UNITED NATIONS: The escalating crisis in the Strait of Hormuz could push tens of millions into poverty, trigger a surge in global hunger and even tip the world toward recession, United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned on Thursday.
The closure of the vital waterway is “strangling the global economy,” the secretary general said in remarks to the press.
Guterres decried the restrictions on free passage through the strait, a crucial chokepoint, which he said is impeding the delivery of oil, gas, fertiliser and other critical commodities.
Even if restrictions on shipping and trade were lifted immediately, “supply chains will take months to recover, prolonging lower economic output and higher prices,” he said.
Setting out three possible trajectories for a world still reeling from the shocks of a pandemic and the war in Ukraine, Guterres said the best-case scenario would see global growth fall from 3.4 per cent to 3.1pc, with inflation rising to 4.4pc and trade slowing sharply.
If disruptions arising from Iranian attacks and threats and the US blockade of Iranian ports continue through midyear, the consequences would deepen significantly, he added.
Under that scenario, 32 million people would be pushed into poverty, 45 million more would face extreme hunger as fertiliser runs low and crop yields fall, and “hard-won development gains” could be reversed overnight.
In a worst-case scenario, where severe disruptions persist through the end of the year, “we confront the spectre of a global recession with dramatic impacts on people, on the economy, and on political and social stability,” he warned.
“These consequences are not cumulative. They are exponential,” Guterres stressed, cautioning that the longer the vital artery is choked, the harder it will be to reverse the damage.
Guterres highlighted diplomatic efforts underway to break the deadlock in the US-Iran talks.
“My message to all parties is clear: Navigational rights and freedoms must be restored immediately,” Guterres said. “Open the Strait. Let all ships pass. Let the global economy breathe again.”
ON paper, the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP) meeting convened for April 28 was about a routine administrative matter: the transfer of a few high court judges under Article 200 of the Constitution.
In reality, however, the proceedings evolved into a foundational clash over judicial accountability, the limits of administrative authority, and whether the Constitution permits a quiet correction of conduct without invoking formal removal mechanisms.
The extraordinary pre-meeting documentation — including recorded objections by Chief Justice of Pakistan Yahya Afridi and a detailed report from the Islamabad High Court (IHC) — had already brought into the open a conversation that the superior judiciary usually handles behind closed doors: how to respond when a judge is perceived as professionally difficult, administratively overbearing or institutionally reluctant to hear certain cases.
The short answer, according to the report, is that Article 200 does not require reasons for a transfer. The more complex question now being weighed is whether a transfer can serve as a proportionate administrative response to conduct that falls short of impeachable misconduct under Article 209.
With IHC judges being transferred without formal proceedings or their consent, questions arise over judicial accountability and the limits of administrative authority
At the heart of the controversy lies a constitutional grey area. Article 200 empowers the president, on the recommendation of the JCP, to transfer a judge from one high court to another without requiring a formal inquiry. In contrast, Article 209 establishes the Supreme Judicial Council as a quasi-disciplinary forum for investigating incapacity or misconduct through a structured process.
The chief justice’s recorded objections — that the proposed transfers appeared “penal” in nature, deviated from a 2025 precedent based on federal representation, and could create administrative vacancies — were an attempt to introduce procedural safeguards.
The IHC report dismantles each ground with surgical precision, but in doing so, it raises a far more delicate question: if transfers are not penal, why was it necessary to record specific allegations of judicial reluctance, administrative interference and even a threat of imprisonment against a court officer?
That is the central tension. The report insists that Article 200 requires no reasons, yet it provides voluminous reasons — naming judges, including Justice Mohsin Akhtar Kayani and Justice Babar Sattar, and detailing their alleged conduct.
For the careful observer, this is not a contradiction. It is a signal. The mover of the requisition is not hiding behind constitutional ambiguity; they are building a public record that the transfers are neither whimsical nor retaliatory but rooted in documented institutional dysfunction.
The report states that Justice Kayani, along with two other named judges, has “on various occasions, shown reluctance in hearing and finally adjudicating matters pertaining to taxation, fiscal liabilities and allied revenue disputes”.
Tax litigation, the document notes, frequently involves “substantial questions relating to public revenue, statutory interpretation, commercial obligations and fiscal governance, often concerning liabilities amounting to billions of rupees”.
No allegation in the response document carries more weight than the episode attributed to Justice Babar Sattar. To threaten a Deputy Registrar (Judicial) with imprisonment and lock-up “solely on account of the number of cases marked before the Bench” is not, by any measure, routine judicial demeanour. It touches the raw nerve of judicial administration, particularly the relationship between a judge and the court’s administrative machinery.
‘Victims of their own behaviour’
Legal experts note that such conduct, if proven, exists in a constitutional penumbra. It is unlikely to meet the high threshold of “misconduct” under Article 209, which has historically required evidence of corruption, moral turpitude or persistent disregard of judicial standards.
Yet, it is also not conduct that a chief justice or the JCP can comfortably ignore. The report’s solution is to treat it as a legitimate consideration for administrative reassignment — a transfer away from a court where that judge’s relationship with registry officers has, allegedly, become dysfunctional.
This is precisely what worries senior lawyers and bar associations. The Islamabad Bar Council’s statement, demanding a “structured, periodic and across-the-board rotation policy”, is not a naive call for bureaucracy.
It is an attempt to pre-empt exactly what is unfolding: case-specific, judge-specific transfers that, however well-intentioned, will inevitably be perceived as punitive by the judge in question and his supporters.
Perhaps the most revealing subtext of the current crisis is the absence of unanimity among the bar. The Islamabad Bar Council’s vice chairman and executive committee chairman issued a strong statement against the transfers, invoking “mala fide intent”.
But the council’s own chairman of the disciplinary committee, Hafeezullah Yaqoob, broke ranks spectacularly, stating that the transferred judges “became victims of their own behaviour” and that lawyers only require “patient hearing and respect”.
That public fracture within the bar is significant. For years, superior court judges have relied on an almost reflexive bar support whenever executive or judicial leadership moved against a colleague.
Yaqoob’s intervention suggests that a segment of the legal community, particularly practitioners who appear before the IHC on a daily basis, has grown weary of judicial conduct that makes their work harder: reluctance to hear tax or property matters, restrictive listing directions limiting benches to five or six cases a day, and open-court roster interventions that bypass institutional channels.
The response document explicitly cites these very issues: “directions…limiting matters to be fixed before certain Benches to only five or six cases per day” and “encroachment upon the administrative authority vested in the office of the Chief Justice”.
For the working lawyer facing backlogs measured in years, a judge who will not hear property disputes or criminal appeals is not a hero of judicial independence. He is a bottleneck.
The Islamabad High Court Bar Association adopted a more measured position, calling for transparency, uniformity and principled consistency without explicitly opposing the transfers.
Barrister Qasim Nawaz Abbasi, secretary of the IHCBA, said transfers should not be used as a tool for victimisation.
He added that if high court judges could be transferred on such grounds, then similar accountability standards should apply to the district judiciary, where complaints are often more serious.
Oil prices shot higher Wednesday on concerns of an extended blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, while Wall Street stocks mostly slid as investors awaited a US Fed rate decision and a slew of tech firm earnings.
Both main oil contracts jumped nearly six per cent after President Donald Trump warned Tehran on Wednesday that it should “get smart soon” and capitulate to Washington’s demands for tight controls on its nuclear programme, as a US naval blockade turned the screws on Iran’s economy.
Meanwhile, the United States could extend its naval blockade of Iran for months more, oil executives were told in a meeting with Trump, an administration official said.
Analysts warned that such a move would prompt Iran to maintain its own blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, leaving the vital oil shipping route at a near standstill.
The US Federal Reserve is widely expected to keep interest rates unchanged later in the day, with markets closely watching its guidance on inflation as energy costs soar.
The dollar drifted higher against its main peers.
“The longer the conflict persists and the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, the more pronounced the inflationary pressures are likely to become,” said Anna Macdonald, investment strategy director at Hargreaves Lansdown.
International benchmark oil contract Brent crude for June delivery rose to $117.81 a barrel, its highest level since the fragile ceasefire between the US and Iran came into effect.
“The market is increasingly shifting towards a view that no longer expects a quick and lasting peace, nor an immediate reopening of the Strait of Hormuz,” said Arne Lohmann Rasmussen, chief analyst at Global Risk Management.
Kathleen Brooks, research director at trading platform XTB, warned: “This is a new phase of the war in Iran, and we could now see oil prices go back to the March highs around $120 per barrel for Brent.”
With talks to end the Middle East war appearing to be at a standstill, investors’ attention turned to earnings updates.
Wall Street’s main stock indices were mostly lower in late morning trade.
“As with other financial markets, investors appear to be happy to sit on their hands ahead of tonight’s monetary policy announcement from the Federal Reserve’s FOMC, and as four constituents of the ‘Magnificent Seven’ prepare to release their latest earnings updates after the close,” said David Morrison, senior market analyst at Trade Nation.
Investors will be paying particular attention to spending on artificial intelligence by Amazon, Google, Meta and Microsoft — and whether it is translating into revenue.
“Given the outsized weighting of these companies in the index, and the enormous capital expenditure they have announced to build AI capabilities, these results will be closely watched by investors,” Hargreaves Lansdown’s Macdonald added.
Tech stocks took a hit on Tuesday following a report in the Wall Street Journal that ChatGPT-maker OpenAI had missed targets on user numbers and revenue.
Stock markets in London, Paris and Frankfurt finished in the red, despite some major companies spiking on strong earnings reports.
Shares in Swiss banking giant UBS jumped more than three percent as its net profit rose 80pc in the first quarter, beating expectations.
Strong quarterly profit growth led shares in German sportswear giant Adidas to jump more than eight percent in Frankfurt.
After a weak lead from Wall Street, Asian stock markets mostly rose Wednesday, with Hong Kong up more than one percent.
SOUTH WAZIRISTAN LOWER: Mortar shells fired from across the Pak-Afghan border injured five people — four children and a woman — in the Angoor Adda village of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s South Waziristan district on Wednesday, according to security sources.
The sources said that the shells struck the homes of two residents of the village and that the injured children were between the ages of three and 13.
All the injured were take to the district headquarters hospital in Wana, they added.
They said that the Afghan Taliban and affiliated elements had repeatedly targeted civilians across the border, adding that after Wednesday’s attack, the Pakistan Army promptly retaliated by targeting their firing positions along the border.
As a result, the Afghan Taliban abandoned their posts and fled, the sources said.
The attack came three days after the Afghan Taliban opened unprovoked firing at civilians in South Waziristan, leaving three injured.
Security sources said at the time that the Afghan Taliban’s posts were destroyed in retaliatory action.
The sources said that Afghan Taliban had been making attempts to help a group of Fitna-Al-Khawarij — a term used by the state for the banned Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan — cross into Pakistan. However, due to the prompt action by the military, the infiltration attempt was thwarted, they added.
“Out of frustration, following several failed attempts to infiltrate into Pakistan, [the] Afghan Taliban targeted civilian population in Angoor Adda today,” they said.
They had added that previously, the Afghan Taliban repeatedly targeted Pakistani civilians in Dir, Bajaur, Orakzai, Torkham and North Waziristan districts.
The attacks have taken place as Pakistan continues to carry out Operation Ghazab lil-Haq against the Afghan Taliban and terrorists operating from its soil. It was launched on the night of Feb 26, following unprovoked cross-border attacks by the Afghan Taliban.
LONDON: British lawmakers voted on Tuesday against launching an inquiry into whether Prime Minister Keir Starmer misled parliament in statements about his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US.
Starmer appointed Mandelson in Dec 2024, and the ex-ambassador was sacked last September when his ties to the late US sex offender Jeffrey Epstein were found to have been deeper than previously known. Police arrested Mandelson in February on suspicion of misconduct in public office, but did not charge him.
The prime minister has resisted pressure to quit over the matter, saying Mandelson lied about his relationship with Epstein. Starmer also said officials had kept information from him about the vetting process that would have stopped him making the appointment.
On Tuesday, lawmakers voted 335 to 223 against asking the Committee of Privileges to investigate whether Starmer had misled the House of Commons on several matters, including by saying “full due process” had been followed around the appointment.
If the committee had found Starmer deliberately misled parliament, he would have been expected to resign.
Starmer had criticised the attempt, led by the opposition Conservative Party chief Kemi Badenoch, to launch an investigation, calling it a political stunt timed to sway voters before local and regional elections.
He ordered lawmakers in his centre-left Labour Party to oppose an investigation, resulting in the overwhelming rejection. Badenoch said it was a sign of Starmer’s weakness that he had to use such an order.
US intelligence agencies are studying how Iran would respond if President Donald Trump were to declare a unilateral victory in the two-month-old war that has killed thousands and become a political liability for the White House, two US officials and a person familiar with the matter said.
The intelligence community is analysing the question along with others at the request of senior administration officials. The goal is to understand the implications of Trump potentially pulling back from a conflict that some officials and advisers worry could contribute to deep Republican losses at the midterm elections later this year, according to the sources.
While no decision has been made, and Trump could easily ramp back up military operations, a quick de-escalation could ease political pressure on the president, even as it could leave behind an emboldened Iran.
The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss sensitive intelligence matters.
It is not clear when the intelligence community would complete its work, but it has previously analysed the likely reaction of Iran’s leaders to a US declaration of victory.
In the days following US-Israeli strikes in Iran in late February, intelligence agencies assessed that if Trump were to declare victory and the US drew down its forces in the region, Iran would likely view it as a win, one of the sources said.
If Trump instead said the US had won but maintained a heavy troop presence, Iran would likely see it as a negotiating tactic, but not one that would necessarily lead to the end of the war, the source said.
The CIA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said the US is still engaging with the Iranians on negotiations and would “not be rushed into making a bad deal”.
“The president will only enter into an agreement that puts U.S. national security first, and he has been clear that Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon,” she said.
High political costs
Opinion polls show the war is overwhelmingly unpopular with Americans. Only 26 per cent of respondents in a Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week said the military campaign has been worth the costs, and only 25pc said it has made the US safer.
Three people familiar with White House discussions in recent days have described Trump as keenly aware of the political price being paid by him and his party.
Twenty days after Trump declared a ceasefire, a flurry of diplomacy has failed to fully open the economically vital Strait of Hormuz, which Tehran closed by attacking ships and laying mines in the narrow waterway.
Choking off the shipping that carries about 20pc of the world’s crude oil has driven up energy costs worldwide and the price at US gasoline pumps. Iran’s ability to disrupt commerce gives it powerful leverage against the United States and its allies.
A decision to scale back the US military presence in the region, paired with a mutual lifting of the blockade, would eventually bring down gasoline prices.
So far, however, the two sides appear far from any agreement.
Last weekend, Trump cancelled a trip by his special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner to meet Iranian officials in Pakistan, telling reporters on Saturday that it would take “too much time” and that if Iran wanted to talk “all they had to do was call.”
Military options remain on table
Various military options remain formally on the table, with renewed airstrikes on Iran’s military and political leaders among them, according to a separate person familiar with administration dynamics.
One of the US officials and another person familiar with the discussions said, however, that the most ambitious of those options, such as a ground invasion of the Iranian mainland, appear less likely than they did a few weeks ago.
A White House official described the domestic pressure on the president to wrap up the war as “enormous.”
ISLAMABAD: Energy prices are projected to surge by 24 per cent this year to their highest level since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, as the war in the Middle East sends a severe shock through global commodity markets, the World Bank Group said in its latest Commodity Markets Outlook.
Overall, commodity prices are forecast to rise 16pc in 2026, driven by soaring energy and fertiliser prices and record-high prices for several key metals, according to the assessment.
“The shock will have serious implications for job creation and development,” the analysis indicates.
The World Bank noted: “Attacks on energy infrastructure and shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, which handles about 35pc of global seaborne crude oil trade, have triggered the largest oil supply shock on record, with an initial reduction in global oil supply of about 10 million barrels per day.
“Even after moderating from their recent peak, Brent oil prices remained more than 50pc higher in mid-April than they were at the start of the year. Brent oil is forecast to average $86 a barrel in 2026, up sharply from $69 a barrel in 2025.”
These forecasts assume that the most acute disruptions end in May and that shipping through the Strait of Hormuz gradually returns to pre-war levels by late 2026, the analysis concludes.
On this, the group’s Chief Economist Indermit Gill said, “The war is hitting the global economy in cumulative waves: first through higher energy prices, then higher food prices, and finally, higher inflation, which will push up interest rates and make debt even more expensive.
“The poorest people, who spend the highest share of their income on food and fuels, will be hit the hardest, as will developing economies already struggling under heavy debt burdens. All of this is a reminder of a stark truth: war is development in reverse.”
Fertiliser prices are projected to increase by 31pc in 2026, driven by a 60pc jump in urea prices, according to the analysis.
“Fertiliser affordability will fall to its worst level since 2022, eroding farmers’ incomes and threatening future crop yields. If the conflict proves more prolonged, these pressures on food supply and affordability could push up to 45m more people into acute food insecurity this year, according to the World Food Programme.”
Moreover, prices for base metals, including aluminum, copper, and tin, are also expected to reach all-time highs, reflecting strong demand related to industries including data centres, electric vehicles, and renewable energy.
Precious metals continue to break price and volatility records, with average prices forecast to increase 42pc in 2026, as geopolitical uncertainty fuels demand for safe-haven assets, the assessment says.
It further states that rising commodity prices caused by these shocks will increase inflation and dampen growth worldwide.
“In developing economies, inflation is now projected to average 5.1pc in 2026 under the baseline assumptions — a full percentage point higher than was expected before the war and an increase from 4.7pc last year. Growth in developing economies will also deteriorate as higher prices for essentials weigh on incomes and exports from the Middle East face sharp curbs.
“Developing economies are expected to grow by 3.6pc in 2026, a downward revision of 0.4 percentage point since January. Economies directly impacted by conflict will be hardest hit, and 70pc of commodity importers and more than 60pc of commodity exporters worldwide could see weaker growth than was projected in January.”
According to the analysis, commodity prices could rise even higher if hostilities escalate or supply disruptions from the war last longer than projected.
Brent oil prices could average as high as $115 a barrel in 2026 in a scenario where critical oil and gas facilities suffer more damage and export volumes are slow to recover, it says, adding that this, in turn, would have ripple effects on prices for fertiliser and alternative energy sources such as biofuels.
“Under this scenario, inflation in developing economies could rise to 5.8pc this year, a level exceeded only in 2022 over the past decade.”
World Bank’s Deputy Chief Economist Ayhan Kose says, “The succession of shocks over the decade has sharply reduced the fiscal space available to respond to the current historic energy supply crisis. Governments must resist the temptation of broad, untargeted fiscal support measures that could distort markets and erode fiscal buffers. Instead, they should focus on rapid, temporary support targeted to the most vulnerable households.”
The report finds that oil-price volatility during periods of rising geopolitical risk is roughly twice as high as during calmer periods, with a geopolitically driven 1pc decline in oil production pushing prices up by an average of 11.5pc.
“Critically, these effects spill over into other key commodity markets, with an impact roughly 50pc larger than under normal market conditions … A 10pc oil price increase triggered by a geopolitical supply shock leads to natural gas price increases peaking at about 7pc and fertiliser price increases peaking at over 5pc. These peaks typically occur about a year after the initial oil price shock, with adverse consequences for food security and poverty reduction,” it states.
