Can Iran Revive a Dormant ECO?

Iran’s renewed diplomatic activity suggests a determined effort to resuscitate the long-underperforming Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO). The arrival of Iranian Minister for Industry, Mining and Trade, Seyed Mohammad Atabak in Istanbul—where ECO ministers gathered at this level for the first time in two decades—reflects a deliberate push by Tehran to reposition the bloc as a relevant regional economic platform. For Iran, this moment is less about protocol and more about strategic necessity.

At the heart of the Istanbul discussions is a long-awaited effort to revisit trade agreements, especially tariff reductions aimed at boosting intra-ECO commerce. For Iran, which has endured years of Western sanctions and now sees minimal prospects for diplomatic relief, regional economic arrangements have become a priority. The US-Israeli strikes on Iranian infrastructure earlier this year further hardened Tehran’s conviction that Western partners cannot be relied upon for economic stability.

The second Iran-ECO Conference held in Tehran in September clearly signaled Iran’s aspirations. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi openly stated that the current level of ECO cooperation “does not match the enormous capacities” of its member states. His remarks were not diplomatic rhetoric— but a candid assessment of a bloc that has failed to convert geography into economic strength. Stretching across South, Central, and West Asia, ECO should have been a natural trade corridor. Instead, it has remained largely dormant.

This renewed push comes amid a shifting global economic order. As economist Majid Shakeri points out, the US — once the world’s “demander of last resort”—no longer plays its traditional role. Washington’s declining appetite for foreign goods and its reliance on punitive tariffs have weakened the post-WWII economic framework. For ECO members, this creates both a void and an opportunity: if global structures are eroding, regional alliances must step in.

Iran seems ready to do the heavy lifting. By pushing for tariff reforms, expanded connectivity, and practical cooperation, Tehran aims to keep ECO from fading into geopolitical irrelevance. Whether the other member states share the same urgency remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: Iran is positioning itself as the driving force behind ECO’s overdue revival.

Why Another Attempt by Trump to Term Muslim Brotherhood a Terrorist Outfit?

US President Donald Trump has once again moved to classify select branches of the Muslim Brotherhood as terrorist organizations. This has reopened an old debate - is this a necessity or a politically motivated classification aimed at reshaping US engagement with the outfit.

Trump’s push reflects both a strategic calculation and a political impulse. The Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928, is a sprawling and diverse movement that mixes religious activism, social services, and political participation.

Over nearly a century, it has evolved into a constellation of national chapters, each shaped by its own environment. Some branches participate peacefully in politics; others have drifted into confrontation or splintered into militancy. This complexity is precisely what makes blanket designations controversial.

Trump’s argument is straightforward: certain Brotherhood factions — particularly in Egypt, the Levant, and parts of North Africa — engage in or enable violence, undermine regional stability, and maintain ideological ties with militant groups such as Hamas. His camp sees the Brotherhood as the “mother ship” of modern political Islam, capable of inspiring radicalism even if a given chapter claims to operate peacefully.

For Trump, the designation strengthens counterterrorism posture and aligns the US with governments that have long viewed the Brotherhood as an existential threat.

But critics warn that the move is far riskier than it appears. The Brotherhood is not a single command-and-control structure. Lumping all its branches together under a terrorism label ignores the internal diversity and may end up targeting groups that operate legally, contest elections, or run social welfare networks. Such a sweeping designation risks criminalizing civil society, shutting down charities, or ensnaring individuals with loose associations — all without improving security.

There is also the geopolitical cost. Many US partners in the Middle East suppress the Brotherhood not because of terrorism, but because it challenges entrenched power structures. By echoing these regimes uncritically, Washington may be empowering authoritarianism rather than isolating true extremists. The move could also fuel anti-US sentiment by portraying America as hostile to political Islam in all its forms.

Trump’s latest attempt is therefore less about clarity and more about convenience. It may satisfy a political constituency, but it blurs the line between legitimate security concerns and ideological overreach — a distinction the US can’t afford to ignore.

 

Restricting Trading of Cash Settled Crude Oil Contracts

After closely observing commodity markets for more than a decade, one conclusion becomes unavoidable: the system has drifted far from its original purpose. Commodity futures were designed to help producers and consumers manage risk. Instead, they have become playgrounds for speculative capital. The overwhelming dominance of cash-settled crude oil contracts —now estimated to account for over 90% of global energy trades—has allowed speculation to overshadow genuine hedging. It is time to reconsider this model and work toward a gradual reduction of trading in cash-settled crude oil contracts.

Cash settlement fundamentally changes the nature of commodity markets. When traders can enter and exit massive positions without ever taking delivery, the market becomes unanchored from physical realities. Price discovery—the core justification for futures markets—suffers. Prices increasingly reflect sentiment, algorithms, and fund-driven volatility, rather than real supply–demand conditions. Producers are left navigating distorted signals; consumers face unpredictable swings that have little to do with harvests, inventories, or shipping flows.

The ultimate beneficiaries of this system are large speculators—most notably fund managers—who profit from volatility without any connection to the underlying commodity. With no storage constraints or delivery obligations, speculative capital can dominate volumes and dictate market direction. Meanwhile, genuine hedgers find themselves pushed to the margins of markets supposedly created for them.

None of this suggests that cash-settled contracts should be banned overnight. Liquidity matters. But the current balance is unhealthy and unsustainable. A phased rebalancing is both practical and necessary. Exchanges should gradually increase the share of physically deliverable contracts, strengthen warehouse receipt systems, and enforce stricter inventory reporting. Regulators should impose higher margins on purely speculative cash-settled positions to curb excessive leverage.

Physical delivery brings discipline. It forces markets to acknowledge storage capacity, transport costs, stock levels, and real economic flows. It restores transparency and aligns futures pricing with fundamentals. More importantly, it reduces the outsized influence of speculative capital on commodities that are crucial for food security, energy planning, and industrial production.

Commodity markets must serve the real economy, not the speculative ambitions of a few. The dominance of cash-settled trading has diluted that purpose. A deliberate move toward more physically grounded trading is essential to restore credibility, stability, and fairness in global commodity markets.

 

 

 

Israel kills Hezbollah military leader Tabtabai

According to Reuters, Israel killed militant group Hezbollah's top military official in an airstrike on a southern suburb of Beirut on Sunday, the Israeli military said, despite a US-brokered truce a year ago.

The strike, the first on the outskirts of the Lebanese capital in months, targeted Iran-backed Hezbollah's acting chief of staff, Ali Tabtabai, the military said in a statement.

Israel's strike crossed a "red line", Hezbollah official Mahmoud Qmati said as he stood near the bombed-out building in the Haret Hreik suburb, a Hezbollah stronghold.

Hezbollah's leadership would decide on whether and how the group would respond, he added.

Lebanon's health ministry said the strike killed five people and wounded 28 more. It hit a multi-story building, sending debris crashing into cars on the main road below.

People rushed out of their apartment buildings, fearing further bombardment, a Reuters reporter said.

The United States imposed sanctions on Tabtabai in 2016, identifying him as a key Hezbollah leader and offering a reward of up to US$5 million for information on him.

The Israeli military statement said Tabtabai "commanded most of Hezbollah's units and worked hard to restore them to readiness for war with Israel".

In a short-televised statement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel would not allow Hezbollah to rebuild its forces and that he expected the Lebanese government "to fulfill its obligation to disarm Hezbollah."

 

 

 

Pakistan Still Remains Afghanistan’s Most Practical Trade Corridor

Regional connectivity has become one of the most contested conversations in South Asia, with every major player seeking influence through trade routes, port access and infrastructure diplomacy. Amid these competing narratives, one reality often gets overlooked - when it comes to Afghanistan’s transit needs, Pakistan continues to offer the most practical, cost-efficient and geographically logical route. This is not a political claim — it is a commercial and logistical fact shaped by geography, infrastructure and decades of established trade flows.

Pakistan’s strategic location provides Afghanistan with the shortest and most direct access to the sea. For more than forty years, the Karachi–Torkham and Karachi–Chaman corridors have served as the main arteries linking Afghan traders to global markets. These routes are supported by a fully developed logistics ecosystem that includes deep-sea ports, highways, customs facilities, warehousing chains and thousands of transport operators who understand the specific dynamics of cross-border trade. This maturity reduces time, cost and uncertainty — three critical factors for a landlocked economy.

Alternatives exist, but none match Pakistan’s combination of scale and efficiency. Iran’s Bandar Abbas route is functional but burdened by longer distances, higher freight costs and the unpredictability of sanctions. The much-publicized Chabahar corridor, backed by India, remains more of a political project than a commercially competitive pathway; its capacities and market traction are still limited. Northern routes through Central Asia involve multiple border crossings, harsh climatic conditions and infrastructure gaps that add both cost and delay.

Afghanistan may wish to diversify its transit options — a reasonable aspiration for any landlocked nation. However, diversification should not be conflated with cost effectiveness. Geography remains the defining factor. Pakistan’s ports are closest, its transit infrastructure is the most established, and its logistics sector is already aligned with Afghan commercial patterns.

Despite shifting regional politics and the emergence of competing narratives, Pakistan retains a natural advantage that no alternative route has yet been able to match. It remains Afghanistan’s most practical, cost-efficient and reliable corridor to the world — a fact that regional policymakers should recognize as they debate connectivity, competition and the future of trade in South Asia.

 

Gazans Being Buried Under Broken Promises

At times, one gets a chilling feeling that Gazans have been buried alive under the rubbles—not only of their shattered homes, but of the world’s broken promises. The Trump-brokered ceasefire between Israel and Hamas was marketed as a bold diplomatic breakthrough, complete with plans for an interim administrative setup backed by a handful of states. But what followed was not diplomacy—it was a carefully choreographed deception.

The promised administrative structure, which was supposed to stabilize governance and allow humanitarian breathing space, has never moved beyond press statements and political theatrics. Nothing substantial has been established. No credible mechanism has been deployed. The so-called “international support” evaporated the moment cameras were switched off. The agreement now stands as an empty shell, useful only for speeches and selective justification.

Meanwhile, Israel has shown absolute contempt for the spirit and substance of the ceasefire. The killings have not stopped; on the contrary these have intensified. Entire blocks have been vaporized. Families have vanished under collapsed concrete. The word “ceasefire” has become a cruel joke—a hollow term used to mask a campaign that continues with alarming impunity.

Even more disturbing is Israel’s pursuit of an anti-Hamas armed group inside Gaza. Instead of honoring the agreement, Israel appears determined to reengineer Gaza’s internal dynamics through coercion and proxy militias. This is not conflict resolution; it is social engineering under the guise of security.

For Gazans—already trapped in the world’s largest open-air prison—the message is brutally clear: no agreement will protect them, no international promise will be honored, and no external actor will intervene before the next bombardment begins. The world watches, counts casualties, and moves on.

What remains today is not just rubble, but a moral collapse. A ceasefire that exists only on paper, an international community performing selective outrage, and a population slowly erased from global consciousness.

Gaza does not need more signatures. It needs protection. It needs enforcement. And above all, it needs a world willing to acknowledge that “ceasefire” cannot coexist with continued annihilation.

Indian Search for an Afghanistan Corridor—Bypassing Pakistan

For decades, India’s access to Afghanistan has been shaped—more accurately, restricted—by geography and politics. A quick look at the regional map explains the dilemma, India shares no border with Afghanistan, and the only direct land pathway runs through Pakistan. But with Islamabad refusing transit to Indian goods, New Delhi has to explore alternative corridors. Over time, these alternatives have evolved from theoretical proposals into functioning routes that reduce Pakistan’s leverage and expand India’s strategic reach. To read details click https://shkazmipk.com/india-afghanistan-trade/