Time Is on Iran’s Side

Despite the overwhelming military might of the United States and Israel, time may ultimately favor Iran in the ongoing conflict, as mounting political and economic pressures strain the Trump administration.

Since launching Operation Epic Fury, US forces have reportedly struck some 6,000 Iranian targets, damaging naval vessels, missile launch sites, and other military infrastructure. The US Central Command says more than 90 Iranian vessels have been neutralized. Experts argue that Iran anticipated such attacks and structured its defense around confronting conventionally superior foes.

Analysts note that Iran is deliberately prolonging the conflict, betting it can endure military pressure longer than the US can withstand domestic political fallout. Rising oil prices, disruptions in global energy markets, and attacks on US allies in the Gulf have intensified the economic and diplomatic costs of the war. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has pushed oil prices near US$100 per barrel, adding further pressure on the global economy.

Military analysts suggest that Iran’s definition of victory is simple - survival. Removing the current leadership in Tehran would require far greater military commitment than the United States has so far deployed. Pentagon officials reported that the war cost over $11.3 billion in just the first six days. The conflict has also taken a human toll - seven American service members have died, and roughly 140 have been wounded.

In his first statement as Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei vowed to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed and continue military pressure on regional adversaries. The US is considering naval escorts for oil tankers through the waterway. Analysts warn that as the conflict drags on, rising economic costs, political divisions in Washington, and potential casualties could erode domestic support for what some critics describe as an “optional war.”

While US and Israeli forces dominate tactically, Iran’s endurance strategy could make the political and economic cost of the conflict unsustainable for the United States, leaving the regime in Tehran intact and the strategic balance in the Gulf uncertain.

Quds Day: A Reminder of an Unfinished Question

Few issues in international politics have endured as persistently as the question of Palestine and the future of Jerusalem. Each year, on the last Friday of Ramadan, Muslims across the world observe International Quds Day, a symbolic occasion that seeks to keep global attention focused on one of the most prolonged and emotionally charged conflicts of the modern era.

The observance was initiated in 1979 by Iran’s revolutionary leader Ruhollah Khomeini, who called on Muslims worldwide to dedicate a day to expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people. His objective was simple but strategic - ensure that the Palestinian issue would not fade from international consciousness amid shifting geopolitical priorities.

The word “Quds” is the Arabic name for Jerusalem, a city sacred to Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike. For Muslims in particular, its significance stems from the presence of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest site. Yet the meaning of Quds Day extends far beyond religious symbolism. It reflects a broader political message — that the Palestinian question remains unresolved despite decades of negotiations, conflicts, and diplomatic initiatives.

Over the years, Quds Day has evolved into a global platform marked by rallies, seminars, and public discussions in many countries. Supporters view it as a reminder of the humanitarian and political dimensions of the Palestinian struggle, while also emphasizing the need for justice and self-determination. Critics, however, often interpret the event through the lens of regional politics, arguing that it also reflects Iran’s ideological posture in the Middle East.

Regardless of differing interpretations, the continued observance of Quds Day highlights a simple reality - the Palestinian issue remains central to the political landscape of the Middle East. In an age when global attention shifts rapidly from one crisis to another, the annual commemoration serves as a reminder that lasting stability in the region cannot be achieved without addressing the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people.

Ultimately, Quds Day is more than a political demonstration or a symbolic gathering. It represents an enduring call for the international community to confront a conflict that continues to shape regional politics and global debate.

 

UAE Cannot Afford Hostility with Iran

For the United Arab Emirates (UAE), prosperity has long depended on one critical asset - stability. As a global hub for trade, tourism, and finance, the Emirates has built its reputation on being a safe and predictable center of commerce in a turbulent region. Yet the intensifying confrontation between Israel and Iran is now testing that carefully cultivated image, placing the UAE in an increasingly uncomfortable strategic position.

In recent years, UAE has sought to deepen diplomatic and economic ties with Israel, hoping to benefit from technological cooperation and expanded trade. While this policy opened new economic avenues, it has also exposed it to the risks of regional polarization. When tensions escalate between Israel and Iran, countries perceived to be aligned with either side inevitably face political and security consequences.

The ripple effects of these tensions are already being felt in the Emirates. The emirate of Dubai—widely regarded as the Gulf’s commercial and financial hub—depends heavily on international investor confidence and a steady flow of tourists. Even limited security incidents or military exchanges in the region can unsettle markets, delay real estate investments, and deter travelers who view the Gulf primarily as a stable destination.

The economic stakes extend far beyond tourism and property markets. The UAE’s energy exports and maritime commerce rely heavily on the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant share of global oil shipments passes each day. Any disruption to this narrow but critical waterway directly affects the functioning of Gulf ports and the broader regional economy.

For a nation that has carefully built its prosperity on logistics, trade, and energy connectivity, prolonged instability in the Strait of Hormuz could prove deeply damaging. Ports cannot operate at full capacity if shipping lanes remain uncertain, and once shaken, investor confidence can take years to rebuild.

Geography offers a clear strategic lesson. Iran is not a distant rival but a powerful neighbor across the Gulf whose influence will remain a permanent feature of regional politics. Sustainable stability in the Gulf therefore requires engagement with regional powers, not merely alignment with distant allies.

Ultimately, the prosperity of the UAE rests on stability, open sea lanes, and investor confidence—assets that cannot survive prolonged regional confrontation. Geography alone dictates that the Emirates and Iran must find a workable coexistence across the Gulf. Strategic pragmatism therefore demands careful diplomacy rather than rigid alignments. If UAE wishes to preserve its role as the region’s premier commercial crossroads, it must prioritize de-escalation and regional balance over geopolitical rivalry.

Who Is Benefiting From War on Iran?

As the conflict involving United States and Israel against Iran intensifies, the humanitarian cost has understandably dominated headlines. Yet wars are rarely judged only by the destruction they cause. Equally important is a harder question: who ultimately benefits from the economic and geopolitical consequences of war?

Daily Brief: PSX and Global Markets

Pakistan’s equity market ended almost flat on Wednesday, while trading in silver contracts remained suspended at the Pakistan Mercantile Exchange (PMEX). Meanwhile, Asian equities declined on Thursday as oil prices surged. Both crude benchmarks jumped about 9%, the safe-haven US dollar hovered near its strongest levels of the year, and gold prices held broadly steady. US stocks also closed lower on Wednesday. To read details click https://shkazmipk.com/capital-market-review-49/

Early estimates suggest Washington may be spending close to a billion dollars a day on military operations. While the figure appears staggering, such expenditures often circulate within the American economy itself. The vast defense ecosystem surrounding the United States Department of Defense thrives during prolonged military engagements. Demand rises for missiles, air defense systems, surveillance equipment and logistical support produced by companies such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Technologies, and Northrop Grumman. In that sense, war can act as a powerful economic multiplier for the military-industrial complex.

Energy markets provide another revealing dimension. The Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most critical oil chokepoint, carries nearly one-fifth of global crude supplies. Any disruption or closure immediately pushes oil prices higher. Ironically, such instability may strengthen the position of the United States, which has emerged as one of the world’s leading oil and liquefied natural gas exporters. Higher global prices make American energy exports more profitable while opening opportunities to capture market share in Europe and Asia.

For Gulf producers, the situation is more complex. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iraq, United Arab Emirates, and Qatar depend heavily on secure maritime routes to ship oil and gas to global markets. If traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is disrupted, export volumes could decline even while prices surge. In such a scenario, higher prices may not fully offset reduced shipments.

Geopolitical instability may also reinforce the dominance of the United States Dollar in global energy trade. Efforts by emerging economies to establish alternative settlement mechanisms often lose momentum when markets retreat toward the perceived safety of dollar-based transactions.

Meanwhile, elevated oil prices could still deliver additional fiscal space for Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, helping finance ambitious transformation initiatives such as NEOM and other development plans.

None of this proves that economic gain is the sole driver of conflict. But history repeatedly shows that wars reshape markets and redistribute advantages. When the guns fall silent, the question will remain: was this merely a geopolitical confrontation, or a conflict whose economic dividends were quietly anticipated from the start?

Donald Trump’s War Without Wisdom

At a time when nuclear negotiations were reportedly moving in a constructive direction, the United States—reportedly in coordination with Israel—launched strikes on Iran, abruptly escalating tensions in an already volatile region. The attacks targeted military and nuclear installations and reportedly eliminated senior Iranian commanders. What might have been intended as a strategic show of force has instead opened the door to a far more dangerous confrontation.

The shift from diplomacy to military action marks a critical turning point. Washington and its allies appeared to believe that overwhelming military superiority would quickly deter Tehran and force strategic concessions. Yet such assumptions often overlook the political realities of the Middle East, where military pressure rarely produces the swift outcomes external powers anticipate.

Iran’s response was swift and predictable. Tehran vowed retaliation against American bases across the Gulf region as well as against Israeli targets. More significantly, the crisis has threatened shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—one of the world’s most critical energy corridors. Even the possibility of disruption in this narrow passage has unsettled global markets, as a substantial share of the world’s oil and gas supplies transit through it.

The episode underscores a recurring strategic miscalculation: the tendency of powerful states to underestimate the capacity of regional actors to retaliate through asymmetric means. Iran may not match the conventional military strength of the United States or Israel, but it possesses the capability to impose serious economic and geopolitical costs.

Equally troubling is the humanitarian dimension. Escalating strikes inevitably increase civilian suffering and deepen instability across the region. Experience shows that conflicts in the Middle East rarely remain contained; instead, they tend to trigger broader geopolitical ripple effects that extend far beyond the immediate battlefield.

The central question now is whether military escalation can achieve what diplomacy could not. History suggests otherwise. Wars launched without a credible political endgame often evolve into prolonged strategic traps.

For the international community, the priority must now be de-escalation. Continued confrontation risks destabilizing the Gulf, disrupting global energy markets, and entrenching hostility for years to come. Strategic restraint, however difficult, remains the only path toward preventing a wider and far more destructive regional conflict.

Time to impeach US president Donald Trump

When the President of the United States casually describes a war as an “excursion,” it inevitably raises questions about judgment and responsibility. Speaking at a press conference in Miami, Donald Trump referred to the ongoing war against Iran as “just an excursion into something that had to be done.” Such a characterization is strikingly detached from the human and geopolitical costs already unfolding.

Wars are never excursions. They bring destruction, loss of life, and long-term instability. Reports indicate that nearly 1,500 Iranians—many of them women and children—have already been killed since the conflict began. The situation escalated further when extensive air operations by Israel reportedly led to the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. The event alone was sufficient to transform an already volatile confrontation into a crisis with far-reaching regional implications.

Equally troubling is the timing of the military escalation. The United States and Iran were reportedly engaged in negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, and by several accounts those discussions were moving in a constructive direction. Launching large-scale military action during such negotiations has inevitably raised doubts about whether diplomacy was given a genuine opportunity to succeed.

The consequences are already visible beyond the battlefield. Oil prices have surged toward US$100 per barrel, heightening economic uncertainty worldwide. Regional tensions have intensified as Iran signals readiness for a prolonged confrontation, raising the possibility that the conflict could draw in additional actors across the Middle East.

At the same time, the objectives articulated by Washington appear expansive and shifting. Statements from the US administration have referenced preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, dismantling military capabilities, and even influencing the country’s political future. History offers ample evidence—from interventions in Iraq and Libya—that attempts to reshape political orders through military force rarely produce stable outcomes.

Perhaps the most damaging aspect is the rhetoric surrounding the war itself. When a conflict that has already taken thousands of lives is described as an “excursion,” it risks trivializing the gravity of military action and undermining the credibility of the United States in the eyes of the international community.

For these reasons, serious questions must now be asked in Washington. If presidential conduct has indeed inflicted lasting damage on the global image of the United States, then the constitutional mechanisms of accountability cannot be ignored. Initiating impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump may therefore become not merely a political debate, but a necessary test of democratic responsibility and institutional integrity.

Only Time Will Tell Who Survives? Mojtaba Khamenei or Donald Trump

The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s new Supreme Leader marks a dramatic turning point in the region’s already volatile geopolitics. Coming in the aftermath of the killing of his father, Ali Khamenei, during recent strikes against Iran, the succession signals continuity rather than change within the Islamic Republic’s power structure. Yet the broader question now emerging is not simply about leadership transition in Tehran, but about the intensifying confrontation between Iran and the United States.

The powerful Assembly of Experts, the constitutional body responsible for selecting Iran’s Supreme Leader, announced Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment after what it described as a decisive vote. For years, Mojtaba had been viewed as a leading contender due to his influence within Iran’s clerical establishment, security institutions and the vast economic networks that developed under his father’s long rule. His elevation therefore suggests that Iran’s hardline establishment remains firmly in control despite the shock caused by the assassination of its previous leader.

The geopolitical temperature rose further after remarks by Donald Trump, who declared that Washington should have a say in Iran’s leadership transition. The US president warned that the new leader might not “last long” without American approval. Such statements are unusual in diplomatic practice, as leadership succession is traditionally regarded as an internal matter of sovereign states.

At the same time, Israel had reportedly warned that whoever succeeded Ali Khamenei could become a target. These developments transform what might have remained an internal political transition into a potentially dangerous regional confrontation involving multiple actors.

History suggests that external pressure often produces unintended consequences in Iran. Rather than weakening the ruling establishment, foreign threats frequently reinforce internal cohesion and strengthen the narrative of resistance promoted by the Islamic Republic.

Ultimately, geopolitical contests are rarely decided by bold statements or threats alone. Political survival depends on domestic legitimacy, strategic endurance and the unpredictable shifts of international power.

As tensions escalate between Tehran and Washington, one reality remains clear - history, not rhetoric, determines political longevity. Only time will tell who ultimately survives this unfolding confrontation — Mojtaba Khamenei or Donald Trump