Investors to pay the price of gold bubble

Gold prices recorded the steepest daily fall in five years on Tuesday, as investors booked profits. Spot price was down 5.5% to a one-week low of US$4,115.26 per ounce at1745 GMT, its steepest fall since August 2020. Prices scaled an all-time peak of US$4,381.21 on Monday and have gained about 60% this year, bolstered by geopolitical and economic uncertainty, rate-cut bets and sustained central bank buying.

Readers may recall that in my post titled “Warning for Gold Investors” dated September 30, 2025 I had informed the investors taking significant position not to panic, but keep close watch on the commodity market, especially gold. By that time the precious metal had rallied more than 10% this month, but took a breather after reaching another record early Tuesday, last trading day of the month. The prospect of an imminent United States government shutdown added to the metal’s appeal as a safe haven investment. 

Gold’s dramatic fall has exposed the fragile foundations beneath its record-breaking rally. The message is clear: even gold, long considered a bastion of stability, is not immune to engineered market forces.

One cannot ignore the role of central banks in this saga. In recent months, major central banks ramped up gold purchases aggressively, creating artificial demand and fueling a meteoric rise in prices. While presented as prudent diversification and a hedge against inflation, these purchases effectively inflated a bubble, enticing private investors to chase gains without understanding the underlying dynamics.

Profit-taking by investors was inevitable once the price peaked. The frenzy generated by central banks had drawn private money into the market, but when the momentum stalled, those same investors rushed to lock in gains, triggering the sharp correction.

Compounding the drop, the US dollar strengthened, making gold more expensive for international buyers. Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions—the usual excuse for gold’s safe-haven appeal—have eased, and seasonal demand from India’s post-Diwali slowdown further weighed on the market. Analysts also note that prices had become technically overbought; the correction was overdue.

This episode exposes a fundamental truth - gold’s recent highs were less about organic demand and more about engineered interventions. Central banks, in effect, played puppeteer, manipulating sentiment while ordinary investors bore the brunt of volatility.

Despite the fall, gold remains up roughly 60% for the year. The long-term narrative of gold as a hedge against uncertainty remains, but this correction is a warning - markets can be steered to extremes by institutional players, and what shines today may be a bubble tomorrow. Investors chasing gold’s glitter must remember—it is not immune to human engineering.

Can Takaichi be “Iron Lady” of Japan?

Sanae Takaichi has won the parliamentary vote to become Japan’s prime minister, making her the first woman to clinch the nation’s top job in a country that ranks low in female political representation. Here’s a look at the new premier who’s an admirer of the hard-nosed politics of Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher.

Her real challenge will not come from rivals or parliament — it will come from the economy. She could well become Japan’s Iron Lady, not through war or ideology, but through her ability to steer the country out of its prolonged economic stagnation.

Japan’s economy, once an emblem of post-war recovery and industrial excellence, has been losing momentum for decades. Aging demographics, shrinking productivity, and mounting debt have created a complex policy maze. The nation that built the world’s most efficient industries now faces declining competitiveness, reliance on imported energy, and a vulnerable yen. A true reformist must confront these realities with courage and consistency — qualities that define an iron leader.

The parallels with Margaret Thatcher are not misplaced. When Thatcher came to power, Britain was sinking under inflation, labor unrest, and fiscal weakness.

Similarly, Takaichi would need to challenge decades of bureaucratic comfort, revive investor confidence, and make painful structural reforms — even if those choices upset entrenched interests within her own party.

She has to focus on restoring economic sovereignty. Japan’s dependence on foreign energy and global supply chains exposes it to external shocks. A bold policy mix — energy diversification, digital transformation, and innovation-driven industrial growth — could gradually restore national resilience. Instead of expanding debt to stimulate demand, she may prefer fiscal prudence, targeted spending, and reforms that attract foreign investment without compromising independence.

At the same time, she has to navigate global economic warfare. In an era where sanctions, tariffs, and currency manipulation replace military confrontation, Japan is often caught between Washington’s strategic interests and Beijing’s market influence. Balancing both relationships without hurting Japan’s trade or technology sectors will require diplomatic finesse and strategic depth — the real test of her strength.

Internally, the toughest challenge will be political. Japan’s ruling establishment is dominated by conservative men who resist change. A woman at the top would have to prove that strength is not measured in volume but in vision — and that discipline and clarity are as powerful as confrontation.

If she succeeds, Japan could witness its own economic renaissance. Her iron resolve could redefine governance — less about charisma, more about competence. She would not be remembered for waging wars, but for rebuilding Japan’s confidence in its own economic future.

Japan does not need another populist; it needs a reformer with steel in her resolve and clarity in her economics. If that leader happens to be a woman, she may well be remembered as the Iron Lady who reshaped Japan — not through power, but through policy.

Does Hamas Still Have Muscles to Violate Ceasefire?

After nearly 800 days of relentless Israeli bombardment, Gaza stands shattered — its people displaced, cities flattened, and infrastructure destroyed. Yet Israel continues to accuse Hamas of violating ceasefire terms. The question naturally arises: does Hamas, after such devastation, still possess the means to breach a truce, or is this accusation yet another attempt to justify continued aggression?

Since the beginning, Tel Aviv has framed its military operations as “defensive,” aimed at dismantling Hamas. But the scale and duration of the campaign tell another story — one of collective punishment rather than defense. Civilian areas, hospitals, and refugee camps have been repeatedly struck, erasing the line between combatant and non-combatant.

The power imbalance is stark. Israel, equipped with one of the world’s most advanced militaries, faces a besieged enclave surviving under blockade. In such a context, claims of Hamas violating ceasefires seem less credible and more like political cover for ongoing strikes. Each new round of violence devastates Gaza further while bolstering Israel’s domestic narrative of self-defense.

Globally, the reaction remains divided. Western powers still defend Israel’s “right to protect itself,” while UN bodies and human rights organizations warn of violations of international law. The destruction of civilian infrastructure, denial of humanitarian aid, and use of starvation as a weapon have drawn growing condemnation — yet no serious accountability follows.

Ironically, despite the prolonged war, Israel’s strategic goals remain unfulfilled. Hamas has not been eradicated; instead, its symbolic strength has grown amid Gaza’s suffering. Meanwhile, Israel’s moral and diplomatic standing continues to erode.

By insisting that Hamas alone violates the ceasefire, Israel attempts to retain moral high ground. But after 800 days of devastation, that claim sounds increasingly hollow. The real question is not whether Hamas still has the strength to fight — but whether Israel has the courage to stop a war that has already lost its purpose.

Fire at Dhaka Airport: Accident or Sabotage?

A roaring blaze at Dhaka’s Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport cargo complex has ignited more than flames — it has sparked suspicion. Was it a tragic mishap born of negligence, or a calculated attempt to disrupt Bangladesh’s export lifeline? The line between accident and sabotage has rarely appeared so blurred.

The massive fire that swept through the cargo complex has raised troubling questions. Was it merely another case of poor safety and outdated infrastructure, or does it point to something more sinister — a deliberate act of sabotage? The truth is yet to emerge, but the scale of the damage and timing of the incident demand a deeper look.

According to initial reports, the blaze engulfed multiple warehouses, destroying export-bound goods and disrupting one of Bangladesh’s busiest trade arteries. Officials have launched a probe, but as of now, the cause remains “unknown.” Electrical short-circuiting — a common culprit in Bangladesh’s industrial fires — cannot be ruled out. The fact is incident occurred inside a high-security airport zone making it difficult to accept negligence as the only explanation.

Bangladesh has witnessed a string of devastating fires this year, from markets and garment factories to chemical depots. Each tragedy has exposed the country’s weak enforcement of fire safety codes and inadequate emergency response. However, when such an incident occurs within an airport’s cargo village — a zone under tight surveillance and restricted access — suspicion naturally grows.

If investigators find multiple ignition points, traces of accelerants, or evidence of tampering with security systems, the narrative could shift toward deliberate sabotage. In recent months, regional instability and heightened smuggling crackdowns have disrupted illicit trade networks. Could the fire have been intended to erase evidence or cripple exports? The possibility cannot be dismissed outright.

At stake is not just property loss, but international confidence in Bangladesh’s logistics chain. The cargo complex handles billions in textile exports; even temporary disruption can ripple through global supply lines. Authorities must therefore pursue this probe with utmost transparency and professionalism.

Whether the Dhaka airport fire proves to be an accident born of negligence or a calculated act of sabotage, it exposes a deeper vulnerability: the fragility of Bangladesh’s critical infrastructure.

The incident should serve as a wake-up call — to upgrade safety systems, tighten surveillance, and confront the culture of complacency before another disaster strikes.

 

United States Still Eyes Afghanistan

Washington’s withdrawal ended its military presence, not its strategic ambitions in the heart of Asia

When the United States hurriedly withdrew from Afghanistan in August 2021, it claimed to have ended its “forever war.” Yet, Afghanistan has not slipped off Washington’s strategic radar. The methods have changed, but the motives remain. The US still views Afghanistan as a vital piece on the Eurasian chessboard — prized for its geography, intelligence value, and economic undercurrents.

First, Afghanistan’s narcotics economy remains an unspoken factor. Despite Taliban claims of banning poppy cultivation, UN data confirms continued opium production, which fuels regional criminal networks. For decades, allegations have persisted that Western intelligence agencies — especially the CIA — have tolerated or even exploited the drug trade to fund covert operations. Renewed US engagement, framed as “counter-narcotics cooperation,” could restore informal oversight of these financial flows.

Second, the chaotic exit left behind billions of dollars’ worth of military hardware — aircraft, vehicles, ammunition, and advanced surveillance systems. Much of it reportedly fell into Taliban hands or black-market networks. Washington would prefer to track, retrieve, or neutralize sensitive technologies before they reach Iran, China, or Russia. A covert re-entry, through intelligence operations or private contractors, serves this purpose well.

Third, Afghanistan’s location remains uniquely strategic. It borders Iran, China’s Xinjiang region, and several Central Asian states under Russian influence. For US planners, it is an ideal observation post to monitor three rivals simultaneously. Hence the growing emphasis on “over-the-horizon” intelligence operations launched from Gulf or Central Asian bases.

Fourth, China’s expanding Belt and Road Initiative through Pakistan and Central Asia heightens Washington’s unease. Beijing’s efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and integrate it into regional connectivity projects threaten to edge the US out of Eurasia. Re-engagement under humanitarian, counterterrorism, or anti-drug programs provides Washington a convenient pretext to retain influence.

Finally, a chronically unstable Afghanistan serves certain geopolitical interests. It prevents regional integration and complicates projects like Iran’s Chabahar port or China’s CPEC. Controlled instability ensures continued leverage without the burdens of occupation.

In essence, the US may not reoccupy Afghanistan with troops, but it seeks reassertion through intelligence, proxies, and influence networks. The 2021 withdrawal ended one phase of occupation but opened another — quieter, subtler, and more strategic. Afghanistan remains too valuable for Washington to abandon — not for peace, but for power.

Trump’s America: Angrier, Divided, and Diminished

Donald Trump has left an indelible mark on American politics — and not necessarily for the better. As anti-Trump demonstrations re-emerge across major cities, the United States stands at a moral and institutional crossroads. The man who promised to “Make America Great Again” may have, in fact, made it angrier, more divided, and dangerously unpredictable.

Trump entered politics as an outsider, a businessman who vowed to drain the Washington “swamp.” Instead, he deepened the very rot he claimed to fight. His tenure blurred the line between governance and self-promotion. Policy became theatre, and truth became negotiable. America’s traditional allies were alienated, global agreements torn up, and diplomacy reduced to Twitter outbursts. Under the banner of “America First,” the United States often stood alone.

Economically, Trump’s initial years delivered the illusion of prosperity — rising markets, corporate tax cuts, and record-low unemployment. But beneath that glitter lay unsustainable deficits, widened inequality, and a fragile economy that crumbled under the first major shock of COVID-19. His pandemic response was chaotic, driven by denial and blame rather than science or empathy. The cost was measured not only in lives lost but in the erosion of public trust.

Perhaps Trump’s most lasting legacy is the deep polarization he cultivated. He thrived on division — turning neighbors into adversaries and truth into casualty. His relentless attacks on media, judiciary, and federal institutions weakened the very foundations that once made America resilient. The January 6th attack on the Capitol was not an aberration; it was the logical culmination of years of incitement and contempt for democratic norms.

Internationally, Trump diminished America’s moral authority. He cozied up to autocrats, undermined multilateralism, and reduced global leadership to transactional bargaining. Even where he scored diplomatic points — such as Middle East normalization deals — the motivation seemed less about peace and more about personal legacy. The result: a world less trusting of American commitments and more skeptical of its leadership.

Today’s protests are not just about Trump’s politics — these are about what America has become under his shadow. A nation once admired for its democratic strength now struggles with internal distrust, misinformation, and fear of its own divisions. Trump did not create America’s anger, but he weaponized it — and that will remain his most enduring contribution.

Let us explore, has Trump made the United States better or worse? The evidence is painfully clear. He has exposed America’s vulnerabilities, exploited its divisions, and left behind a democracy that feels more fragile than ever. The real question is whether America can recover from the politics of resentment he unleashed — or whether Trump’s version of greatness has permanently altered the American soul.

 

Media reports rarely tell truth about crude oil dynamics

Crude oil is produced in many countries, but mostly traded at United States and European exchanges. The producers are often cheated through “cash-settled contracts,” where traders make or lose money without ever taking physical delivery. The real beneficiaries are traders and brokers, while producers are conveniently blamed for rise or fall in production.

The global oil market thrives on numbers — and the manipulation of those numbers. In recent months, a wave of contradictory reports about production, inventories, and demand forecasts has left analysts scratching their heads. This confusion is not the result of poor data collection; it is often a calculated strategy to influence markets, politics, and perceptions.

OPEC Plus producers have long mastered the art of “strategic opacity.” By understating their actual output, they create the illusion of compliance with agreed production cuts and keep prices artificially firm.

At the same time, major consumers — particularly the United States and China — have their own reasons to talk down prices by projecting excess supply or slowing demand. The numbers they release, or the ones they emphasize, are shaped not by accuracy but by advantage.

Even institutions with global credibility — the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) — frequently publish forecasts that seem less about data science and more about timing. Their revisions often coincide with key policy announcements or diplomatic shifts.

When oil prices rise too fast, one report warns of “demand destruction.” When prices fall, another quickly highlights “tight supply.” Such contradictions do not reflect improved understanding; they reflect managed narratives.

Private analytics firms and trading houses add another layer of distortion. In a market driven by algorithmic trading and speculative bets, even a single misleading headline can trigger billions in movements. The ambiguity surrounding real supply-demand dynamics benefits those who can manipulate sentiment faster than facts can catch up. For import-dependent nations like Pakistan, this fog of misinformation results in erratic import costs, unpredictable subsidies, and fiscal strain.

The fundamental problem is that oil data remains under the control of those with vested interests. Despite advances in satellite tracking and tanker monitoring, governments and cartels still decide what to disclose — and when. Transparency is talked about endlessly, but practiced sparingly.

Oil has always been more than just an energy commodity; it is a weapon of economic control. The constant release of conflicting numbers is part of a broader game — one where perception, not reality, drives policy and profit. Until the world moves toward truly independent and verifiable reporting of global oil flows, the “truth” about crude will remain flexible, convenient, and profitable — for a select few.

In the end, the market is not confused by accident. It is kept confused — deliberately.