agreement in 2018 during his first term as president, saying it did too little to stop a pathway to a bomb, and reinstated US sanctions.

Iran retaliated by increasingly breaching the restrictions — particularly those relating to enrichment. It resumed enrichment at Fordo in 2021 and had amassed enough 60%-enriched uranium to potentially make nine nuclear bombs, according to the IAEA.

Pressed on European and Western leaders having a lack of trust towards Iran, Takht-Ravanchi accused some European leaders of a "ridiculous" endorsement of US and Israeli strikes.

He said those who are criticizing Iran over its nuclear program "should criticize the way that we have been treated" and criticize the US and Israel.

He added, "And if they do not have the guts to criticize America, they should keep silent, not try to justify the aggression."

Takht-Ravanchi also said Iran had received messages through mediators that the US did "not want to engage in regime change in Iran" by targeting the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called on Iranians to "rise for their freedom" to bring down the clerical rule of Khamenei, but, after last week's ceasefire was reached, Trump said he did not want the same.

Takht-Ravanchi insisted it would not happen and the idea "tantamount to a futile exercise".

He said although some Iranians "might have criticism of some actions by the government, when it comes to foreign aggression they would be united to confront it".

The deputy foreign minister said it was "not quite clear" if the ceasefire with Israel would last, but Iran would continue to observe it "as long as there is no military attack against us".

He said Iran's Arab allies in the Arabian Gulf were "doing their best to try to prepare the necessary atmosphere for a dialogue". Qatar is known to have played a key role in brokering the current ceasefire.

He added, "We do not want war. We want to engage in dialogue and diplomacy, but we have to be prepared, we have to be cautious, not to be surprised again."

Mari Energies EPS declines 10%YoY

Mari Energies (MARI) held its corporate briefing session on Monday to discuss 9MFY25 results. MARI announced 9MFY25 profit after tax of PKR46.3 billion (EPS: PKR38.54), down 10%YoY.

Key takeaways from the briefing:

MARI has the second highest reserve base in Pakistan, with 2P and 2C reserves currently at 816mmboe, boasting a reserve life of 17 years.  

MARI reported production of approximately 30mmboe during 9MFY25. However, output continues to face headwinds due to gas curtailment stemming from pipeline bottlenecks, a challenge likely to intensify as more gas based captive power plants transition to the national grid. Management is actively engaging with the government to address and resolve the issue.

Update on Waziristan Block:

Production from the Shewa field commenced on March 23, 2025, and is currently yielding around 50mmcfd of gas and 450bpd of oil. However, these figures remain significantly below the tested flow rates of 70mmcfd of gas and 700bpd of oil, primarily due to production curtailments.

MARI has announced a major discovery at the Spinwam well in the Waziristan Block, reporting promising hydrocarbon potential across multiple reservoirs. The company estimates total recoverable reserves at around 799bcf and is currently in the process of finalizing the field development plan.

Update on Mari D&P:

MARI has drilled a total of nine wells in the Ghazij formation, including one exploratory, four appraisal, and four development wells—all of which have been brought online and are currently producing around 35mmcfd of gas. To complete Phase 1 of the development plan, the company intends to drill additional development wells in FY26.

MARI made Shawal discovery in April 2024 which is producing 15mmcfd of gas, 8bpd of oil and 290bpd of water. MARI has planned to drill appraisal wells during FY26 and management expects to increase production to 30mmcfd of gas and 50bpd of oil. 

Management expects production from the HRL reservoir to remain stable over the near to medium term. However, periodic fluctuations may occur due to planned turnarounds at fertilizer plants. Regarding a potential price revision for HRL gas, management noted that the field remains economically viable at current rates, making a price increase unlikely from the government’s perspective.

Update on Offshore Block 5 – Abu Dhabi:

A Production Concession Agreement (PCA) has been signed between PIOL, ADNOC, and SCFEA, under which ADNOC assumes operatorship of the block with a 60% working interest, while the remaining 40% is held by PIOL.

 

 

Iran could resume Uranium enrichment within months after US strikes

Iran could restart uranium enrichment "in a matter of months" following recent US airstrikes on its nuclear facilities, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) warned, signaling that the damage inflicted by American forces was not sufficient to dismantle Tehran’s nuclear capabilities, reports the Saudi Gazette.

In an interview released Saturday by CBS News, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi said that despite the scale of the attacks, Iran retains the technological and industrial capacity to resume its nuclear program.

“They can have, in a matter of months, a few cascades of centrifuges spinning and producing enriched uranium or less than that,” Grossi said.

“The damage is severe, but not total.”

On June 22, the United States launched a coordinated assault on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, dropping six bunker-buster bombs on the Fordo nuclear facility and unleashing dozens of cruise missiles on key sites in Natanz and Isfahan.

The operation followed rising tensions between Iran and Israel and was aimed at halting what Washington described as Iran’s expanding nuclear threat.

In the wake of the strikes, US officials have pushed back on reports suggesting the attacks merely delayed Iran’s progress by several months, rather than eliminating it entirely.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi admitted the bombings caused “excessive and serious” damage but insisted that Iran retains core capabilities.

Grossi echoed that concern, saying Iran’s nuclear knowledge and infrastructure cannot be erased.

“You cannot disinvent this,” he noted. “Iran is a very sophisticated country in terms of nuclear technology.”

He also raised alarm over unexplained traces of uranium found at undeclared Iranian sites, saying the IAEA still lacks credible explanations about their origin.

On the issue of Iran’s 408.6-kilogram stockpile of Uranium enriched to 60%, enough to build more than nine nuclear bombs if further enriched, Grossi said, “Some could have been destroyed as part of the attack, but some could have been moved.”

Grossi emphasized the urgency of restoring access for IAEA inspectors, “There has to be at some point a clarification.”

Araghchi announced Saturday that Grossi would be barred from entering Iran, a move swiftly condemned by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who called it “a dangerous step toward further nuclear opacity.”

The latest developments come on the heels of a 12-day war between Israel and Iran, which erupted on June 13 after Israeli airstrikes targeted Iranian military, nuclear, and civilian sites. Iran’s Health Ministry reported 606 killed and over 5,300 injured.

In response, Tehran launched drone and missile barrages that killed at least 29 people in Israel and wounded more than 3,400, according to figures from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

US presidents have history of attacking countries without Congress approval

According to The Hill, Democrats bashing President Trump for striking Iran without congressional consent are bumping into an inconvenient history, Democratic presidents have done the same thing for decades.

From Bill Clinton, to Barack Obama, to Joe Biden, every Democratic president of the modern era has employed US military forces to attack targets overseas, including strikes in Bosnia, Syria, Libya and Yemen. While they sought approval from Capitol Hill in some of those cases, Congress never provided it.

That history has muddled the Democrats’ current argument that Trump, in striking three Iranian nuclear facilities last weekend, violated the Constitution by acting on his own, without the formal approval of Congress.

The dynamic has not been overlooked by Republican leaders, who have hailed the strikes on Iran as a national security necessity and defended Trump’s powers to launch them unilaterally.

Those voices are pointing specifically to the actions of Clinton, Obama and Biden to bolster their arguments.

“Since World War II we have had more than 125 military operations from Korea and Vietnam to Iraq and Afghanistan. They have occurred without a Declaration of War by Congress,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters after the strikes. “Presidents of both parties have exercised that authority frequently.”

Johnson ticked off a few examples under the most recent Democratic administrations. Biden, he noted, ordered strikes against Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Obama sustained a months-long bombing campaign in Libya. And Clinton had bombed parts of the former Yugoslavia during the Bosnian war of the mid-1990s. 

“Every one of those actions were taken unilaterally and without prior authorization from Congress,” Johnson said. 

That background is forcing Democrats to reckon with that past just as many of them are now demanding that Trump cease all military operations in Iran without explicit congressional approval. Some of them are quick to acknowledge the incongruity, voicing something like regret that Congress didn’t stand more firm in the face of those unilateral Democratic missions.

“Just because it was wrong then doesn’t mean it’s not wrong now,” said Rep. Ted Lieu, a former Air Force attorney who’s now the vice chairman of the House Democratic Caucus. “The Constitution is the Constitution. And it says only Congress has the power to declare war. And it’s been a bipartisan problem, with Congress ceding way too much power to the executive branch.”

Rep. Pete Aguilar, the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, seemed to agree. He lamented that the politics of Washington have sometimes curtailed Congress’s appetite for asserting its war powers as a check on the president, especially when Congress and the White House are controlled by opposing parties. 

“That part is unfortunate. Maybe we’ve missed a few opportunities,” Aguilar said. 

“But that doesn’t mean that we turn a blind eye right now,” he quickly added. “It doesn’t mean that we just let Donald Trump walk all over us. It means that we stand up for our authority and speak up on behalf of our constituents at every opportunity.”

The Constitution makes clear that Congress and the White House both play crucial roles in conducting military operations. Article I lends Congress the power to declare war, and Article II stipulates that the president is “Commander and Chief” of the Armed Forces, responsible for executing wars that Congress sanctions. 

Yet that conceptual balance has tilted heavily toward the executive branch over most of the last century. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1941, after Pearl Harbor. And since then, the president has assumed virtually all power, not only to steer the Armed Forces, but also to launch them into battle.

In 1973, in the wake of Vietnam, Congress sought to reassert its authority by passing the War Powers Act. (President Nixon vetoed the bill, but Congress overrode him).

The law requires presidents to “consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities,” but it does not demand the formal authorization of the legislative branch.

As tensions in the Middle East exploded earlier in the month, lawmakers in both parties sought to limit US involvement with war powers resolutions requiring Trump to get explicit congressional consent before using military force in Iran.

One was sponsored by three leading Democrats: Reps. Gregory Meeks, Jim Himes and Adam Smith. Another was bipartisan, championed by Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).

Supporters of the resolutions are quick to acknowledge that the president has the power to act unilaterally in extraordinary circumstances, like if the nation is attacked. But there’s no evidence, they say, to indicate that Iran posed an immediate threat to Americans ahead of Trump’s strikes. 

“Any president has self-defense authority under Article II of the Constitution. But to meet that threshold, you have to show that there was an imminent risk of attack against Americans or US facilities. That’s the standard,” said Rep.

Jason Crow (D-Colo.), a former Army Ranger who served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. “As a member of the Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, I have not seen any evidence leading up to the attack that there was an imminent risk to Americans or to US facilities to meet that threshold.”

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) delivered a similar assessment. “If our country is attacked, all and any powers go to the president to act,” she said. “That didn’t exist here, so the president should have come to Congress.”

Complicating their argument are the actions of Democratic presidents who also activated the Armed Services without congressional consent.

In 1998, for instance, in response to the terrorist bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, Clinton ordered the launch of cruise missiles targeting al Qaeda strongholds in Sudan and Afghanistan. He also joined NATO forces in bombing Serbian targets in the former Yugoslavia. 

Obama infuriated liberals in Congress in launching strikes against numerous countries during his eight-year reign, including an extensive campaign in Libya in 2011, which helped in the toppling of President Muammar Gaddafi, as well as subsequent incursions in Syria, Yemen and Somalia. 

Obama had asked Congress for specific authorization in some cases, but lawmakers on Capitol Hill couldn’t agree on a resolution to provide it. Instead, those operations leaned heavily on a 2001 resolution — known as an authorization of military force, or AUMF — passed by Congress to sanction the Afghanistan War after the attacks of 9/11. 

In the same vein, Biden used US forces to target Syria, Yemen and Iraq. 

Lieu, for one, emphasized that he was opposed to Obama’s use of force without Congress giving the OK. 

“I publicly stated at the time that Obama needed congressional authorization to strike Syria. I believe Trump needs congressional authorization to strike Iran,” he said.

“My view of the Constitution does not change based on what party the president happens to belong to.” 

Other Democrats sought to keep the debate focused more squarely on current events.

“We can write books and fill your column inches with regrets under this dome. We’ll save that for other days,” Aguilar said. “But what is in front of us today, are we going to stand up for our constitutional authority?”

A week after the strikes, the debate over war powers may already be academic. 

On Tuesday, Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel that, if it holds, may make the constitutional disagreement moot. Massie has said he won’t force a vote on his war powers measure if the ceasefire continues.

Johnson has refused to consider such a resolution in any event, calling the War Powers Act unconstitutional. And Trump officials are expected to meet with Iranian officials later this week, when the US will seek a commitment from Tehran to abandon any plans to produce nuclear weapons.

Still, there are plenty of questions swirling about the ultimate success of the strikes in dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities. And Trump, asked whether he would attack again if necessary, didn’t hesitate. 

“Without question,” he said. “Absolutely.”

 

 

Israel planned a false flag operation in US

There is a loud discussion going on that Israel had planned a destructive explosion on US soil intended to be attributed to Iran. The false flag operation sought to fabricate evidence, implicate Iran, and provide a pretext for a full-scale US war against the country. The plan was aimed at manipulating American public opinion and legitimizing military aggression. Iran reportedly sent warnings to American officials, leading to the plan’s disruption.

Although the US played a highly active role in Israel’s 12-day war against Iran, the operation was designed to fully draw Washington into the conflict by replicating the shock and political consequences of the September 11 attacks.

In an analysis, Sobh-e-No highlighted Israel’s history of breaching agreements and lack of commitment to ceasefires and the need for Iran to remain fully ready for violation of the ceasefire that went into effect on June 25. It wrote, “Despite the official declaration of a ceasefire between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Zionist regime, historical evidence shows that the Israeli regime often does not commit to agreements. This ceasefire agreement has seemingly created hope for a temporary halt to attacks. The Islamic Republic of Iran must continue to maintain its vigilance at the highest level. Complete defensive and operational readiness, along with strengthening defense and intelligence systems, is necessary to deal with any betrayal or re-attack by the Zionist regime. At the same time, the country's diplomatic apparatus must reflect the regime's repeated violations of international rules and inform the global public opinion of the unreliable nature of Israel. In the current circumstances, trusting the Zionist regime's commitment to a ceasefire without deterrent measures and full readiness would be nothing more than naivety. This regime has repeatedly shown that it does not adhere to any of international rules and regulations. Therefore, staying prepared and alert is the only way to protect the country's national security”.

In a note, Donya-e-Eqtesad addressed Iran's intelligent silence towards the West and wrote, “The ceasefire that was recently agreed between Iran and Israel with Washington's mediation was not out of moral concern or for peace, but to prevent the spread of tension to energy markets and America's global competition with China. America's military involvement in the recent war was limited and calculated. Trump has adopted an ambivalent position. In response to the recent conflict, he said, "Both Iran and Israel violated the agreement, and I am not happy with either of them." This artificial neutrality is precisely a reflection of the same cost-oriented view of the region. Therefore, now that neither Washington has an incentive to continue sanctions nor Tel Aviv - consciously or unintentionally - has maintained the image of a threat, Iran should not rush to prove that it is a danger. The best response at this moment is an intelligent silence. In politics, you don't always have to speak for yourself. Sometimes it is enough to wait for the other party to speak your language without knowing it, and make others doubt”.

Theorists of “Strategic Solitude” believe that Iran can never be part of the orbit of the great coalitions of world powers, not because of political mistakes, but because of the country’s particular characteristics, such as the Persian language, the Shiite religion, and its specific geographical location. From their view, the great powers of the region do not consider Iran as part of their strategic team. As a result, Iran is forced to rely on itself and follow the path of authority from within, by strengthening internal power and increasing popular legitimacy. Contrary to the common perception of strategic solitude, Iranian analysts see it as an opportunity for independent action in the region. They believe that Iran’s historical experience has been filled with the betrayal of great powers, from Russia and Britain to today’s America and China. According to this view, Iran can never rely on others, because others always make and break agreements in line with their preferences. Iran's strategic solitude is the result of its political system, prevailing discourse, and the Islamic Republic’s deliberate orientation in foreign policy. This perspective views the phenomenon not as inherent, but as a political and discursive construct.

 

Trump biggest warmonger, not peacekeeper

It’s been said that Donald Trump’s decision to join Israel’s war with Iran underscores his failures as a peacemaker. This is a preposterous statement because the idea of Trump being “a peacemaker and unifier” has always been nothing short of preposterous.

Yes, long before his ascendance to the White House, Trump had managed to paint him as a peacemaker, promising to end America’s “endless wars.” But most people in the United States of Amnesia seem to have forgotten that during his first four-year tenure in the White House Trump embarked on a dangerous path with a series of reckless foreign policy decisions that threatened peace and made the world a far more dangerous place.

Trump walked away from an Iran deal and withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty while US air wars became broader and “increasingly indiscriminate.”

Iraq, Somalia, and Syria were among the countries that Trump loosened the rules of engagement for US forces. Trump also ordered the killing of Iranian Gen. Qasem Soleimani and threatened “fire and fury” against North Korea.

In addition, Trump increased tensions between Israelis and Palestinians by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moving the US embassy there from Tel Aviv.

The president of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas said at the time that Trump’s decision undermined all peace efforts and called his actions “a crime,” while the political leader of the Hamas movement, Ismail Haniya, who was assassinated by the Israeli Mossad in Tehran on July 31, 2024, called for a new “intifada.”

Shortly upon assuming the Office of the President of the United States for the second time, Trump embarked on a jingoistic journey by threatening to take over Greenland (an idea he had floated back in 2019), make Canada the 51st state, reclaim the Panama Canal, and attack Mexico. And just as he had done during his first term in office, he withdrew the US from the landmark Paris climate agreement, even though the climate crisis is an existential one and is expected to increase the risk of armed conflict.

PSX benchmark index up 3.6%WoW despite unrest in Middle East

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) staged a strong rebound during the week following the ceasefire agreement between Iran and Israel. The benchmark index gained 4,356 points or 3.6%WoW to close at record 124,379 points on Friday, June 27, 2025.

While the week began on a cautious note due to renewed concerns over regional instability following the US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, the ceasefire restored investors’ confidence and triggered a sharp recovery from the second trading day onward.

Market participation dropped despite the rally, with average daily traded volume falling to 736 million shares from 822 million shares a week ago, down 10%WoW.

The foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) declined sharply by US$2.7 billion to US$9.1 billion as of June 20, 2025, the second-largest weekly fall, mainly due to scheduled external debt repayments.

However, SBP reiterated its June end reserve target of US$14 billion, with US$3.6 billion inflows expected to be reflected in the coming week. Domestic currency remained largely stable at PKR283.7/US$.

The FY26 Federal Budget was approved on Thursday, with minor adjustments to tax laws and rates.

On the inflation front, headline CPI for FY26 is projected to moderate further to 4.4%YoY as compared to 4.5% for FY25, due to a moderate increase in food and housing indices.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) Pakistan and United States eyeing preferential trade deal in talks, 2) Consumer confidence at highest since 2022, up 25%YoY in 4QCY25, 3) Power generation up 1%YoY in May 2025 on lower tariffs, and 4) RDA inflows were up 14%MoM in May 2025, to US$10.38 billion.

Woollen, Glass & ceramics, and Vanaspati & allied sectors were amongst the top performers, while Modaraba, ETFs, and Sugar & allied industries reported declines.

Major selling was recorded by Foreigners and Individuals with a net sell of US$15.8 million. Mutual funds and Insurance absorbed most of the selling with a net buy of US$16.1 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: BNWM, GHGL, NATF, HUMNL, and PABC, while laggards included: PSEL, PKGP, PGLC, EPCL, and ISL.

According to AKD Securities, the market is expected to remain positive in the coming weeks, with forward inflation for FY26 projected at 4.4%YoY, indicating substantial room for monetary easing, which would serve as a catalyst for equities.

The KSE-100 index is anticipated to sustain its upward trajectory, primarily driven by strong earnings in Fertilizers, sustained ROEs in Banks, and improving cash flows of E&Ps and OMCs, benefiting from falling interest rates and economic stability.

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