UN overwhelmingly endorses two state solution

According to Reuters, the United Nations General Assembly on Friday overwhelmingly voted to endorse a declaration outlining "tangible, time bound, and irreversible steps" towards a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians ahead of a meeting of world leaders.

The seven page declaration was the result of an international conference at the UN in July - hosted by Saudi Arabia and France - on the decades-long conflict. The United States and Israel boycotted the event.

A resolution endorsing the declaration received 142 votes in favor and 10 against, while 12 countries abstained.

The vote comes ahead of a meeting of world leaders on September 22 - on the sidelines of the high level UN General Assembly - where Britain and others are expected to formally recognize a Palestinian state.

The declaration endorsed by the 193-member General Assembly condemned the attacks against Israel by Palestinian militants Hamas on October 07, 2023, which triggered the war in Gaza.

It also condemned the attacks by Israel against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza, siege and starvation, "which have resulted in a devastating humanitarian catastrophe and protection crisis."

"For the first time today, the United Nations adopted a text condemning it for its crimes and calling for its surrender and disarmament," he said in an X post.

The resolution was supported by all Gulf Arab states. Israel and the United States voted against it, along with Argentina, Hungary, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay and Tonga.

The declaration endorsed by the resolution says the war in Gaza "must end now" and support the deployment of a temporary international stabilization mission mandated by the UN Security Council.

The United States described the vote as "yet another misguided and ill-timed publicity stunt" that undermined serious diplomatic efforts to end the conflict. "Make no mistake, this resolution is a gift to Hamas," US diplomat Morgan Ortagus told the General Assembly.

"Far from promoting peace, the conference has already prolonged the war, emboldened Hamas and harmed the prospects of peace in both short and long term."

Israel, which has long criticized the U.N. for not condemning Hamas by name for the October 7 attacks, dismissed the declaration as one-sided and described the vote as theater.

"The only beneficiary is Hamas …When terrorists are the ones cheering, you are not advancing peace; you are advancing terror," Israel's UN Ambassador Danny Danon said.

 

 

 

 

 

PSX benchmark index closes flat despite volatility

Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) remained volatile during this past week. The benchmark index closed at 154,440 points on Friday, September 12, 2025, up 162 points or 0.11%WoW. Market participation remained strong with average daily traded volume increasing by 2.2%WoW to 1,092 million shares, from 1,068 million shares a week ago.

The week opened on a strong note supported by sustained momentum from better than expected corporate results and Chinese President’s commitment to accelerate CPEC 2.0 implementation. However, momentum eased later in the week as investors’ sentiment turned cautious ahead of the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting scheduled for September 15, 2025 amid ongoing floods.

In the latest PIB auction, yields declined by 11bps and 7bps to 12.04% and 12.38% for the 10, and 15 year tenors, while the 2-year paper yield rose by 11bps to 11.20%.

Workers’ remittances for August 2025 were reported at US$3.1 billion, up 7%YoY.

Auto sector witnessed a surge in volumes in August 2025 to 15,712 units, up 35%YoY, largely attributed to 62%YoY increase in lower segment passenger cars sales.

Foreign exchange reserves held by the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) increased by US$34 million to US$14.3 billion as of September 05, 2025. PKR appreciated by 0.04%YoY to close at PkR281.55/US$.

Other major news flow during the week included: 1) ADB and AIIB agreed to provide guarantees to help Pakistan issue US$250 million Panda bonds, 2) FBR unveiled plan to lift tax to GDP ratio to 18%, 3) Exports to US declined 13%YoY in August 2025, 4) Pakistan and China sealed US$601 million agriculture JVs, and 5) Government expressed intentions to abolish cross subsidies and peak rates in industrial power tariffs.

Leasing Companies, Tobacco, and Engineering were amongst the top performing sectors, while Jute, Property, and Vanaspati & Allied industries remained laggards.

Major selling was recorded by foreigners and other organizations with a net sell of US$12.1 million and US$3.7mn, respectively. Major buying was recorded by Companies with a net buy of US$11.9 million.

Top performing scrips of the week were: LOTCHEM, PAKT, MUGHAL, AVN, and LCI, while laggards included: BOP, NATF, JVDC, AGL, and AICL.

According to AKD Securities, PSX is expected to remain positive in the coming weeks, with the upcoming IMF review and any developments over circular debt.

The benchmark index is anticipated to sustain its upward trajectory, with a target of 165,215 points by end December 2025. The market is primarily driven by strong earnings in Fertilizers, sustained ROEs in Banks, and improving cash flows of E&Ps and OMCs, benefiting from falling interest rates and economic stability.

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

Is Israel attacking countries under the US supervision?

With each passing day and the precision with which Israel attacked Qatar, Iran, Syria, Iraq and other countries, a question is getting louder, is Israel attacking countries under the US supervision?

It is a very important and sensitive question. Based on the strategic relationships between United States and Israel the probability just can’t be ruled out.

Here are the reasons that support the perception:

Military Support:

Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of the US foreign military aid, running into billions of dollars annually. Much of Israel’s military technology, intelligence systems, and weapons are supplied by the US.

Operational Coordination:

While not every Israeli attack is directly supervised by the US, Washington is usually informed in advance of major military operations—especially those with regional consequences like strikes in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, or beyond.

Political Cover:

The US provides Israel with diplomatic protection, especially at the UN Security Council, often vetoing resolutions that condemn Israeli actions. This gives Israel confidence that it can continue operations without facing strong international consequences.

Shared Intelligence:

The CIA, Pentagon, and Israeli intelligence frequently share intelligence. In many cases, Israeli attacks—particularly on Iran linked targets—are planned with at least some level of US awareness, if not outright coordination.

Recent Pattern:

Analysts often describe Israeli military actions as being carried out with a “green light” from Washington, even if the US doesn’t control the tactical execution.

The US may not be giving step-by-step battlefield orders, Israel’s ongoing military actions—especially in Gaza—are effectively carried out under US strategic supervision and protection, both militarily and diplomatically.

Let us explore the incidents where US involvement was direct (like supplying bombs during Gaza wars, or joint planning against Iran), to show how this collaboration works.

Let us identify the situations where the US involvement was direct or so close that it’s hard to separate support from supervision:

1. Gaza Wars (2008–09, 2014, 2021, 2023–25)

Weapons Supply:

During heavy Israeli bombardments of Gaza, the US quickly replenished Israel’s stock of precision-guided bombs, artillery shells, and Iron Dome interceptors. For example, in 2014 and again in 2021, Washington quietly authorized emergency transfers of munitions while battles were still ongoing.

Political Cover:

At the UN, the US vetoed multiple ceasefire resolutions, allowing Israel to continue operations.

Supervision Aspect:

Without US weapons and diplomatic shields, Israel could not have sustained these long campaigns.

2. Lebanon and Hezbollah (2006 and beyond)

2006 War:

Israel’s month-long war with Hezbollah relied on US-supplied bunker-buster bombs and real-time intelligence from American surveillance assets.

Joint Planning:

US and Israeli militaries regularly war-game scenarios of a “multi-front” war with Hezbollah, meaning Israel’s current strategy is partly drawn up with Pentagon input.

3. Operations against Iran

Nuclear Program Attacks:

The famous Stuxnet cyberattack (2009–10) on Iran’s Natanz facility was a joint CIA-Mossad operation.

Targeted Killings:

Israel’s assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists were carried out with US intelligence support, according to multiple reports.

Air Strikes in Syria:

Israeli strikes on Iranian convoys and depots in Syria often used US intelligence and were coordinated to avoid clashing with US troops stationed nearby.

Present Gaza War

Direct Weapons Pipeline:

US cargo planes flew precision bombs, tank shells, and artillery rounds directly to Israel while civilian casualties mounted in Gaza.

White House Green Light:

Leaks from Pentagon officials revealed Israel was asked to pause or minimize strikes, but not ordered to stop.

Embedded Coordination:

US military officers reportedly worked inside Israeli command centers to coordinate targeting and logistics — an unusually deep level of involvement.

Ongoing Strategic Framework

US and Israel have joint operations rooms for real-time intelligence sharing.

Israel’s most advanced fighter jets (F-35s) are co-produced with US technology, and software updates pass through Pentagon systems — meaning the US can monitor their use.

Israel does not fight wars in isolation; every major military campaign has US fingerprints, whether in weapons, intelligence, or diplomatic protection.

Bottom line:

While Israel pulls the trigger, the US is the one who supplies the gun, reloads it, and shields Israel from the world’s outrage. That is why many analysts argue Israeli attacks are effectively conducted under US supervision.

Significance of US base in Qatar

There are contrary responses to the Israeli attack on Hamas leaders in Qatar. These could be broadly clubbed in two categories: 1) Israel will have to pay a huge price and 2) Arabs have no spine to teach Israel a lesson. We invite the readers to first understand the significance of the US military base in Qatar. We should also keep in mind what some cynics say “Qatar is in total control of United States and the Arabs just can’t dare to think about causing even the smallest damage to the base”.

According to the details available about the US military base in Qatar (Al Udeid Air Base, near Doha) it holds very high strategic and geopolitical significance for both Washington and its regional allies.  Here’s why it matters:

1. Largest US Military Presence in the Middle East

Al Udeid hosts around 10,000–13,000 US and coalition troops. It is home to the US Air Force Central Command (AFCENT) forward headquarters. The base has one of the longest runways in the Gulf, capable of handling heavy bombers, cargo planes, and refueling aircraft.

2. Command and Control Hub

It houses the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC), which directs US and allied air missions across the Middle East, including Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. It provides real-time surveillance, intelligence, and command capabilities for regional operations.

3. Geostrategic Location

Qatar sits between Iran and Saudi Arabia, giving the US a vantage point to monitor both. Its Gulf location allows rapid deployment to hotspots in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia. It acts as a deterrent against Iran’s influence and provides a security guarantee to Gulf states.

4. Operations and Wars

It has played a central role in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and the 2003 Iraq War. It remains critical for ongoing counterterrorism, anti-ISIS missions, and monitoring the Strait of Hormuz.

5. Political Significance

The base signals a deep US-Qatar partnership, despite Qatar’s sometimes independent stance in Gulf politics (relations with Iran, hosting Hamas leaders, supporting Muslim Brotherhood).

It provides Qatar with security insurance against regional rivals (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain), especially after the 2017 Gulf blockade.

On top of all it helps the US project power without being fully dependent on bases in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or Turkey.

6. Energy Security

Qatar is the world’s leading LNG exporter. US presence protects not only Qatar’s infrastructure but also the global energy supply routes in the Gulf.

In short, the US base in Qatar is the backbone of American military power projection in the Middle East. It protects Gulf allies, counters Iran, secures energy flows, and anchors US influence in a volatile region.

The United States faces certain risks and vulnerabilities by relying so heavily on this base. Let us look at the risks and vulnerabilities:

1. Overdependence on a Single Hub

Al Udeid is the largest US forward operating base in the Middle East, so any disruption (attack, political fallout, or natural disaster) could cripple US operations in the region. To be precise, it acts as a “single point of failure” for command and control.

2. Exposure to Iran

Iran sees Al Udeid as a primary military threat on its doorstep. The base is well within range of Iranian ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones. In a war scenario, it would likely be one of the first targets.

3. Qatar’s Independent Foreign Policy

Unlike Saudi Arabia or UAE, Qatar often balances relations with both the U.S. and rivals like Iran, Turkey, and Islamist movements. Hosting Hamas leaders and maintaining ties with Tehran means Qatar could, in theory, restrict US operations if its own diplomacy is at risk. The 2017 Gulf blockade showed how fragile intra-GCC politics are, leaving Washington in an awkward position between allies.

4. Local Political Sensitivities

Presence of US troops in Muslim-majority countries can be a political flashpoint, supporting the narratives of foreign occupation. While Qatar welcomes the base for protection, its presence could become domestically unpopular in times of crisis.

5. Energy Infrastructure as Collateral

Qatar’s LNG facilities and shipping routes are near the base. Any attack on US forces risks spilling into global energy markets, creating vulnerabilities for both Qatar and the rest of world.

6. Shifting US Strategy

The US is trying to pivot to Asia and reduce military exposure in the Middle East. Heavy reliance on Al Udeid ties Washington to regional conflicts it may want to step back from. Over time, this dependency could look like a strategic liability rather than an asset.

Other US bases in the Middle East

While Al Udeid is a strategic jewel, it’s also a big, exposed target that ties US interests tightly to Gulf politics and risks. Let us compare it with other US military footholds in the Middle East (Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Djibouti) — to show how it fits into the bigger US military puzzle?

1. Qatar – Al Udeid Air Base

Regional command-and-control hub that houses 10,000 to 13,000 troops. It houses Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC). Long runways for heavy bombers, refueling aircraft, and transports. Central location for quick reach to Gulf, Levant, Afghanistan. Its biggest Weaknesses are: 1) within easy range of Iranian missiles and 2) Qatar’s independent diplomacy (ties with Iran, Turkey and Hamas) can complicate US use in a crisis.

2. Bahrain – Naval Support Activity (NSA) Bahrain, Manama

It is home of the US Fifth Fleet with 7,000 troops. Its strengths include: 1) provides control to US naval operations in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea., it plays vital role in keeping the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf shipping lanes open.

Its weaknesses include: Bahrain is politically unstable; Shi’a majority often protests US presence, and 2) it is vulnerable to Iran-backed militias and unrest.

3. Kuwait – Camp Arifjan, Ali Al Salem Air Base

It is the army logistics hub that houses more than 13,000 troops and can be termed the largest US ground presence in Gulf).

Its strengths are: 1) key supply and logistics backbone for all Gulf operations and 2) it hosts pre-positioned equipment for rapid deployment. Its weaknesses are: 1) less glamorous than Qatar/ Bahrain but essential — if disrupted, US supply lines suffer.

4. Saudi Arabia – Prince Sultan Air Base (PSAB)

It is basically a backup air operations center where around 2,500 troops are kept.

Its strengths: 1) gives US redundancy in case Qatar base is hit or denied and 2) hosts missile defense systems, fighter jets, and ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance).

Its major weaknesses include: 1) US presence has been historically controversial in Saudi Arabia (linked to Bin Laden’s anti-US narrative) and Saudis prefer limited, rotational deployments, not permanent bases.

5. Djibouti – Camp Lemonnier (Horn of Africa)

It is primarily Africa and Red Sea operations hub with 4,000 troops.

Its strengths are: 1) key to anti-terror missions in Somalia and Yemen, and 2) strategic position on the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, choke point for global shipping.

It biggest weakness is proximity to China’s naval base (first overseas Chinese base).

6. Iraq & Syria – Smaller Outposts

This is primarily to counter-ISIS missions, with 2,500 troops in Iraq and 900 Syria. It is considered highly vulnerable to political backlash and militia attacks; not long-term sustainable.

In short, Qatar’s Al Udeid is the nerve center, but the US builds redundancy through Bahrain (navy), Kuwait (logistics), and Saudi (backup). If Al Udeid went offline, US operations could still continue — but far less smoothly.

Time for Muslims to take collective actions against Israel

For more than 700 days killing of Gazans has continued unabated, but the Muslim rulers have not gone beyond condemnation of Israeli attacks. Now, Israel has killed the political leaders of Hamas in the Qatari capital Doha on Tuesday and only condemnation in very soft words has come. Let us find why can't Muslim rulers go beyond condemnation of Israeli terrorism?

In our opinion, it is a pertinent and important question. The repeated condemnations without meaningful action by most Muslim-majority states in response to Israeli aggression—especially in Gaza—stem from a complex mix of geopolitical, economic, and internal factors. Some of the main reasons are:

Dependence on the West

Many Muslim countries, particularly in the Middle East, rely heavily on the United States and Europe for security, trade, investment, and military technology. They fear, taking decisive action against Israel risks sanctions, aid cuts, or political isolation.

Deep Split

The Muslim world is deeply fragmented—Sunni vs Shia, Arab vs non-Arab, monarchies vs republics. This has resulted in rivalries (Saudi Arabia vs Iran, Turkey vs Gulf monarchies) those prevent a unified front.

Normalization and Hidden Ties with Israel

Several Arab states (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan) have normalized relations through the Abraham Accords, and many others maintain covert cooperation.

Economic Vulnerabilities

Oil-rich states depend on stable exports, foreign investment, and dollar-based trade. Poorer Muslim countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, etc.) face IMF pressure and debt traps, limiting foreign policy freedom.

Fear of Internal Unrest

Leaders worry that pushing too hard against Israel, in other words the United States could invite political or regime change attempts. Authoritarian governments fear that pro-Palestine activism could spill over into broader dissent.

Lack of Unanimity

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has been reduced to a symbolic forum, issuing statements but lacking enforcement mechanisms or collective security structures.

Strategic Silence

Some leaders prefer Israel as a silent partner in intelligence, cyber, and defense, especially against Iran, Hezbollah, or Islamist movements that threaten their regimes.

Therefore, Muslim countries remain stuck between public outrage and private interests. Condemnation is the safest path—it appeases their populations without risking ties with Washington or destabilizing their regimes.

Enough is enough, now the time has come to take concrete steps. Here are some realistic and concrete steps Muslim countries could take—short of direct war—if they truly wanted to go beyond mere condemnation of Israeli aggression:

Economic Measures

Oil & Gas Leverage:

Gulf states could coordinate an oil embargo or selective supply restrictions targeting Israel’s allies, similar to the 1973 Arab oil embargo.

Boycott and Divestment:

Governments could ban trade with Israeli firms and pressure companies operating in Israel to disengage.

Sanctions on Israeli Goods: Restrict imports of Israeli agricultural, tech, or defense products.

Diplomatic Pressure

Expel Ambassadors:

Muslim countries with relations (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan) could downgrade or cut diplomatic ties.

Global Legal Action:

Refer Israel to the International Criminal Court (ICC) collectively, instead of leaving it to NGOs.

Block Normalization:

States like Saudi Arabia could halt normalization talks, signaling that Palestine remains a red line.

Political Unity

Revitalize the OIC:

Transform it from a talk shop into an action body: joint resolutions, emergency summits with binding decisions.

Joint Palestine Fund:

Pool resources into a sovereign fund for Gaza reconstruction and Palestinian self-sufficiency.

Collective Lobbying at UN:

Use numbers (57 Muslim countries) to push binding UN resolutions, even if the U.S. vetoes in the Security Council.

Strategic Non-Military Support

Humanitarian Corridors:

Use leverage with Egypt and Jordan to ensure permanent aid corridors into Gaza.

Technology and Cyber Support:

Provide Palestinians with communication tools, cybersecurity, and medical technology to resist siege conditions.

Intelligence Sharing:

Quietly pass on information that can protect Palestinian civilians from strikes.

Symbolic but High-Impact Moves

Suspend Flights to Tel Aviv:

Muslim-majority airlines could suspend services, disrupting Israel’s connectivity.

Cultural and Sports Boycotts:

Ban Israeli teams from participating in sporting events in Muslim countries.

Public Accountability:

Name and shame Muslim leaders who maintain cozy ties with Israel while condemning it publicly.

Israeli attempt to kill Hamas negotiating team in Doha a big dent to US credibility

Following Israeli assassination attempt to kill members of Hamas' negotiating team in Doha, Qatar on Tuesday, it appears that the Israeli military is now entering "full ethnic cleansing mode," in Gaza.

Israeli officials claimed responsibility and said it was aimed at assassinating the negotiators—but ultimately killed six people who were not involved with Hamas' team.

The Trump administration said Tuesday it had been aware of the attack before it was carried out and claimed it had warned Qatari officials—which Qatar denied.

Analysts suggested the lead-up to the bombing—with the US securing Hamas and Israeli support for a vague ceasefire proposal that was to be discussed in Doha—pointed to a scenario in which the US helped orchestrate the attack and aided "an attack on diplomacy itself," as Center for International Policy executive vice president Matt Duss said.

Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to US Sen. Bernie Sanders, warned the assassination attempt could cause long-lasting harm to the United States' reputation.

"This is an attack in the capital of a major non-NATO US ally in the midst of US-supported negotiations—against officials who were originally hosted there at the United States' request," said Duss.

"If it was conducted with the approval of the US, it's the latest nail in the coffin of President Donald Trump's claim to be a 'peacemaker.' This will have disastrous consequences for future peace efforts, and for US security."

The Trump administration's response to the attack was ambiguous, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt saying the bombing did not "advance Israel or America's goals" but adding that "eliminating Hamas... is a worthy goal."

The attack, said Duss, makes clear that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to see Israel's accelerating campaign of ethnic cleansing in Gaza through to the end," and has no intention of reaching a ceasefire deal.

Gregg Carlstrom of The Economist said that as far as countries in the Gulf region are concerned, the question of whether Trump knew about the attack ahead of time "is somewhat irrelevant."

"If yes, he approved a strike on a country under an American security guarantee," said Carlstrom. "If no, he couldn't prevent said strike. Either way, the question for Gulf leaders is the same, what is the value of American security guarantees?"

Condemnation of the attacks poured in from global leaders including United Nations Secretary General António Guterres, who said Israel's actions were "a clear violation of Qatar's sovereignty and territorial integrity" and accused Israeli officials of "destroying" efforts for a permanent ceasefire.

Other countries including Algeria, Jordan, and Egypt also decried the attack on Qatar's "sovereignty" and accused Israel of undermining the talks.

The peace group CodePink asserted, "The US is fully aware of Israel's intentions and actively collaborates with it" to reach the "true objective" of "the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians."

"This collaboration is evidenced by the blatant plan to lure ceasefire negotiators into a single location under the pretense of peace talks, only to attempt to assassinate them," said CodePink.

"This is a complete rejection of a diplomatic solution—something Israel has no intention of reaching. This attack on foreign soil also serves as a direct challenge to Qatar, proving that neither its borders, laws, nor financial influence can deter Israeli strikes."

The assassination attempt proves, said the group, "Peace negotiations are essentially antithetical to Israel and a trap for more assassinations and attacks on sovereign nations."

"It is time world leaders take a principled stand in defense of the people of Gaza," said the group. "The more the international community fails to hold Israel accountable, the more brazen it becomes in their war crimes."

Spy agencies determining fate of Middle East

We are of the view that the geopolitics in the Middle East are basically driven by the top ace spy agencies CIA and MI6 due to their long presence and lust to attain dominance. Both the agencies often play complementary as well as opposing role. In the Middle East, both the CIA of United States and MI6 of Britain active, but their influence and power are not equal. Here’s a breakdown:

CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)

Stronger presence:

The US has far greater military, economic, and political involvement in the Middle East as compared to Britain, which gives the CIA wider reach.

Resources and scale:

Vast funding, technology, and manpower allow the CIA to operate with more depth — from drone surveillance to covert paramilitary operations.

Regional influence:

CIA has elaborate intelligence sharing agreements with Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and Gulf states. The CIA often leads in counterterrorism, cyber intelligence, and monitoring Iran.

Direct action capability:

CIA has carried out assassinations of Qasem Soleimani in 2020 with Pentagon support, regime-change operations in Iraq in 2003, and drone warfare across Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere.

MI6 (Secret Intelligence Service of Britain)

Smaller but skilled:

MI6 operates with fewer resources but has deep historical networks dating back to the colonial and post-colonial era.

Special niche:

It is strong in human intelligence (HUMINT), diplomatic channels, and discreet operations. Often complements CIA efforts rather than competing.

Influence through alliances:

MI6 maintains ties in former British-influenced states (Jordan, Oman, Gulf monarchies). Often acts as a bridge between US and regional players, sometimes preferred for backchannel talks where US involvement is too visible.

It may be concluded that CIA is stronger in raw power, funding, and reach. MI6 is smarter in specialized, discreet, and historic networks. In practice, they often work together, with CIA leading and MI6 supplementing in sensitive or diplomatic areas.

Still it may be of some interest to readers to compare their weaknesses in the Middle East (CIA’s visibility vs. MI6’s limited resources).

CIA Weaknesses in the Middle East

Visibility and Reputation:

The CIA is often seen as the symbol of American interventionism. Its role in the 1953 Iran coup, the 2003 Iraq invasion, and drone strikes has created deep mistrust among populations.

Over-reliance on technology:

Heavy dependence on satellite imagery, drones, and cyber tools sometimes weakens on the ground human intelligence (HUMINT). Local actors may feed misleading information (faulty Iraqi WMD intelligence in 2003).

Political Constraints:

The CIA operates mostly within US foreign policy ambit, which can change with administrations (Trump pulling out of Syria, Biden recalibrating Iran policy). This limits long-term consistency in operations.

MI6 Weaknesses in the Middle East

Limited Resources:

Britain’s budget and global presence are much smaller than that of the United States. MI6 often has to “ride on the back” of CIA logistics and surveillance infrastructure.

Reduced Global Clout:

Post-colonial decline means Britain no longer has the political weight it once held in the region. Many Middle Eastern powers see London as secondary to Washington.

Reliance on Alliances:

MI6 depends heavily on Five Eyes (United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) for intelligence sharing. Alone, it struggles to project force or influence in hostile zones (Iran, Syria).

Therefore it may be said that in the Middle East CIA is the heavyweight, but MI6 survives by being subtle and clever, often achieving results disproportionate to its size.

Adding Mossad of Israel to the picture really changes the balance of spy power in the Middle East.

Mossad (Israel)

Strengths:

Regional focus and expertise:

Unlike CIA and MI6, Mossad is laser-focused on the Middle East. It enjoys deep cultural, linguistic, and ethnic infiltration skills (especially in Arab states and Iran).

Human Intelligence (HUMINT):

Mossad is known for its daring covert operations that include kidnapping Eichmann (Argentina, 1960), assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, and cyberattacks like Stuxnet with CIA help. It uses diaspora networks, business fronts, and deep-cover operatives.

Operational daring:

Conducts high-risk missions the CIA or MI6 would hesitate to attempt due to political exposure.

Political backing:

Israel’s survival depends on intelligence; Mossad has a direct line to top leadership and can act fast.

Weaknesses

Limited global reach:

It operates best in Middle East, North Africa, and Europe; weaker footprint in Asia or Latin America as compared to CIA.

Overexposure:

Mossad’s assassinations and covert operations generate huge backlash; Arab states and Iran actively hunt Mossad operatives.

Dependency:

It relies heavily on CIA for satellite surveillance, funding, and advanced cyber tools.

The Strongest

CIA is the strongest in resources, global reach, and tech. It can topple governments, conduct drone wars, and pressurize allies.

MI6 is the best at diplomacy, subtle influence, and backchannel talks. It is trusted more in Gulf monarchies than the CIA sometimes, due to less heavy-handed reputation.

Mossad is the sharpest blade in the region itself. When it comes to Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, or Syria — Mossad usually has the deepest, most actionable intelligence.