Goldman Sachs forecasts decline in oil prices

Goldman Sachs expects the price of Brent crude futures contracts to decline to the low US$50s a barrel by late 2026 due to an increase in the surplus of oil next year, reports Reuters.

"We expect the oil surplus to widen and average 1.8 million barrels per day in fourth quarter 2025 through fourth quarter 2026, resulting in a nearly 800 million barrel rise in global stocks by end 2026," the US investment bank said in a client note on Tuesday.

It estimated that stored oil in member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation (OPEC) and Development will account for a third of total global stock or 270 million barrels in 2026. Coupled with reduced demand in OECD countries, it said this will lower Brent's fair value from the current mid-US$70s.

Goldman said Brent prices are likely to remain near those of forward contracts during the rest of 2025 but fall below those contracts next year as the increase in OECD stock accelerates.

However, it said potential acceleration in the growth of Chinese stock to 0.8 million barrels a day from 0.4 million barrels a day in the year to date would raise the 2026 Brent average by US$6 a barrel versus the bank's baseline to US$62.

Brent crude futures contracts were trading around US$67 a barrel in early Asian trade on Wednesday. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures contracts were trading at US$63.

Fury Over Murder of Journalists by Israel

Israel is drawing harsh criticism after it launched a pair of strikes at Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza on Monday that left at least 20 people dead, including journalists and healthcare workers.

As reported by CNN, Israel launched "back-to-back strikes on the Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis" that were "separated by only a matter of minutes." The second strike killed some emergency crew members who had rushed to the scene in the wake of the first strike.

The strikes drew immediate condemnation from press freedom groups who accused Israel of intentionally attacking reporters in Gaza and dismissed claims by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the strikes were a "tragic mishap."

Thibaut Bruttin, the director general of Reporters Without Borders, said Israel attacked the journalists in an attempt to prevent them from delivering news about the famine in Gaza.

"How far will the Israeli armed forces go in their gradual effort to eliminate information coming from Gaza?" he asked. "How long will they continue to defy international humanitarian law? The protection of journalists is guaranteed by international law, yet more than 200 of them have been killed by Israeli forces in Gaza over the past two years."

He then called upon the United Nations Security Council to set an emergency meeting to enact "concrete measures... to end impunity for crimes against journalists, protect Palestinian journalists, and open access to the Gaza Strip to all reporters."

Sara Qudah, regional director at the Committee to Protect Journalists, called out the international community for letting Israel get away with launching military strikes against reporters.

"Israel's broadcasted killing of journalists in Gaza continues while the world watches and fails to act firmly on the most horrific attacks the press has ever faced in recent history," she said. "These murders must end now. The perpetrators must no longer be allowed to act with impunity."

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) accused Israel of "silencing the last remaining voices reporting about children dying silently amid famine" in Gaza, while charging the international community with reacting with "indifference and inaction."

"This cannot be our future new norm," said UNRWA. "Compassion must prevail. Let us undo this man-made famine by opening the gates without restrictions and ⁠protecting journalists, humanitarian and health workers. Time for political will. Not tomorrow, now."

Former New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan said that her fellow journalists needed to hold the Israeli government to account for its actions.

"Journalists everywhere need to stand in solidarity on this killing spree and resulting news blackout," she wrote on Bluesky.

And Drop Site News' Ryan Grim ripped into Netanyahu's claim that his government "deeply regrets the tragic mishap" that occurred at the hospital.

"Israel deeply regrets the tragic mishap of striking a hospital and then waiting 17 minutes until rescue workers gathered and striking it again," Grim commented sarcastically on X.

Israel has previously claimed that attacks on so-called "safe zones" and on aid workers were mistakes.

 

India alerts Pakistan about possible flood

Despite strained relations following the May 2025 standoff, India has formally alerted Pakistan about a potential flood in the River Tawi at Jammu that could affect the Pakistani territory.

According to a senior official, the Indian High Commission in Islamabad contacted the Foreign Office at 10am on Sunday, cautioning about a “significant flood situation.”

This marks the first major communication between the two countries since the May conflict, when bilateral ties deteriorated sharply.

Officials emphasized that the exchange was in line with the Indus Waters Treaty, which obliges both sides to share data on river flows and flood forecasts during the monsoon season.

Following the alert, the Government of Pakistan issued warnings to all relevant federal and provincial departments, including the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), irrigation departments and military engineering units.

The 1960 Indus Waters Treaty requires India and Pakistan to share flood-related data to help protect downstream communities and minimize damage from natural disasters.

While tensions remain high, officials described India’s latest move as a “positive gesture” under the treaty framework. The spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was unavailable for comment.

 

Will the story of the seven sisters be repeated in Pakistan

The United States is likely to commence oil exploration in Pakistan. It may be too early to talk about the likely outcome of US entry in Pakistan’s oil and gas exploration. However, it will be very insightful to explore, will the story of the seven sisters be repeated in Pakistan?

The “Seven Sisters” refers to the seven major Western oil companies (Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Gulf Oil, Texaco, BP, Shell) that dominated global oil production and pricing from the 1940s through the 1970s. They exercised near-monopolistic control over oil reserves in the Middle East, Latin America, and beyond—often exploiting weaker producer states, dictating terms of exploration and pricing, and sidelining local sovereignty. Their dominance was only broken after the rise of OPEC in the 1970s, when producing countries nationalized oil resources and asserted ownership.

Similarities to the Seven Sisters Era

Strategic Dependence

If Pakistan allows foreign companies (especially US majors) to explore and control its oil blocks without strong regulatory oversight, it risks repeating a dependency cycle where foreign firms repatriate profits, leaving limited benefit for the host economy.

Geopolitical Influence

Just as the Seven Sisters shaped Middle Eastern politics, US energy companies could wield geopolitical leverage over Pakistan’s foreign policy, especially given its precarious IMF dependence and ties with Saudi Arabia, China, and Iran.

Asymmetry in Bargaining Power

Pakistan’s economic weakness may force it to accept lopsided contracts (production-sharing agreements, tax holidays, profit guarantees) in favor of US firms.

Key Differences Today

Rise of National Oil Companies

Unlike in the 1950s, today Saudi Aramco, ADNOC, Petronas, CNPC and even OGDCL and PPL exist in Pakistan. They country has more leverage to create joint ventures instead of full foreign control.

OPEC Plus and Energy Nationalism

Oil producing states are much more aware of resource sovereignty. Pakistan could align itself with models used by Middle Eastern producers (service contracts, technology partnerships, revenue-sharing).

Multipolar World

Unlike the US and British dominated oil order of the Seven Sisters, today Russia, China, Gulf states, and even renewable energy competition provide alternatives. Pakistan is not locked into only US companies.

Domestic Politics & Public Awareness

Civil society, media, and political opposition in Pakistan can challenge exploitative deals, unlike in the early Seven Sisters era when secrecy prevailed.

Possible Scenarios for Pakistan

Repetition of Seven Sisters

If Pakistan grants excessive concessions, lacks regulatory oversight, and allows oil companies to dictate terms, then yes, it risks becoming a neo-colonial oil frontier.

Balanced Partnership

If Pakistan uses joint ventures, ensures technology transfer, and negotiates fair production-sharing agreements, it can benefit without ceding sovereignty.

Strategic Competition

The US entry may trigger Saudi, Chinese, and Russian counteroffers, giving Pakistan leverage but also complicating its geopolitics.

Moral of the story

The Seven Sisters story will only repeat in Pakistan if policymakers repeat the mistakes of weak bargaining and short-term concessions. If Pakistan plays smart—diversifying partners, prioritizing sovereignty, and aligning exploration with long-term energy security—it can avoid becoming a pawn like many Middle Eastern states were in the mid-20th century.

Riviera of Middle East to Trump economic zone

In a report on August 21, Axios revealed part of the US President Donald Trump’s ambition in South Lebanon according to which the region will be transformed into an investment zone. The plan, called “Trump economic zone”, would be part of a greater project extending from Gaza and the West Bank, through Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and the Persian Gulf.

The “Trump economic zone” was revealed after Axios, quoting two informed sources, said in its report headlined “US asks Israel to scale down Lebanon strikes after decision to disarm Hezbollah”.

According to Axios, the Lebanese cabinet's unprecedented decision to prepare to disarm Hezbollah by the end of 2025 came at the urging of the US, but many in the region doubt the government will be able to carry it out.

Trump’s vision for South Lebanon is a practical application of his “economic realism” with which he approaches West Asian issues.

Obviously, the controversial US President believes that the conflict with the Israeli occupation entity can be simplified and resolved through investments.

However, the “Trump economic zone” is nothing but dreams and illusions.

Trump believes that the Lebanese strip adjacent to the border with the occupied Palestine will automatically put an end to the resistance. He is deluded that peace and prosperity will prevail once the project is implemented.

This delusion is similar to his dream of turning Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East,” which would drown the Gazans in a supposed prosperity, making them forget their resistance to the Israeli occupation!

Trump and those around him delude themselves that the popular base of the Resistance is unaware of the seriousness of what is being plotted against them.

Economic temptation may be an effective tool to confront the resistance project, but previous experiences and the occupation regime’s false peace projects no longer fool anyone.

Despite their small number and modest capabilities, resistance, for the people of Lebanon and Palestine, is not merely a tactical option but rather the foundation of their sacred ideological identity, which cannot be abandoned, no matter the sacrifices and costs.

It is clear that the American empire has never ceased to treat other peoples as cheap tools for its factories. Our people believe that any Western economic initiative is nothing more than an attempt to buy people’s loyalty and turn them into slaves and mercenaries.

Last December, Israel Hayom reported that dozens of members of Ori Tzafon, also known as the Movement for Settlement in South Lebanon, had invaded the skirts of Maroun al-Ras to lay the foundation stone for a settlement called Mei Marom.

“Maroun al-Ras was an ancient Hebrew land where priests lived. We will return to all the places where Jews lived in Lebanon,” they claimed.

The Lebanese government, of course, remained silent, just as it did when Israeli Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir toured occupied Lebanese territory two weeks ago, threatening that his occupying entity “will not go back and will not allow threats to grow again.”

The government also remained silent as an Israeli prisoner in Lebanon was released unconditionally.

Meanwhile, US deputy envoy Morgan Ortagus is expected to return to Beirut early next week along with a congressional delegation that comprises hardline Zionist Republican Senator Lindsey Graham.

The visit will take place as Iranian National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani made a notable statement. He affirmed Iran’s continued support for Hezbollah, which he described as “Lebanon’s strategic capital.”

 

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.

 

Venezuela: US attempt to change regime

The White House's announcement Wednesday that it had deployed three warships to the coast of Venezuela has raised fears among antiwar and human rights advocates of the US becoming embroiled in another potential "regime change" quagmire.

In recent weeks, the Trump administration has accused Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of being one of the world's largest traffickers of illegal narcotics and of leading the cocaine trafficking gang Cartel de los Soles.

In 2020, Maduro was charged with narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine into the US, with the first Trump administration promising a US$15 million reward for his arrest. The Biden administration increased that bounty to US$25 million before Trump, earlier this month, doubled it to US$50 million.

Trump also expanded the litany of accusations against Maduro, alleging that he is the kingpin of Mexico's Sinaloa cartel, an allegation that Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum says there is no evidence to support.

Even before Maduro's indictment, however, Trump had long sought to oust him from power. During his first term, he repeatedly suggested that the US should invade Venezuela to take Maduro out—an idea that his top aides rebuffed.

Trump instead dramatically escalated sanctions on Venezuela, which many studies have shown contributed to the nation's historic economic crisis. His former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo explicitly acknowledged that the goal of these sanctions was to push the Venezuelan people to topple Maduro.

In 2023, following his first presidency, Trump lamented at a rally that the US had to purchase oil from Venezuela, saying that if he were in charge, "We would have taken [Venezuela] over; we would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door."

The exact objective of Trump's destroyers, which are expected to arrive on the Venezuelan coast as soon as Sunday, remains unclear.

But the Venezuelan government and others in the region have perceived Trump's threats as a serious provocation.

On Monday, Maduro said he would mobilize 4.5 million militia members following what he called "the renewal of extravagant, bizarre, and outlandish threats" from Trump. After the announcement of approaching warships, those militias began to be deployed throughout the country.

Colombian President Gustavo Petro issued a harsh warning to Trump following the news. "The gringos are mad if they think invading Venezuela will solve their problem," he said. "They are dragging Venezuela into a Syria-like situation, with the problem that they are dragging Colombia too."

The American antiwar group CodePink condemned the deployment of ships as a "reckless escalation" that "dangerously militarizes the Caribbean and brings our region closer to war."

The group argues that Venezuela's role in drug trafficking is being overblown to justify an invasion. They note that the US's own internal assessments of global drug trafficking have not identified Venezuela as a primary transit country. They also cite the UN's latest World Drug Report, which did not find Venezuela to be a central node of the drug trade.

The Washington Office on Latin America, a DC-based human rights group, has warned that a regime change war would likely be a catastrophe on par with the invasion of Iraq two decades prior.

"The 'victorious' US military would likely find itself governing an impoverished country with broken institutions, trying to hand over power to an opposition weakened by repression and exile, and probably facing an insurgency made up of regime diehards, criminal groups, and even Colombian guerrillas," they said. "There is no evidence that this approach would lead to a democratic transition in Venezuela."

"These aggressive policies seek to extend US dominance in Latin America, no matter the human cost," CodePink said. "The people of Venezuela, like the people of the United States, deserve peace, dignity, and sovereignty, not threats, blockades, and warships."

Courtesy: Common Dreams