The move, reflected in an update by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, effectively removes restrictions that had limited Rodríguez’s ability to engage with U.S. companies and investors, and underscores Washington’s recognition of her as a legitimate governing authority.

Rodríguez said the decision could open a path toward improved bilateral relations. In a statement posted on her Telegram channel, she described the move as a step toward “normalizing and strengthening relations” and expressed hope that broader sanctions on Venezuela would eventually be lifted to enable deeper cooperation.

The policy change follows the Jan. 3 capture of Maduro and his wife in Caracas by U.S. forces. Both were transferred to New York to face drug trafficking charges and have pleaded not guilty.

Their detention prompted a political transition in which Venezuela’s ruling-party-aligned Supreme Court declared Maduro’s absence temporary and installed Rodríguez as acting president.

Rodríguez, who had previously been sanctioned by Washington during Donald Trump’s first administration, was among senior Venezuelan officials targeted in 2018 for their alleged role in undermining democratic processes after a widely disputed election. Her brother, Jorge Rodríguez, and other members of Maduro’s inner circle were also designated at the time.

Despite those earlier measures, the current administration has opted to engage directly with Rodríguez following Maduro’s removal. U.S. officials have backed her role in implementing a phased plan to stabilize the country’s political and economic system, including outreach to foreign investors and commitments to increased transparency and international arbitration.

The administration has also taken broader steps to ease restrictions on Venezuela’s economy. In March, the Treasury authorized state oil company Petróleos de Venezuela S.A. to resume direct sales to U.S. buyers and access global markets, reversing years of tight sanctions on the country’s energy sector.

In parallel, U.S. authorities have formally recognized Rodríguez as the sole head of state in an ongoing civil case in federal court, further consolidating her standing in Washington’s policy framework.Maduro, however, remains Venezuela’s legal president under the country’s institutional structure.

The Supreme Court’s ruling allows Rodríguez to govern for an initial 90-day period, which is set to expire Friday, with a possible extension to six months subject to approval by the National Assembly, which is controlled by the ruling party and led by her brother.

The developments highlight an evolving U.S. approach toward Venezuela, balancing legal proceedings against Maduro with pragmatic engagement aimed at restoring economic activity and political stability in the oil-rich nation.

Despite softer oil prices, energy giants Shell and TotalEnergies reported strong, stable results that reflect disciplined strategy, investor confidence, and growing opportunities in natural gas and refining — reinforcing their leadership in the global energy transition.

Shell and TotalEnergies, two of the world’s leading energy companies, showcased steady performance in their latest quarterly results, demonstrating resilience and strategic adaptability amid fluctuating oil prices.

While both firms reported modest declines in profit, they continued to deliver solid shareholder returns, strengthened their balance sheets, and reaffirmed their commitment to long-term growth in liquefied natural gas (LNG) and downstream operations.

Shell reported adjusted earnings of $5.4 billion for the quarter ending September 30, surpassing analyst expectations of $5.09 billion.

The company’s strong showing was supported by robust results from its gas and upstream businesses, which performed better than anticipated despite weaker commodity prices.

This underscores Shell’s ability to leverage its diversified portfolio and trading expertise to sustain profitability even in challenging market conditions.

The energy major also maintained its $3.5 billion share buyback program for the quarter, reflecting continued confidence in its financial stability. Over the past four years, Shell has repurchased more than a quarter of its outstanding shares, enhancing value for investors.

Combined with dividends of $2.1 billion, Shell’s shareholder returns over the last four quarters represent nearly half of its operating cash flow, in line with its long-term payout targets.

Shell CEO Wael Sawan emphasized the company’s commitment to balancing profitability with energy transition goals. He noted that while short-term oil supply dynamics remain uncertain, the company is well-positioned for the future through its expanding LNG portfolio.

Shell continues to bet on rising global demand for liquefied natural gas, especially as countries accelerate their shift toward cleaner energy sources.

Shell’s integrated gas unit — the world’s largest LNG trading business — once again proved to be a key profit driver. The segment benefited from favorable trading conditions and resilient demand across Asia and Europe.

Looking ahead, Shell expects the LNG market to stabilize next year, with potential imbalances depending on the timing of new global projects.

The company’s cash flow from operations stood at $12.2 billion, down from $14.7 billion a year earlier, but still indicative of strong underlying performance.

Shell’s gearing, or debt-to-equity ratio, dipped slightly from the previous quarter and remains within comfortable levels. The company’s focus on disciplined capital spending and operational efficiency continues to strengthen its financial foundation.

Meanwhile, French energy major TotalEnergies also delivered a stable performance, with adjusted net income of $4.0 billion for the quarter, slightly lower than last year’s $4.1 billion.

The results aligned with market expectations and reflected strong upstream production, higher refining margins, and disciplined cost control.

TotalEnergies’ downstream operations stood out with an impressive 76% jump in profits, boosted by surging European refining margins.

The increase was driven by the European Union’s ban on fuel imports derived from Russian crude oil, which reshaped the continent’s energy supply landscape.

CEO Patrick Pouyanné noted that refining margins are expected to remain strong, projecting an average near $100 per ton in the next quarter.

Despite the external headwinds, TotalEnergies remains focused on financial discipline. The company will scale back its share buybacks slightly in the coming quarter to maintain balance sheet strength and manage debt responsibly.

Its gearing ratio improved quarter-on-quarter to 17.3%, reflecting prudent financial management.

Both Shell and TotalEnergies are navigating a complex energy landscape marked by evolving demand patterns, climate commitments, and geopolitical uncertainty.

Yet, both companies continue to balance short-term performance with long-term transformation. Shell’s emphasis on LNG expansion and TotalEnergies’ success in refining and low-carbon initiatives signal strategic foresight as the global energy system evolves.

Brent crude prices averaged around $68 per barrel during the quarter, lower than last year’s $78 average, while European gas prices also eased.

Despite this softer pricing environment, both companies’ results highlight their ability to sustain profitability through diversification, trading strength, and capital efficiency.

As the energy industry undergoes rapid change, Shell and TotalEnergies are proving that adaptability and forward-thinking strategies can yield stability even in uncertain times.

By investing in LNG, renewables, and refining modernization, they are positioning themselves not just for immediate recovery but for leadership in a lower-carbon future.

Investors remain cautiously optimistic about the sector’s outlook. Both firms’ continued focus on shareholder returns, disciplined investment, and innovation in cleaner technologies demonstrate how traditional energy leaders are redefining their roles in the global energy transition.

In a year marked by volatility, Shell and TotalEnergies have shown that strategic resilience, operational excellence, and a clear focus on long-term growth remain the cornerstones of enduring success in the evolving energy landscape.

This duality—preaching unity while practicing duplicity—has become Pakistan’s diplomatic hallmark.

When the Taliban stormed into Kabul in August 2021, Pakistan’s powerful intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Faiz Hameed, appeared at the Serena Hotel and assured journalists, “Everything will be okay.”

His confident smile captured Islamabad’s belief that decades of strategic maneuvering had finally paid off. Pakistan, long accused of nurturing the Taliban, assumed it would now wield decisive influence over its western neighbor.

Four years later, those hopes have turned to ashes. The Taliban’s rise, once hailed in Islamabad as a geopolitical triumph, has become a source of profound insecurity and humiliation.

The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), emboldened by its ideological kin in Kabul, has unleashed a deadly insurgency across Pakistan’s tribal belt. Hundreds of Pakistani soldiers have been killed in cross-border raids. The Taliban, despite Pakistan’s past support, has refused to curb the TTP.

The so-called “strategic depth” has instead exposed Pakistan’s strategic shallowness. A state that once boasted of controlling its proxies now finds itself hostage to them. The illusion of regional mastery has dissolved into a grim reality: Pakistan is isolated, insecure, and rapidly losing credibility.

Weaponizing Refugees

Having failed to tame the Taliban, Pakistan turned its frustration toward Afghan civilians. In October 2023, Islamabad launched the Illegal Foreigners Repatriation Plan (IFRP), targeting nearly 1.7 million undocumented Afghans. For decades, Afghan refugees had lived, worked, and raised families in Pakistan. Suddenly, they became scapegoats for Islamabad’s security failures.

By mid-2025, more than 600,000 Afghans had been deported in what international observers described as one of South Asia’s largest forced repatriations in decades. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch chronicled chilling stories of police harassment, arbitrary detentions, and family separations.

Pakistan justified the campaign as a counterterrorism measure, accusing Afghan refugees of harboring TTP militants. But analysts saw it differently: an act of political retribution against the Taliban regime. Kabul condemned the deportations as a breach of international law and accused Islamabad of deepening Afghanistan’s humanitarian catastrophe.

This was more than just a border dispute—it was a symptom of Pakistan’s broader malaise. A state that once prided itself on being a refuge for the oppressed had turned into a place of fear and hostility. The moral cost of Islamabad’s Afghan policy was now unmistakable.

Airstrikes and Escalation

Pakistan’s response extended beyond deportations. Under the guise of pursuing TTP sanctuaries, it began conducting airstrikes inside Afghan territory.

In April 2022, bombings in Khost and Kunar killed 47 civilians, mostly women and children. Similar attacks followed in March and December 2024, targeting Paktika and Khost. In January 2025, fresh strikes were launched along the volatile Durand Line. Over a hundred civilians have died since 2021, according to regional monitors.

Each operation fuelled anger and anti-Pakistan protests across Afghanistan. The Taliban government condemned the attacks as violations of sovereignty, accusing Pakistan of hiding its failures behind a counterterrorism narrative.

By 2025, Pakistan’s western frontier was once again aflame—only this time, without American troops to share the blame. The Afghan war that Islamabad once believed it had outsourced had come home, exacting both human and diplomatic costs.

Diplomacy as Deception

The crisis reached a symbolic peak in September 2025, when Islamabad hosted the “Towards Unity and Trust” conference under the South Asian Strategic Stability Institute.

Despite the event’s conciliatory title, the Taliban government was conspicuously excluded. Instead, the gathering featured anti-Taliban activists and politicians, turning what was billed as a dialogue into an exercise in diplomatic provocation.

Just days later, Defense Minister Khawaja Asif labeled Afghanistan an “enemy state”—a stunning reversal from Pakistan’s earlier rhetoric of “brotherhood.”

This diplomatic whiplash mirrors a deeper inconsistency at the heart of Pakistan’s foreign policy. It speaks of a nation perpetually caught between ambition and insecurity, between Islamic solidarity and realpolitik.

Even its domestic realities now echo this hypocrisy.

In early October 2025, a story broke that underscored how deeply investor confidence has eroded under the current administration. Out of 23 oil and gas exploration blocks offered for bidding, no local or foreign bids were received for 22. The only bid came from Mari Gas, and even that was for a small block with negligible output.

Taimur Saleem Khan Jhagra, Pakistan’s opposition leader, wrote “investors know this is an illegitimate govt,” saying no company—foreign or domestic—was willing to invest in a country “without rule of law.” He accused the government of driving away foreign direct investment through arbitrary governance, economic mismanagement, and political repression.

This episode is emblematic of Pakistan’s larger credibility crisis. When even domestic energy firms shy away from state-backed ventures, the problem is not market dynamics—it is a collapse of trust. The same lack of accountability that defines Pakistan’s regional duplicity now poisons its economic foundations.

The Iran Paradox and the Palestine Hypocrisy

Pakistan’s double-dealing extends far beyond its Afghan misadventure.

In June 2025, Islamabad publicly condemned U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, declaring solidarity with Tehran. Yet, only days earlier, Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir had met privately with Donald Trump, reportedly discussing “regional stability.” In a surreal twist, Pakistan went on to nominate Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, effectively undercutting its supposed alignment with Iran.

This duality—preaching unity while practicing duplicity—has become Pakistan’s diplomatic hallmark.

The same contradictions stain its stance on Palestine. While Pakistani leaders have long professed unwavering support for the Palestinian cause, history tells another story. During Black September 1970, Brigadier Zia ul-Haq, later Pakistan’s military ruler, helped Jordan crush the Palestine Liberation Organization, a massacre that claimed thousands of lives.

In July 2025, Pakistan awarded the Nishan-e-Imtiaz to U.S. CENTCOM Commander Gen. Michael Kurilla, despite his role in coordinating American military support for Israel during its Gaza operations.

At the UN General Assembly’s 80th session, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif met Daniel Rosen, head of the American Jewish Congress, signaling a quiet but unmistakable outreach to pro-Israel circles.

For a country that brands itself the guardian of Muslim causes, the hypocrisy is striking. From Amman to Gaza, Pakistan’s leaders have consistently traded principle for expediency.

A Consistent Inconsistency

Across every theater—Afghanistan, Iran, Palestine, and even its own energy sector—a single pattern emerges: Pakistan’s promises collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

It seeks influence in Kabul but alienates Afghans through bombings and deportations. It pledges brotherhood with Tehran while courting Washington. It proclaims solidarity with Palestine while decorating America’s military commanders. And now, it claims to welcome foreign investment while creating an environment so lawless that even local companies refuse to bid.

In the end, Pakistan’s gravest betrayal is not of its neighbors, but of itself. The erosion of credibility abroad mirrors the decay of governance at home. As investors flee, allies distance themselves, and insurgents advance, the message is clear: a nation that manipulates every alliance eventually stands alone.

For decades, Pakistan’s generals and politicians have built policies on the illusion of control. The Afghan gamble was meant to cement regional influence; instead, it has exposed a state adrift, distrusted by friends and foes alike.

The “everything will be okay” optimism of 2021 now rings hollow. For Pakistan, everything is decidedly not okay—and the world, finally, has stopped believing its promises.

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.