Trump Keen on Turning Gaza into His Personal Property

Nothing has been more destructive for Gaza over the past two years than the bombs dropped with unwavering Western backing. Yet nothing has been more cynical than Donald Trump’s repeated appearances promoting his so-called “peace plan” for the besieged Strip. Wrapped in the language of diplomacy, Trump’s proposal reeks not of reconciliation but of ownership—an attempt to treat Gaza as a geopolitical asset to be managed, traded, and reshaped according to American convenience.

While Trump speaks of calm and reconstruction, Israeli aggression continues almost daily, violating ceasefire understandings with impunity. Washington, far from being an honest broker, remains the principal enabler—arming, financing, and diplomatically shielding Israel while performing concern for Palestinian suffering. Trump’s rhetoric cannot conceal this contradiction. Peace cannot be brokered by those underwriting the war.

As large-scale bombing subsided, a new phase of pressure emerged. Gaza became the subject of maps, crossings, donor conferences, and discussions about “the day after.” Central to this discourse is the idea of a “peace council,” international forces, and a transitional governing arrangement imposed from outside. These proposals move slowly because they are designed not to end occupation, but to recycle Western control while avoiding a frank admission of failure.

Trump’s plan—Israeli withdrawal in exchange for Hamas’s removal, followed by an internationally supervised administration—lays bare a colonial mindset. Gaza is reduced to a problem to be solved, not a people with rights. Palestinians are expected to accept a future negotiated in Washington, as if sovereignty were a favor Trump can dispense. The voices of those who endured siege and destruction are conspicuously absent.

What drives Trump’s sudden peace enthusiasm is not compassion but damage control. After a prolonged and devastating war, Israel failed to impose its will militarily, exposing the limits of US-backed force. The myth of invincibility collapsed, and global opinion shifted sharply. Trump now seeks to repackage defeat as diplomacy, positioning himself as a peacemaker while rescuing a deeply tarnished ally.

Reconstruction, under this framework, becomes another weapon. Aid is offered conditionally, tied to disarmament and political submission. This transactional logic—treating freedom as a commodity—has failed everywhere it has been tried, from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Gazans refuse to be reduced to property or a bargaining chip. Their resistance has transformed from a marginal humanitarian case into a global symbol exposing Western hypocrisy. Trump may imagine himself redesigning the region, but Gaza stands as a reminder that peace imposed through power, money, or arrogance is not peace at all.

Venezuela: US Regime Change Obsession

The seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers by the United States is not an isolated enforcement action; it is the logical extension of a failed regime-change project. Having been unable to dislodge the Maduro government through sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and political engineering, Washington has doubled down on economic warfare—this time by targeting Venezuela’s sole economic artery.

Venezuela is not a diversified economy. Oil exports generate the bulk of its foreign exchange, fund public services, and pay for essential imports. Intercepting tankers is therefore not about legal compliance; it is about choking the economy into submission. When financial strangulation is designed to produce political collapse, it crosses from diplomacy into coercion—what many rightly describe as economic terrorism.

The justification offered by Washington is familiar - sanctions are portrayed as tools to restore democracy and punish alleged wrongdoing. Yet the outcomes tell a different story. Years of sanctions have neither produced regime change nor improved governance. Instead, they have devastated living standards, disrupted fuel supplies, and weakened healthcare and food security. Political elites adapt; ordinary citizens absorb the shock.

More troubling is the international silence. The seizure of commercial shipments bound for third countries raises serious questions under international law, yet few Western capitals have voiced concern. This selective outrage exposes a deeper truth, rules-based order often bends when great power interests are involved. Actions condemned as piracy if undertaken by rivals are quietly normalized when executed by Washington.

There is also a broader pattern at play. From Iran to Venezuela, energy-producing states that resist US strategic preferences face sanctions, asset freezes, and trade blockades. The message is unmistakable - control over energy flows remains central to geopolitical power. Democracy rhetoric provides cover, but energy dominance appears to be the underlying driver.

Ironically, such pressure often entrenches the very systems it claims to oppose. Economic siege fuels nationalism, strengthens hardliners, and closes political space. It also pushes targeted states toward alternative trading networks, accelerating the fragmentation of the global economic order—an outcome that ultimately weakens US influence rather than consolidates it.

For Venezuela, continued economic suffocation offers no path to stability or reform. For the world, accepting unilateral seizures as normal practice sets a dangerous precedent. If regime change pursued through economic destruction becomes an accepted tool of statecraft, global trade itself becomes hostage to power politics.

History suggests a simple lesson: coercion may punish, but it rarely persuades.

Gold March Toward US$5,000: A New Reality

Gold’s surge in 2025 — the strongest since the 1979 oil shock — would normally invite calls for a painful correction. Prices have doubled in two years. Yet this rally is not built on speculative froth alone. It is anchored in a structural shift that could carry bullion to US$5,000 an ounce by 2026.

Spot gold touched a record US$4,381 in October, crossing milestones once thought distant. The drivers are neither exotic nor temporary - persistent US fiscal deficits, an implicitly weak-dollar posture, geopolitical fractures from Ukraine to NATO’s eastern flank, and rising unease over the Federal Reserve’s independence. In such an environment, gold is not merely a hedge — it is a statement of mistrust in paper promises.

What distinguishes this cycle is the role of central banks. For five consecutive years, they have been diversifying away from dollar assets, stepping in when investor positioning becomes stretched and prices wobble. This behavior places a firm floor under gold, resetting its trading range far higher than in previous cycles.

JP Morgan estimates that while 350 tons of quarterly demand keeps prices stable, actual buying may average 585 tons per quarter in 2026 — a telling imbalance.

Investors are following suit. Gold allocations have risen to 2.8% of total assets, up from 1.5% before 2022 — elevated, but hardly extreme given the scale of global uncertainty.

Forecasts from Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Metals Focus converge on the same conclusion, US$5,000 gold is no longer sensational. It is increasingly plausible. The real question is not how high gold can go, but how fragile confidence in fiat currencies has become.

Why Trump Is Edging Toward a Serious Conflict with Venezuela?

US President Donald Trump has significantly escalated pressure on Venezuela and President Nicolás Maduro through sanctions, military action, and economic measures, raising concerns about a potential serious conflict. The latest flashpoint was the US seizure of a sanctioned oil tanker en route to Cuba, part of a broader campaign targeting Maduro’s government, which Washington labels illegitimate and accuses of leading a drug-trafficking network.

Trump has justified his actions on multiple fronts. Migration is a central issue, with the president frequently blaming Maduro for sending criminals, gang members, and former prisoners into the United States. While Venezuelans now number around 770,000 in the United States as of 2023, they represent less than 2 percent of the immigrant population. Most Venezuelan migrants—over 80 percent—remain in Latin America and the Caribbean. Nonetheless, the issue has gained urgency after a Supreme Court ruling led to more than 250,000 Venezuelans losing Temporary Protected Status following the program’s expiration.

Drug trafficking is another pillar of Trump’s campaign. The administration accuses the Maduro regime of facilitating narcotics flows into the US, citing this as justification for lethal strikes on suspected drug-smuggling boats near Venezuela. Since September, US forces have carried out at least 22 maritime strikes, killing dozens of alleged traffickers. These actions have sparked political controversy, particularly after reports that survivors of one strike were killed. While the administration claims these operations have sharply reduced maritime drug trafficking, lawmakers note that the vessels were believed to be carrying cocaine, not fentanyl, and that Colombia remains the region’s top cocaine producer.

Economic pressure, especially targeting oil, has intensified tensions. Oil accounts for nearly 90 percent of Venezuela’s export revenues. The seized tanker reportedly carried over one million barrels of oil, and analysts warn that continued seizures could amount to a de facto naval blockade, crippling Venezuela’s economy and limiting its ability to import food, weapons, and fuel.

Finally, regime change remains an underlying concern. Trump has said Maduro’s days are “numbered” and has deployed an unprecedented US military presence in the region, though he has not ruled out negotiations. Senior officials deny seeking regime change outright, but skepticism remains over whether any agreement with Maduro could be enforced.

PSX: Average daily traded volume up 49.5%WoW

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) continued its bullish momentum during the week, driven by investor optimism following the announcement of IMF Executive Board approval, for the third tranche of US$1.0 billion under EFF and US$200 million under RSF for Pakistan. Sentiments were further boosted after ECC’s decision to adjust OMC and dealer margins on MS and HSD based on national CPI, capped between 5-10% and Incremental electricity package announced by government for industries and agriculture. The benchmark index gained 2,779 points during the week, up 1.7%WoW, to close at an historic high of 169,865 points.

Market participation strengthened by 49.5%WoW with average daily traded volume up to 1.3 billion shares, from 863 million shares in the prior week.

On the macroeconomic front, Workers’ Remittances for November 2025 were reported at US$3.2 billion, up 9%YoY.

Auto sector sales for November 2025 witnessed a surge of 41% YoY, to 19,635 units.

Foreign exchange reserves held by State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$12 million to US$14.6 billion as of December 05, 2025. PKR appreciated by 0.04%WoW against the greenback during the week to 280.32 PKR/ US$.

Other major news flow during the week included, 1) ADB okays loan for Karachi-Rohri section, 2) Reko Diq’s US$7 billion deal deepens Pakistan-US economic links, 3) GoP clears PKR659.6 billion power debt, 4) Cabinet approves diversion of 45 LNG cargoes, and 5) Revenue collection grows 27%YoY to PKR12 trillion during FY25.

Textile Spinning, Engineering, Synthetic & Rayon, Textile Composite and Glass & Ceramics were amongst the top performing sectors, while Leather & Tanneries, Jute, Leasing Companies, Refinery and Vanaspati & Allied Industries were amongst the laggards.

Major buying was recorded by Mutual Funds with a net buy of US$22.7 million. Insurance Companies were major sellers with net sell of US$22.6 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: NML, KAPCO, MLCF, ISL, and LOTCHEM, while laggards included: SRVI, HUMNL, TRG, HINOON, and SAZEW.

AKD Securities foresees the momentum in the benchmark index to continue given successful third tranche disbursement under the EFF & RSF, minimal flood impact and improved credit ratings by global agencies amid falling fixed income yields.

Investors’ sentiments are expected to further improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia. This outlook is supported by the lack of alternative investment avenues and the attractive valuation of local equities.

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

Deteriorating US-Venezuela relations: From Reliable Crude Supplier to Adversary

For decades, Venezuela was among the most dependable suppliers of crude oil to the United States. The relationship was commercially stable and strategically important. Venezuelan heavy crude suited US Gulf Coast refineries, and American demand guaranteed steady revenues for Caracas.

The shift began with the election of Hugo Chávez in 1999, which marked the start of a new ideological era. His government moved sharply away from the earlier market-aligned policies and adopted a confrontational posture toward Washington. This included expropriating foreign oil assets, reorganizing PDVSA under political control, and forging alliances with Cuba, Russia, Iran, and later China. These steps weakened commercial ties and deepened political tensions.

Venezuela’s oil sector also deteriorated due to nationalization, mismanagement, and underinvestment. Production, once above 3 million barrels per day, fell sharply over the next two decades. As quality and reliability declined, US refiners increasingly turned to Canada, Mexico, and domestic shale producers.

Washington responded to Venezuela’s political trajectory—especially under Nicolás Maduro—by imposing sanctions targeting individuals, the oil sector, and financial transactions. These sanctions further reduced the scope for commercial cooperation and pushed Venezuela to redirect crude flows toward China and other alternative buyers. The result is a relationship now defined by distrust rather than the interdependence of earlier decades.

A parallel concern for the United States has been narcotics trafficking in the region. While Venezuela is not a major cocaine producer, it has become a significant transit route between Colombia and global markets.

US agencies have accused certain Venezuelan officials of collusion with organized crime groups. At the same time, the United States faces a domestic drug crisis driven by opioids, fentanyl, and synthetic narcotics entering through regional networks. This has elevated drug trafficking to a major political issue.

Against this backdrop, President Donald Trump’s emphasis on securing access to strategic crude supplies and cracking down on narcotics networks reflects a broader domestic and geopolitical agenda.

Energy security, border control, and regional influence remain high-priority themes in US politics. Venezuela, given its oil reserves and its role in regional trafficking routes, has become central to these debates, turning a once-pragmatic partnership into a deeply strained relationship.

Pakistan must add Gold Backed Funds

Pakistan’s financial regulators often speak of diversification, innovation, and deepening of markets — yet these ambitions rarely translate into actionable reforms. One opportunity stands out, both practical and low-risk, and yet remains untouched - the introduction of gold-backed funds. With the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) holding nearly 50 tons of gold in its reserves, the country is well-positioned to convert a fraction of its dormant assets into market-enabling financial instruments.

Global central banks have already moved in this direction. In dozens of jurisdictions, gold is no longer treated as a static reserve item but as a strategic financial asset supporting exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and structured investment products. Pakistan, in contrast, keeps its bullion locked away — valuable, but economically inactive. This conservative mindset needs a calibrated rethink.

The proposal is simple and regulator-friendly. State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) should release 100 kilograms of gold through the Pakistan Mercantile Exchange (PMEX), specifically targeting the creation of gold-backed ETFs. The quantity is symbolic when compared to total reserves; it carries no threat to reserve adequacy. But its impact on market depth, investor confidence, and product diversity would be significant. SBP-verified bullion sold through PMEX would enhance transparency, improve price discovery, and finally allow Pakistan to list a credible gold-backed fund in its financial ecosystem.

Once the ETF market is seeded, SBP should gradually import around 150 kilograms of gold, timed with favorable global prices. This ensures reserves are not only restored but increased, allowing for future expansion of gold-based investment products. The goal is to create a sustainable, market-driven cycle — not a one-off intervention.

For regulators, the benefits are clear. Gold-backed funds broaden the investment menu in a market dominated by government securities. They attract new investor segments, document savings that would otherwise sit in unreported physical gold, and add liquidity to PMEX. More importantly, they align Pakistan with global best practices, where commodity-based financial products are now standard tools for stabilizing markets.

The concern that releasing central-bank gold might destabilize reserves is misplaced. A 100-kilogram sale out of a 50-ton stock is hardly a depletion; it is prudent activation of an underutilized asset. Paired with a planned replenishment strategy, the initiative strengthens rather than weakens Pakistan’s reserve position.

Pakistan’s financial system suffers from chronic concentration, limited innovation, and excessive reliance on debt instruments. Gold-backed funds offer a low-risk, high-credibility avenue for reform — one that regulators can implement without disrupting monetary policy or fiscal planning.

It is time to stop treating gold as an untouchable relic of reserve management. If Pakistan truly wants deeper, more diversified capital markets, then adding gold-backed funds is no longer optional — it is need of the time.