Should Iran Stop Entry of Ships with US Flag in the Strait of Hormuz?

The Strait of Hormuz is not just another sea lane — it is arguably the most consequential chokepoint in global energy geography. At its narrowest, the strait squeezes to just over 21 nautical miles, with segments falling within what Iran views — and much of the world recognizes — as its territorial waters. Yet, Washington, despite a policy of “maximum pressure” against Tehran, insists its vessels must transit unimpeded through these waters. This contradiction lies at the heart of the current impasse.

Under international law, coastal states exercise sovereignty over territorial waters, typically extending twelve nautical miles from their shorelines. While the regime of “transit passage” over straits used for international navigation exists, it is not absolute — especially when strategic maritime access is leveraged amid acute political tensions. Iran asserts that a combination of sanctions, military threats, and economic strangulation amounts to coercion, undermining the spirit of norms meant to protect freedom of navigation.

The US “maximum pressure” policy — a blend of sweeping sanctions, tariffs on Iran’s trading partners, asset freezes, and diplomatic isolation — aims to squeeze Tehran’s economy and force it back to the negotiating table on Washington’s terms. It has undoubtedly inflicted economic pain: deep currency depreciation, elevated inflation, and a contraction in trade with global partners. Yet, the policy has not delivered the strategic outcomes Washington seeks.

Iran has not fully capitulated on its nuclear ambitions, nor has it ceased support for networks that counter US influence in the region. Indeed, analysts argue that the policy’s unrelenting coercion without a clear diplomatic exit has hardened Tehran’s posture rather than moderated it.

Critically, this pressure campaign has complicated the very objective it claims to uphold — ensuring stable maritime traffic. Rather than diminishing Iran’s leverage, sustained economic and military posturing risks escalating incidents around the strait. Maritime advisories urging US-flagged vessels to stay as far as safely possible from Iranian waters reflect this unease.

If the United States wants unrestricted passage for its vessels, it must reckon with the paradox of demanding rights while applying relentless pressure that invites resistance. A sustainable solution demands not just naval escorts and sanctions, but a calibrated diplomatic engagement that acknowledges Iran’s legitimate security concerns without compromising global trade imperatives.

In a narrow channel where diplomacy and deterrence meet, rigidity will only make a bottleneck worse.

Does Iran Have the Right to Enrich Uranium?

Iran’s right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes is grounded in international law, not ideological sympathy. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran is legally entitled to develop nuclear technology for civilian uses such as medical isotopes, electricity generation, and scientific research, provided it remains under international safeguards. Tehran has consistently maintained that it does not seek nuclear weapons. Distrust alone cannot nullify a treaty-based right.

For nearly five decades, Iran has been subjected to economic sanctions, covert operations, cyber sabotage, and targeted killings of nuclear scientists. These measures, justified in the name of non-proliferation, have failed to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability. Instead, they have entrenched confrontation, weakened moderates, and institutionalized hostility as a policy tool.

Israel has played the most aggressive role in this strategy. Operating with implicit Western backing, it has repeatedly attacked Iranian assets and openly threatened pre-emptive strikes. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recurring warnings of unilateral military action reflect a dangerous mindset: one that treats force as a substitute for diplomacy and assumes escalation can be controlled. History suggests otherwise.

Any military adventurism against Iran would not remain a limited strike. It would provoke retaliation across the region, destabilize already fragile states, disrupt global energy supplies, and risk drawing major powers into a wider confrontation. The Middle East is already burdened by overlapping crises; igniting a new war over speculative threat perceptions would be an act of strategic recklessness.

If the objective is to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, coercion has proven ineffective. Verification, inspections, and negotiated limits offer far greater security than sanctions and bombs. The West must accept that peaceful enrichment under monitoring is safer than perpetual confrontation.

Equally important, Muslim countries must move beyond silence and ambiguity. Enabling or facilitating attacks on Iran, directly or indirectly, only accelerates regional self-destruction. Strategic autonomy demands collective restraint.

Enough is enough. Denying legal rights, normalizing aggression, and tolerating unilateral strikes will not bring stability. They will only push the Middle East closer to a conflict whose consequences no one—not even its architects—can control.

Targeting Pakistan’s Heart: Terror Beyond Sectarian Lines

The latest bomb blast at an Imam Bargah during Friday prayers must not be dismissed as yet another episode of sectarian violence. To frame it that way is misleading—and plays directly into the hands of those who seek to destabilize Pakistan. This was a strategic strike aimed at the state, social cohesion, and economic revival, not a spontaneous sectarian clash.

The choice of location is telling. An attack in or near the federal capital is a deliberate message: those entrusted with national security are being exposed as vulnerable. This is about demonstrating institutional weakness, not simply causing casualties.

Targeting Shias at a place of worship is tactically calculated to manufacture the illusion of sectarian conflict. Pakistan’s Shia and Sunni communities have coexisted for decades. By creating the perception of intra-Muslim hostility, the perpetrators hope to provoke mistrust, social fragmentation, and internal tension—classic tools to weaken a nation from within.

Timing is critical. After prolonged economic strain, Pakistan is showing early signs of recovery—stabilizing markets, cautious investor interest, and renewed trade activity. Terrorism at this juncture is meant to undermine confidence, discourage investment, and stall the revival.

The attack also feeds into the Afghan blame narrative. Linking violence to cross-border militancy or safe havens conveniently shifts attention from the real sponsors, strains Pakistan-Afghanistan relations, and disrupts the flow of Afghan transit trade—a vital lifeline for both economies.

To call this “sectarian killing” is to misdiagnose the problem. The reality is far more calculated: a foreign hand is striking at security credibility, social harmony, regional diplomacy, and economic momentum. The question is not who was killed, but who benefits. And the answer lies far beyond sectarian lines.

Pakistan cannot allow its narrative to be hijacked. Recognizing the true nature of these attacks is the first step toward ensuring that security, economic revival, and regional cooperation are not held hostage by external designs.

Bangladesh Election: In the Shadow of Power, Protest and External Pressures

Bangladesh’s forthcoming general election is taking place at an extraordinary political moment, shaped less by routine electoral competition and more by the aftershocks of mass unrest, institutional recalibration, and regional scrutiny. The vote is widely viewed as a test of whether the country can transition from prolonged political dominance to a more inclusive and credible democratic order.

The Bangladesh Army has emerged as a pivotal, though discreet, actor in this phase. During the upheaval that led to the fall of Sheikh Hasina’s government, the military refrained from using force against protesters and facilitated the installation of an interim administration. Officially, the army insists it has no political ambitions. Yet its role in maintaining security and stabilizing state institutions gives it considerable behind-the-scenes influence over the transition.

Equally significant is the role of the student fraternity. What began as protests against unemployment, corruption, and governance failures evolved into a nationwide movement that altered the political landscape. Some leaders of these protests have now entered formal politics, signaling a rare shift from street agitation to electoral participation. Whether this energy translates into sustained political organization remains an open question.

The Awami League, long synonymous with power under Sheikh Hasina, finds itself on the margins. Legal proceedings against its leadership and its exclusion from the electoral process have sparked debate about political accountability versus inclusivity. While supporters argue the measures are necessary to reset governance, critics warn that sidelining a major party risk narrowing democratic choice.

The opposition space is largely occupied by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). Following the death of former prime minister Khaleda Zia, leadership influence rests primarily with her son, Tarique Rahman, who continues to shape party strategy from abroad. The BNP faces the challenge of converting opportunity into coherence after years of political disruption.

Externally, India is closely watching developments, given its strategic, economic, and security interests in Bangladesh. The United States remains engaged through diplomatic pressure and advocacy for a transparent electoral process. By contrast, there is no credible evidence of direct Pakistani influence, despite occasional rhetorical references in domestic discourse.

Ultimately, this election is less about personalities and more about institutions. Bangladesh’s real challenge lies in whether power can be contested through ballots rather than barricades, and whether the promise of democratic renewal can outlast the politics of upheaval.

PSX: Geopolitics and internal security concerns mar performance

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PXS) trended upwards for most of the week before adjusting by 3,703 points on Friday’s session, wiping out earlier gains to close the benchmark index at 184,130pts, down 45 points or 0.02%WoW. The decline was triggered by escalating geopolitical tensions over US and Iran, alongside adverse domestic security developments.

Earlier in the week, sentiments were supported by Prime Minister’s industrial relief package, coupled with record high monthly exports of US$3.06 billion during January 2026, resulting in 7%YoY drop in trade deficit. Inflation reading during the month remained lower than expected at 5.8%YoY.

Cement sector’s offtakes hit 5-year high of 4.54 million tons, up 13%YoY, driven by higher sea-exports.

OMC offtakes also increased by 6%YoY to 1.35 million tons.

Banking sector deposits expanded by 0.7%WoW, providing a positive backdrop for the sector.

T-Bill and PIB yields rose by 15 to 40 bps, in the first auction following SBP’s decision to leave policy rate unchanged.

Despite improved sentiments, market participation weakened during the week, with average daily trading volume declining by 12%WoW to 1.2 billion shares, from 1.4 billion shares in the earlier week.

On the currency front, PKR appreciated by 0.02%WoW against the greenback during the week, closing the week at 279.71 PKR to a US$.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) UAE rolls over US$2 billion Pak loan for a month, 2) GoP requests Saudi Arabia for two-year extension in oil facility, 3) Barrick reviews Reko Diq project amid security concerns, 4) FBR collection rose 16%YoY to PKR1,015 billion in January 2026, and 5) Private sector credit expands by PKR 589 billion in FYTD.

Power Generation & Distribution, Jute, Leather & Tanneries, Inv. Banks/ Inv. Cos./ Securities Cos., and Real Estate Investment Trust were amongst the top performing sectors, while Chemical, Engineering, Tobacco, Oil & Gas Exploration Companies and Cement were amongst the laggards.

Major buying was recorded by Mutual Funds, Brokers, and Companies with an aggregate net buy of US$32 million. Banks and Foreigners were major sellers with net aggregate sell of US$25 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: KEL, ILP, SAZEW, HMB, and TRG, while laggards included LOTCHEM, PIBTL, PPL, GADT, and KTML.

AKD Securities foresees the positive momentum at PSX to continue due to improving macros and continuous focus on reforms amid political stability. The brokerage house forecasts the benchmark Index to reach 263,800 by end December 2026.

Investors sentiments are expected to improve on the likelihood of foreign portfolio and direct investment flows, driven by improved relations with the United States and Saudi Arabia.

Top picks of the brokerage house are: OGDC, PPL, UBL, MEBL, HBL, FFC, ENGROH, PSO, LUCK, FCCL, INDU, ILP and SYS.

Trump’s Iran Posturing Is Not Diplomacy, but Coercion

Donald Trump’s latest threat to attack Iran unless Tehran submits to his demands is not diplomacy, it is coercion masquerading as negotiation. Washington claims the upcoming Oman talks focus on Iran’s nuclear program. In reality, Trump is exploiting military pressure and Iran’s recent domestic unrest to force sweeping political concessions. His warning that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei should be “very worried” reveals the real intent: intimidation, not engagement.

The starting point is simple. Trump himself tore up the 2015 nuclear agreement in 2018, despite Iran’s compliance verified by international inspectors. By walking away from an UN-backed deal, he forfeited any moral authority to dictate new terms. Having dismantled the framework, he now seeks to resurrect it with added demands — including Iran’s missile program, regional alliances, and internal policies. That is not renegotiation; it is strategic extortion.

If this were genuinely about uranium enrichment, talks would remain technical and narrow. Instead, US officials insist on expanding the agenda to missiles, proxy groups, and Iran’s domestic affairs. Tehran has rightly rejected this maximalist approach, agreeing only to discuss nuclear issues.

Trump’s reported preconditions — zero uranium enrichment, missile restrictions, and abandonment of regional partners — amount to demanding Iran’s strategic surrender. Zero enrichment alone violates Iran’s rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which permits peaceful nuclear activity. Iranian officials have even signaled flexibility on enrichment levels, yet Washington insists on total prohibition.

Simultaneously, the US has deployed an aircraft carrier, warships, fighter jets, and thousands of troops to the region. Drones have been shot down, naval encounters are escalating, and oil prices are rising. This is classic gunboat diplomacy.

The irony is striking. Trump warns of nuclear danger while having destroyed the very inspection regime that restrained Iran’s program. He pressures Tehran under threat of airstrikes, while Israel — a non-NPT nuclear power — remains beyond scrutiny. The double standard is glaring.

Negotiations conducted under the shadow of missiles are not negotiations. They are ultimatums.

If Trump truly sought stability, he would rejoin the agreement he abandoned, remove preconditions, and restore inspections-based diplomacy. Instead, he is gambling with another Middle East conflict — one that could engulf the entire region.

This is not statesmanship. It is brinkmanship.

US$10 trillion a day global currency market becomes more volatile

The dollar, the world's No.1 reserve currency, is having a rocky ride as unpredictable White House policy moves and Federal Reserve independence concerns revive "Sell America" trades. While it is expected to weaken further, sudden rebounds in the greenback can catch traders out just as much as sudden sharp falls.

Having fallen almost 2% in one week in January to four-year lows, an index measuring the dollar's value against other major currencies then bounced back, causing metals market mayhem.

Here's a look at how dollar risks are rippling through world markets.

The dollar's rebound in the last two trading sessions, following US President Donald Trump's decision to nominate former Federal Reserve governor Kevin Warsh to replace outgoing Fed chief Jerome Powell has sparked a metals market meltdown.

Gold, which had notched up its best month in more than half a century in January, slumped 5% on Monday after its biggest daily fall since the early 1980s in the prior session - it regained some ground on Tuesday.

Traders had crowded into a popular currency debasement trade that relied on metals prices rising as Fed independence kept the dollar on a steady weakening path. That concept then dropped out of metals markets "at lightning speed," days, Societe Generale said in a client note.

US$10 trillion a day global currency market becomes more volatile.

A gauge of the most actively traded currency pair -- the euro/dollar exchange rate that measures expected volatility in three months' time, hit its highest since July last week.

According to Capital Economics, the dollar had become detached from traditional valuation metrics like the gap between US and Japanese or European interest rates.

Barclays has calculated a US policy risk premium for the dollar, meaning it is influenced by White House rhetoric and has become partly detached from the economic and growth forecasts that investors usually track. That could make stocks and bonds priced in dollars harder for foreign investors to hold and value.

While the indexes were lifted by gains in chipmakers, small caps also performed well, with the Russell 2000 jumping about 1%.

"The main question is whether people lose confidence in the US asset base," said Barclays global head of FX and EM macro strategy Themos Fiotakis.

Foreign investors own almost US$70 trillion worth of US assets, more than doubling their holdings in the last decade as Wall Street stocks boomed. European money managers are assessing their exposures.

A weaker dollar can boost US stocks by increasing the local currency value of companies' overseas earnings and often raises prices of Treasuries.

"But disorderly dollar decline could change this relationship," Bank of America analysts said in a note.

A disorderly drop would be a 5% monthly loss, BofA said, which could generate a "drastic sell-off of long-dated Treasuries," and tighten US financial conditions significantly.

A wider debasement trade, with the dollar falling in tandem with domestic assets, was also a risk, BofA said.

Courtesy: Reuters