Western Media’s Selective Outrage on Iran

Protests are a natural and fundamental part of any society whose citizens care about their future and believe they can influence it. They are not a sign of systemic failure, but an indicator of civic health and the practice of free speech, assembly, and association. For Western states, their media, and their politicians, all of this holds true—except when the protests occur in Iran.

The unprecedented volatility in the currency market and the rapid devaluation of the Iranian Rial in recent weeks compelled business owners (known as bazaaris) to shutter their shops, go on strike, and gather in several of Tehran’s central squares to voice their discontent. Reports from journalists on the scene and footage shared by participants indicate the protests—spanning several days—remained largely peaceful.

Demonstrators refrained from vandalizing public property, kept pathways open for vehicles, and directed their slogans toward improved economic management. Anti-riot forces monitored the gatherings and seldom intervened. None of what has emerged from Iran would be unfamiliar in the regular protests seen across European capitals or American cities.

Yet this manner of protest does not sit well with the West or with Israel. Circulated videos show unidentified individuals urging bazaaris to vandalize property and block streets. In one instance, a young woman addressing a crowd fled after protesters refused to escalate into violence. In another, a man attempted to set a municipal trash bin ablaze before bystanders intervened and security forces arrested him. None of the bazaaris recognized him afterward.

Simultaneously, an online influence campaign has emerged, editing videos and fabricating audio to falsely suggest protesters are demanding the return of the deposed Shah’s son. A widely circulated image symbolizing the protests was later exposed as AI-generated.

Israel has openly admitted deploying agents to steer these peaceful demonstrations toward chaos. Mossad’s Persian-language account urged Iranians to “hit the streets,” while an Israeli television reporter openly called for organizing protests to justify a wider war. Iran International echoed similar narratives, promoting escalation as a pathway to foreign military action.

Political figures joined in. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett declared his readiness to help Iranians achieve “freedom,” while US President Donald Trump warned Iran of further “turmoil,” without acknowledging that Iran’s economic distress stems largely from the “maximum pressure” sanctions he imposed in 2018.

Iranian authorities acknowledged the protests and announced steps to stabilize the Rial. President Masoud Pezeshkian and Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf both described the demonstrations as legitimate while cautioning against foreign exploitation.

Ultimately, these events reveal a clear double standard - peaceful assembly is praised in one context yet exploited when it occurs in a country opposed by Western and Israeli interests. The true measure of these protests lies not in sensationalized narratives from abroad, but in the legitimate and orderly spirit shown by the Iranian people themselves.

PSX Benchmark Index up 51 percent in 2025

According to Pakistan’s leading brokerage house, Topline Securities, Pakistan Stock Exchange (PSX) during 2025 posted return of 51%, taking 2 years cumulative returns to 179%. In US$ terms, market posted return of 50% (2 year returns 180%). The stated return is inclusive of dividends received during this period.

The larger portion of the price return (40%) came through re-rating of index, with PE rising from 4.1x in December 2024 to 7.1x in December 2025. The dividend yield during the year was 8%.

The continuation of positive momentum was driven by stable and improving economy, political stability, lower interest rates and stable PKR also helped.

Major triggers during the year which helped index in re-rating included: 1) Successful IMF review throughout the year, 2) Credit rating upgrade by all 3 top global rating agencies S&Ps, Moody’s and Fitch, 3) decline in interest rate by 250 bps, 4) stable/ improved macro indicators, 5) Saudi Arabia- Pakistan Defence Pact, and 6) PIA privatization.

During the year, market also witnessed few volatile event s namely Pakistan India Conflict of May 2025, which resulted in market losing 5.6% in 3 sessions, recovered all losses in a single day after successful mediation by US president Donald Trump. Other events which caused volatility in market were, Iran Israel war, and imposition of tariffs by United States on global economies including Pakistan.

PSX market capitalisation also increased by 36% in 2025 to US$70 billion but still below its 2017 peak of US$100 billion.

Trading activity recorded strong growth in both volume and value, with volumes (ready/ cash) per day at PSX up 40% to 797 million shares/ day in 2025 which is all time high. Similarly, average traded value per day was up 64% to PKR37 billion/ day in cash market which is also all time high. In futures market, total traded volume and value per day were also up by 35% and 76% to 249 million share/ day and PKR14 billion/ day, respectively.

As per Bloomberg data, Pakistan’s KSE-100 Index was among the fifth best-performing markets in Asia/ Pacific region in US dollar terms in 2025.

The KSE Index remained the second-best performing major asset class in 2025, while gold was the top performer with a return of 73%, based on selected investment assets class in Pakistan.

PSX witnessed same momentum in offerings in 2025, with the bourse witnessing 7 offerings (including 2 GEM Board offerings and 1 Migration). However, total amount raised from investors through the 7 offerings in 2025 stood at PKR4.3 billion as against PKR8.4 billion in 2024.

Economic Assassination: US Pressure Crippling Venezuelan Economy

Donald Trump’s revived “maximum pressure” strategy on Venezuela is no longer an abstract policy tool; it is inflicting visible damage on the country’s economic core. The clearest impact is unfolding in the oil sector, where state-run PDVSA has begun shutting down wells in the Orinoco Belt as inventories swell and tanker seizures disrupt exports. What began as pressure aimed at political leverage is increasingly resembling economic strangulation.

For much of 2025, Venezuela’s oil output had been staging a cautious recovery. Production averaged around 1.165 million barrels per day in November, a 20%YoY increase that provided a rare fiscal lifeline. That momentum now appears fragile.

According to Bloomberg, PDVSA plans to cut Orinoco Belt output by at least 25%, reducing production to roughly 500,000 barrels per day. Such a reduction could wipe out nearly 15% of Venezuela’s total liquids production, reversing much of the year’s gains and intensifying balance of payments stress in an economy already under strain.

The cuts are being applied selectively, underscoring the depth of operational constraints. Extra-heavy crude from the Junín block is expected to be curtailed first, as these fields depend heavily on imported diluents. Lighter crude fields, requiring fewer blending inputs, are being kept online for as long as possible to preserve limited export capacity.

While diluent flows have not fully stopped, these are increasingly unreliable. Russian suppliers have delivered four tankers of naphtha so far in December, even as seizures of very large crude carriers continue. Yet supply disruptions are no longer the sole bottleneck. Limited storage for upgraded bituminous crude, combined with constrained export routes, is turning unsold oil into stranded inventory. Wells are being shut not for lack of reserves, but for lack of access to markets.

The broader implications are difficult to ignore. Sanctions are no longer merely restricting Venezuela’s ability to sell oil; they are shaping production decisions inside the country. When external pressure determines which wells remain operational, the line between economic coercion and economic punishment becomes increasingly blurred.

Whether this amounts to “economic assassination” is open to debate. What is clear is that the costs extend beyond political elites. With oil revenues underpinning the entire economy, Venezuela’s fragile recovery risks sliding into renewed contraction—raising uncomfortable questions about the humanitarian and strategic price of maximum pressure.

Obituary: Khaleda Zia

Khaleda Zia, Bangladesh’s first woman prime minister and one of the most consequential — and polarizing — figures in the country’s post-independence politics, died on Tuesday after a prolonged illness, she was 80. Her death marks the end of an era dominated for more than three decades by an intense rivalry that shaped Bangladesh’s political culture, institutions and democratic trajectory.

Born Khaleda Khan, she lived a largely private life until tragedy thrust her into public prominence. Described by contemporaries as shy and family-oriented, she devoted herself to raising her two sons until the assassination of her husband, President Ziaur Rahman, in a failed military coup in 1981. Three years later, she assumed leadership of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), founded by her late husband, pledging to fulfil his vision of rescuing Bangladesh from poverty and economic stagnation.

Khaleda Zia rose to national leadership during a historic moment. Alongside Sheikh Hasina, daughter of Bangladesh’s founding leader Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, she led a popular uprising that toppled military ruler Hossain Mohammad Ershad in 1990. Yet the alliance soon collapsed, giving birth to one of South Asia’s fiercest political rivalries. The two leaders came to be known as the “battling Begums,” their contrasting personalities and uncompromising politics dominating public life for decades.

In 1991, Khaleda Zia won Bangladesh’s first widely regarded free and fair election, becoming the country’s first female prime minister and only the second woman to lead a democratic government in the Muslim world after Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto. Her government restored the parliamentary system, encouraged foreign investment, and made primary education free and compulsory.

Defeated in 1996, she returned to power with a landslide victory in 2001. However, her second term was overshadowed by the rise of Islamist militancy, allegations of corruption, and political violence, including the deadly 2004 grenade attack on an opposition rally — an episode that would haunt her legacy.

Ousted from power in 2006, Khaleda Zia spent years in jail or under house arrest amid corruption cases she consistently denounced as politically motivated. Her health steadily declined, and she was released on humanitarian grounds before being fully freed in 2024 following the ouster of Sheikh Hasina. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court acquitted her and her family in the long-running corruption cases.

Though long absent from office, Khaleda Zia remained a commanding presence, with the BNP retaining deep popular roots. Her death closes a turbulent chapter in Bangladesh’s history — one defined by resilience, rivalry, and the enduring struggle for democratic stability.

Netanyahu’s Washington Visit: Strategy, Sponsorship, and Shared Responsibility

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States is being portrayed as routine strategic coordination. In reality, it reflects a deeper convergence in which Washington is no longer a distant mediator but a principal enabler of Israel’s expanding regional agenda. The visit highlights not only Israeli ambitions, but also America’s sustained military, intelligence, and diplomatic sponsorship.

At the center of discussions lies Iran. Israel’s objective has clearly shifted from containment to systematic degradation of Iran’s strategic capabilities—nuclear latency, missile production, drones, and proxy networks. This transition would be impossible without continued US arms supplies, intelligence sharing, and political cover. While Washington publicly warns against escalation, its steady flow of advanced weaponry and repeated shielding of Israel at international forums effectively signal consent rather than restraint.

Regime change in Iran remains a sensitive phrase in Washington, but prolonged destabilization appears to be the preferred substitute. Cyber operations, economic pressure, and covert actions designed to exploit Iran’s internal vulnerabilities fit comfortably within a grey-zone strategy that allows plausible deniability. Western intelligence agencies may not openly own such operations, but coordination and silence often speak louder than formal declarations.

Saudi normalization remains another Israeli objective, though the Gaza war has made recognition politically costly for Riyadh. Netanyahu’s calculation is that the United States can again absorb the pressure—offering security guarantees and strategic incentives to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. In doing so, Washington risks further eroding its credibility across the Arab and Muslim world by prioritizing geopolitical bargains over public sentiment.

In Syria, Israel already enjoys near-unrestricted freedom of action, facilitated by US political backing and Russia’s strategic distraction. The goal now is to institutionalize strategic denial—preventing Iranian re-entrenchment and treating Syrian sovereignty as expendable in the pursuit of regional dominance.

Lebanon presents a similar pattern. Israel’s posture toward Hezbollah appears to be shifting from deterrence to attrition, with Washington focused on managing escalation rather than preventing it. Proposals to revise UNIFIL’s mandate or force Hezbollah north of the Litani risk dragging Lebanon into another devastating cycle.

Ultimately, Netanyahu’s visit is less about crisis management than about reaffirming a permissive American environment—one that allows Israel to act forcefully while the United States absorbs diplomatic costs. As Washington continues to arm, shield, and enable Israel, it also assumes responsibility for the instability that follows.

Israel to Seek US Help in Another Round of War with Iran

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travels to Mar-a-Lago to meet US President Donald Trump, reports suggest the visit is less about diplomacy and more about reigniting confrontation with Iran. Despite growing friction between Netanyahu and Trump’s advisers, the Israeli leader is expected to press Washington to support, or directly participate in, another round of military escalation.

According to NBC News, Netanyahu plans to argue that Iran’s expanding ballistic missile program presents an urgent threat requiring swift action. He is expected to present Trump with options for US involvement in potential military operations. Analysts, however, view this shift in emphasis with skepticism. Sina Toossi of the Center for International Policy notes that Netanyahu’s focus on missiles appears to be an attempt to manufacture a new casus belli after the collapse of the nuclear argument.

This inconsistency has drawn criticism even within Israel. Yair Golan, leader of Israel’s center-left Democrats party, questioned how Netanyahu could declare a “historic victory” last June—claiming Iran’s nuclear threat and missile capabilities had been neutralized—only to return months later seeking US approval to strike Iran again.

Iran will not be the only issue on the agenda. Israeli officials indicate Netanyahu will also push Trump to harden his stance on Gaza, demanding Hamas’s disarmament before any further Israeli troop withdrawals under the second phase of Trump’s peace plan. This comes amid mounting US frustration over Israel’s repeated violations of the October ceasefire.

While Trump has sought to cultivate a peacemaker image, Israel’s actions on the ground have complicated that narrative. Near-daily Israeli strikes have reportedly killed over 400 Palestinians, while a sustained blockade has left hundreds of thousands displaced, exposed to winter conditions, and deprived of adequate food, fuel, and medicine.

Trump’s advisers, according to Axios, increasingly fear Netanyahu is deliberately undermining the peace process to keep the conflict alive. Beyond Gaza, Netanyahu is also expected to seek continued US backing for Israel’s territorial expansion in Syria and renewed latitude to escalate against Hezbollah in Lebanon—both areas where Israeli actions have already strained US policy objectives.

As Toossi argues, Netanyahu’s visit reflects not a strategy to resolve crises but to defer accountability. The meeting’s outcome will test whether Washington continues to underwrite open-ended escalation—or begins to draw clearer limits around Israel’s regional ambitions.

Remembering Dr Shamshad Akhtar

Dr Shamshad Akhtar’s passing marks the end of an era in Pakistan’s economic and financial history. She was not merely a technocrat of rare caliber; she was a steady moral compass in moments when the country’s financial system stood at critical crossroads. Her life was defined by discipline, intellect, and an unwavering commitment to institutional integrity—qualities that are all too scarce in public life.

As Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, Dr Akhtar played a historic role in strengthening monetary governance and safeguarding macroeconomic stability during a period of global uncertainty and domestic pressures. She believed deeply in rule-based policymaking, central bank independence, and prudent regulation—principles she defended with quiet firmness rather than public theatrics. Under her stewardship, the SBP emerged as a more credible, resilient, and professionally anchored institution.

Her contribution did not end there. As Chairperson of the Pakistan Stock Exchange, she brought the same clarity of purpose and ethical rigor to capital markets. At a time when speculation often overshadowed substance, Dr Akhtar consistently advocated transparency, investor confidence, and long-term market development. She understood that markets thrive not on hype, but on trust—and she worked tirelessly to nurture that trust.

On a personal level, Dr Shamshad Akhtar commanded respect without demanding it. She carried herself with grace, intellectual humility, and an unshakeable sense of responsibility to the public good. She inspired younger professionals—especially women—by demonstrating that excellence, not patronage, is the true currency of leadership. Her presence reassured colleagues that professionalism still had a place in Pakistan’s policy circles.

Dr Akhtar’s legacy will endure in the institutions she strengthened and the standards she set. In a system often vulnerable to expediency, she stood for consistency. In an environment prone to excess, she represented restraint. Pakistan has lost not just a former central bank governor or market regulator, but a guardian of financial discipline.

May her soul rest in peace. Her contributions will be remembered long after the noise of the moment fades, etched quietly but firmly into the country’s economic history.