Business and Economy

The announcement on Friday is expected to clear the path for the confirmation of his successor, Kevin Warsh.

The United States Department of Justice has ended its probe into US Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, clearing a major roadblock to the confirmation of his successor, Kevin Warsh.

US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeannine Pirro said on X on Friday that her office was ending its probe into the Fed’s extensive building renovations because the Fed’s inspector general would scrutinise them instead.

Pirro, a Trump ally and the top federal prosecutor in Washington, DC, said she had instead asked the Fed’s internal watchdog, the Office of Inspector General, to examine cost overruns in renovations of the central bank’s Washington headquarters.

“The IG has the authority to hold the Federal Reserve accountable to American taxpayers,” Pirro said in a social media post. “I expect a comprehensive report in short order and am confident the outcome will assist in resolving, once and for all, the questions that led this office to issue subpoenas.”

The move could lead to a swift confirmation vote by the Senate for Warsh, a former top Fed official whom US President Donald Trump, a Republican, nominated in January to replace Powell. Powell’s term as chair ends May 15.

Senator Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, had said he would oppose Warsh until the investigation was resolved, effectively blocking his confirmation.

The leadership transition at the world’s leading central bank could now proceed quickly.

Republicans praised Warsh during a Tuesday hearing even as Democrats questioned his independence from Trump, the lack of transparency around some of his financial holdings, and what they said was his flip-flopping on interest rates. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the committee, questioned if Warsh will be a “sock puppet“.

Still, Trump’s previous appointment to the Fed’s board of governors, Stephen Miran, was approved by the full Senate just 13 days after his nomination.

No evidence

The investigation was among several undertaken by the Department of Justice into Trump’s perceived adversaries. For months, it had failed to gain traction as prosecutors struggled to articulate a basis to suspect criminal conduct.

A prosecutor handling the case conceded at a closed-door court hearing in March that the government had not yet found any evidence of a crime, and a judge subsequently quashed subpoenas issued to the Federal Reserve.

The judge, James Boasberg, said prosecutors had produced “essentially zero evidence” to suspect Powell of a crime. Boasberg branded prosecutors’ justification for the subpoenas as “thin and unsubstantiated”.

More recently, prosecutors made an unannounced visit to a construction site at the Fed’s headquarters but were turned away, drawing a rebuke from a defence lawyer in the case who called the manoeuvre “not appropriate”.

Warsh said during the Senate hearing on Tuesday that he never promised the White House that he would cut interest rates, even as the president renewed his calls for the central bank to do so.

“The president never once asked me to commit to any particular interest rate decision, period,” Warsh said during the hearing. “Nor would I ever agree to do so if he had … I will be an independent actor if confirmed as chair of the Federal Reserve.”

Warsh’s comments came just hours after Trump, in an interview on CNBC, was asked if he would be disappointed if Warsh did not immediately cut rates and responded, “I would.”

The decision to abandon the investigation represents a rare pullback for a Department of Justice that over the last year has moved aggressively, albeit unsuccessfully, to prosecute public figures the president does not like.

Robert Hur, an lawyer for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, did not immediately respond on Friday to an email seeking comment.

On April 20, the United States fired at and then seized an Iranian-flagged container ship close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, amid its blockade of Iranian ports.

It was similar to a scene which played out in the 1980s during the so-called Tanker War between Iran and Iraq, during which both countries fired on each other’s tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, seeking to cripple each other’s economies.

As naval tensions rise again in the Strait of Hormuz – this time between Iran and the US – we break down what happened in the 1980s and examine the parallels and differences between the situations then and now:

How the 1980s Tanker War played out – a timeline

The war between Iran and Iraq began in 1980 when then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein launched a full-scale invasion of Iran following Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

In 1984, this war reached the Gulf when Iraq attacked Iranian oil tankers, seeking to cripple its oil-revenue-dependent economy. Iran retaliated by firing at oil tankers belonging to Iraq and its allies in the Gulf.

According to a report by the University of Texas’s Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, Iran also threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz then, but did not do so since its own economy, already crippled by the war, was dependent on exporting oil to the rest of the world through it.

In November 1986, when Iran struck Kuwait’s ships, Kuwait asked for foreign help. The former Soviet Union was the first to respond and helped escort the nation’s ships in the Gulf.

The US, led by then-president Ronald Reagan, launched Operation Earnest Will in July 1987, also seeking to protect tankers in the Gulf and render more assistance than Moscow. The operation involved reflagging Kuwaiti tankers with the US flag so they could legally sail under US protection.

According to an article by the Veterans Breakfast Club, a US-based website which shares experiences of former US military veterans, during Washington’s very first escort mission in July 1987, a reflagged tanker hit an Iranian mine in the Gulf.

“The convoy continued, but the incident made clear that the United States had entered a shadow war with Iran at sea,” the article said.

“Over the next fourteen months, dozens of US warships rotated through the region escorting tankers and protecting shipping lanes. US forces also conducted special operations to hunt Iranian mine-layers at night and conducted strikes against Iranian military positions and ships. The mission wasn’t a small one, consuming 30 US Navy ships at one time,” the article added.

Then in April 1988, the US frigate USS Samuel B Roberts was damaged by an Iranian mine in the Strait of Hormuz. Historian Samuel Cox, writing for the US Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC), noted in 2018 that by the end of 1987 that vessel was so badly damaged, that “the only thing actually holding the ship together was the main deck”.

So, the US launched Operation Praying Mantis, seeking to destroy Iranian vessels.

The tanker war eventually ended in August 1988, following a United Nations-brokered ceasefire agreement between Iran and Iraq.

Cox noted that by the end of 1987, “Iraq had conducted 283 attacks on shipping, while Iran attacked 168 times. Combined, the attacks had killed 116 merchant sailors, with 37 missing and 167 wounded, from a wide variety of nationalities.”

“Initially, there was great concern that the attacks would cut off the vital flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf, but all they really did was drive up insurance rates. The world’s need for oil was so great, that over 100 dead merchant seamen was apparently an acceptable price,” he wrote.

What is happening in the Strait of Hormuz now?

The current hostilities between the US and Iran in the Strait of Hormuz began when Tehran, whose territorial waters extend into the strait, closed passage to all vessels after the US and Israel began bombing the country. On March 4, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) declared that it was in full control of the strait, and ships would need to get clearance from them to pass through it.

Shipping through the strait collapsed by 95 percent, sending the price of oil – 20 percent of global supplies of which are shipped this way – soaring above $100 a barrel.

Iran, through its imposition of control over who passes through Hormuz, has for almost eight weeks now, determined which vessels can exit the strait from the Gulf into the Gulf of Oman.

At first, Iran indicated that it would allow “friendly” ships to pass if they paid a toll. On March 26, Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iran’s state TV: “The Strait of Hormuz, from our perspective, is not completely closed. It is closed only to enemies. There is no reason to allow the ships of our enemies and their allies to pass.”

Vessels from Malaysia, China, Egypt, South Korea, India and Pakistan passed through the strait through most of March and early April.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) provided these vessels with an alternative route through the Strait of Hormuz to avoid potential sea mines. US officials, including Donald Trump, have said mines have been placed there by Iran, although it has not officially confirmed or denied this.

But on April 13, alarmed that Iran was continuing to ship its own oil out of the strait, the US imposed a naval blockade of all Iranian ports. Since then, US Central Command has said US forces have directed 33 Iran-linked vessels to turn around or return to an Iranian port.

On Monday, the US military fired on and then captured the Iranian-flagged container ship Touska close to the Strait of Hormuz in the northern Arabian Sea, and, a day later, detained another oil tanker sanctioned for transporting Iranian crude oil as it sailed in the Bay of Bengal, which links India and Southeast Asia.

In a post on social media after detaining the Touska, the Pentagon wrote: “As we have made clear, we will pursue global maritime enforcement efforts to disrupt illicit networks and interdict sanctioned vessels providing material support to Iran – anywhere they operate.
International waters are not a refuge for sanctioned vessels.”

Since the US naval blockade of Iranian ports began, Tehran, which was earlier allowing vessels from “friendly” nations to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, has further tightened its grip on the strait.

Justifying the decision not to allow any foreign ships to pass until the US ends its naval blockade on April 19, Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Aref said the “security of the Strait of Hormuz is not free”.

“One cannot restrict Iran’s oil exports while expecting free security for others,” he wrote in a post on X.

Last Saturday, Iran reportedly fired at two Indian-flagged merchant vessels in the strait. The IRGC said the two ships were attacked because they were “operating without authorisation”, according to state media reports.

Then, on April 22, Iran captured two container ships seeking to exit the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz after firing on them and another vessel.

What are the parallels between the two wars?

Just like during the Tanker War of the 1980s, shipping has been severely disrupted by the US-Israel war on Iran, upending global oil and gas prices.

According to an April 17 article by the World Economic Forum, from the mid-1980s when the Tanker War took place, to the start of the new millennium, a barrel of crude oil averaged $20.

On Friday, while a ceasefire between the US and Iran was in effect, a naval battle was still playing out in the Strait of Hormuz, and Brent crude, the international benchmark, topped $106 per barrel. During open warfare between the US, Israel and Iran in March and early April, oil rose as high as $119 per barrel.

Mines in the sea are another problem common to both time periods.

While vessels were damaged by mines during the 1980s Tanker War, there has so far been no report of vessels being damaged by mines in the current war. However, the risk is the same.

US President Donald Trump has said the US will ramp up efforts to remove mines from the Strait of Hormuz. This has not begun yet, however.

According to CNN, there are only a few US minesweeping ships in the Gulf. The US Navy also told the broadcaster that four dedicated minesweepers stationed in the Gulf region were decommissioned last year.

John Phillips, a British safety, security and risk adviser and former military instructor, told Al Jazeera: “There are some clear parallels between the current situation in Hormuz and the Tanker War of the 1980s. In both cases, the basic idea is the same: pressure at sea can have effects far beyond the water itself.

“A relatively small amount of naval disruption, whether that means mining, harassment of shipping, missile threats, or attacks on tankers, can create real strategic and economic consequences, especially in a chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz. So in that sense, the original Tanker War is a useful reminder of how vulnerable global trade can be when the maritime domain becomes part of a wider political or military confrontation.”

What are the differences between the two wars?

During the Tanker War, the US escorted ships to protect them from Iranian attacks and also deployed vessels to remove mines. NATO countries like the United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, France and Italy also joined.

But in the current standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, US allies like the UK and other NATO nations have refused to join Washington in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, or begin minesweeping operations, fearing they will be dragged into the war.

In a post on Truth Social in early April, the US president took aim at allies, “like the United Kingdom”, which, he said, have “refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran”, telling them to either buy US fuel or get involved in the rapidly escalating war.

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” Trump wrote.

The framework of the US-Israel war on Iran is different from that of the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, experts say.

“In the 1980s, the Tanker War was part of the broader Iran-Iraq War, so the shipping attacks were tied to a much larger land conflict between two regional armies. Today, the situation is more about Iran’s standoff with the United States and its allies, and the maritime activity is less about asymmetrical war at sea and more about deterrence, signalling and the threat of escalation,” said Phillips.

“The military lesson, really, is that Hormuz is still one of those places where limited actions can have outsized effects, but the modern setting is more fast-moving, more technologically advanced and potentially more volatile than the original Tanker War,” he added.

Analysts have also pointed out that, unlike in the 1980s, Iran is currently stronger when it comes to withstanding attacks and naval blockades by the US.

In the Tanker War, Iraq was militarily supported by Western allies, while Iran was under a US arms embargo imposed in 1979 after the Iranian revolution. While this gave Iraq a military advantage, Iran’s IRGC used asymmetric warfare tactics by striking Iraq’s allies’ ships and oil tankers.

Experts also say that since the 12-day war between Iran and Israel last year, Tehran has shifted its military doctrine from one that is primarily about defensive containment to an explicitly offensive asymmetric posture.

“Iran today appears more structurally aggressive in doctrine where it is formally embracing earlier and more extensive use of regional missiles, drones, cyberattacks and energy coercion [when energy resources and infrastructure are targeted or cut off], but is operationally constrained by battle damage, sanctions and internal instability,” Phillips, the risk adviser and a former military chief instructor, told Al Jazeera in an interview on March 2.

A former US ambassador to Bahrain, Adam Ereli, also told Al Jazeera that Iran and the IRGC have “revolutionary fervour”, which means they can “survive”.

“They can tolerate pain for a lot longer than I think most American decision-makers and planners calculate,” he said.

Meta will lay off 8,000 workers while Microsoft is offering buyouts to 8,750 people, a first for the Windows maker.

Meta is laying off about 8,000 workers, or about 10 percent of its workforce, the company has said as it continues to ramp up spending on artificial intelligence infrastructure and highly paid AI-expert hires.

On Thursday, the company said it was making the cuts for the sake of efficiency and to allow new investments in parts of its business, as first reported by Bloomberg, which also said the company will leave about 6,000 jobs unfilled.

Also on Thursday, Microsoft said it was offering voluntary buyouts to thousands of its US employees.

The software giant plans to make the offers in early May to about 8,750 people, or 7 percent of its US workforce, according to two people familiar with the plan who were not authorised to speak about it publicly.

While an alternative to the sudden layoffs removing tech workers from peers like Meta and Oracle, the savings are likely tied to a similar industry upheaval that is requiring huge spending on the costs of artificial intelligence.

Meta has already warned investors that its 2026 expenses will grow significantly — to the range of $162bn to $169bn — driven by infrastructure costs and employee compensation, particularly for the AI experts it has been hiring at eye-popping pay levels.

This week, Meta also said it was breaking ground on an AI-optimised data centre in Tulsa, Oklahoma, a $1bn investment and its 28th data centre in the US.

Wedbush analyst Dan Ives welcomed Meta’s cuts in a note to investors on Thursday.

He said he sees it as part of a strategy of using AI tools to “automate tasks that once required large teams, allowing the company to streamline operations and reduce costs while maintaining productivity, driving an increased need for a leaner operating structure”.

Microsoft, based in Redmond, Washington state, has spent billions of dollars on operating an ever-expanding global network of data centres that power cloud computing services, AI systems and its own suite of productivity tools, including the AI assistant Copilot.

CNBC reported earlier on Thursday on a memo from Microsoft’s chief people officer, Amy Coleman, announcing the voluntary retirement plan.

“Our hope is that this program gives those eligible the choice to take that next step on their own terms, with generous company support,” Coleman wrote, according to CNBC.

Meta stock fell 2.3 percent on Thursday, while Microsoft stock ended the day down 3.97 percent.

The United States Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against an active-duty soldier for placing a bet on the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, using classified military information for personal profit.

On Thursday, prosecutors accused Gannon Ken Van Dyke, 38, of cashing in on the operation against Maduro, to the tune of more than $400,000.

They say he used the prediction market platform Polymarket 13 times to bet on topics including whether US forces would “invade” Venezuela and when Maduro would be removed from office. Officials framed his actions as a dire breach of public trust.

“Gannon Ken Van Dyke allegedly betrayed his fellow soldiers by utilizing classified information for his own financial gain,” said James C Barnacle Jr, an assistant director at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Van Dyke has been charged with three counts of violating the Commodity Exchange Act, one count of wire fraud and one count of carrying out an unlawful monetary transaction.

Each commodities fraud and unlawful transaction charge carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The wire fraud charge could result in up to 20 years.

The availability of prediction markets — online betting platforms where users can gamble on real-world events — has expanded under the second presidency of Republican leader Donald Trump.

Administration officials and close advisers to Trump, including his son Donald Trump Jr, maintain ties to the prediction market industry.

Trump Jr, for example, was named a “strategic adviser” to the prediction market Kalshi in January 2025, shortly before his father was sworn in.

In May 2025, less than five months into Trump’s second term, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission dropped its legal fight against Kalshi, paving the way for bets to be placed on political events like elections.

Since then, prediction markets have proliferated in the US, with some bets raising questions about the prospect of insider trading.

Critics fear government officials and other politicians could use the platforms to bet on actions they themselves control.

The sizeable bets made ahead of the US attack on Venezuela on January 3, 2026, were among the instances that raised red flags, with media outlets reporting on the “mystery trader” who scored big.

Thursday’s unsealed indictment (PDF) makes the Justice Department’s case for why Van Dyke was the trader in question.

According to the criminal complaint, the soldier — who was based at Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina — created a Polymarket account around December 26, 2025, using a virtual private network (VPN) to place his location abroad.

Within days, he was making bets related to Venezuela that prosecutors say leveraged the classified intelligence he was privy to.

Around December 27, he bought $96 worth of bets on the prospect that US forces would be in Venezuela by January 31. A few days later, on December 30, he placed roughly $1,323 in bets on Maduro being out of office before the end of January.

His gambling continued as the military operation ticked closer. On January 1, he gambled $6,100 on a range of different scenarios, including Maduro being ousted, the US invading Venezuela, and Trump invoking war powers against Venezuela.

The following day, he placed even more bets, worth $6,150, $6,000, $7,050 and $7,215 a piece.

Then, in the early hours of January 3, the US launched its military operation against Venezuela, culminating in the abduction and imprisonment of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

Dozens of Venezuelans and Cubans died in the attack, which was confirmed to the public at 4:21am US Eastern Time (08:21 GMT).

The indictment explains that Van Dyke “was involved in the planning and execution of Operation Absolute Resolve”, as the military attack was called.

“He possessed material nonpublic information about that operation at the time of each and every trade he placed in Maduro and Venezuela-related markets,” the indictment alleges.

Shortly after his $400,000 windfall, prosecutors say Van Dyke transferred much of his proceeds to a foreign cryptocurrency vault. By January 6, he contacted Polymarket to delete his account.

Thursday’s indictment comes one day after Kalshi revealed it had fined and suspended three users who were allegedly candidates in the 2026 midterm elections. All three had placed bets on the outcomes of their own races.

Two cabinet-level ministers in Peru have resigned after interim President Jose Maria Balcazar announced he would defer a decision to buy F-16 fighter jets from the United States company Lockheed Martin.

Defence Minister Carlos Diaz and Foreign Minister Hugo de Zela cited their opposition to the move in their resignation letters on Wednesday.

“A strategic decision has been taken in the area of national security with which I have a fundamental disagreement,” Diaz wrote.

The fighter jets have long been a source of controversy in Peru, where critics have questioned whether the purchase is a sign of deference to US President Donald Trump.

Last week, the left-wing Balcazar — Peru’s ninth president in a decade — announced he would leave the decision about whether to invest $3.5bn in the purchase to the country’s next elected leader.

Balcazar himself had only been in office since February, selected by Congress to replace the latest in a string of impeached presidents.

Last week, he abruptly cancelled a signing ceremony for the F-16 deal, which would have seen an initial batch of 12 new planes added to Peru’s ageing air force. The country aims to acquire 24 jets overall.

Balcazar explained he was not pulling out of the deal, but that he felt the next presidential administration should be involved in making such a hefty financial commitment.

“For us to commit such a large sum of money to the incoming government would be a poor practice for a transitional government,” Balcazar said at the time.

“We remain firm in respecting all agreements that may have been reached at the level of the armed forces, or in this case, with the relevant ministry of the air force, to carry out the corresponding negotiations.”

His decision, however, was met with pushback, both domestically and from the US. The US ambassador to Peru, Bernie Navarro, responded on April 17 with a warning posted on social media.

“If you deal with the U.S. in bad faith and undermine U.S. interests, rest assured, I, on behalf of
[President] Trump and his administration, will use every available tool to protect and promote the prosperity and security of the United States and our region,” Navarro wrote.

Critics of the deal, however, have argued that Peru has received more competitive offers from French and Swedish aircraft makers like Dassault Aviation and Saab AB, respectively.

But Navarro on Wednesday denied that the US had been outcompeted. In a statement, he wrote that the “bid was made at a high level of competitiveness” and called the plane fleet “the most technically advanced fighter jets ever built”.

He also denounced the delay as an unreasonable stoppage on a deal he characterised as already signed.

“In planning the delivery of a product of this calibre, there is no such thing as an inconsequential delay,” he wrote.

“Every delay results in significant costs. The same package cannot be available in a couple of months, or even weeks.”

The decision to spend the $3.5bn on 24 fighter jets was made in 2024 under former President Dina Boluarte. The purchase was to be financed by $2bn in domestic borrowing in 2025 and $1.5bn in 2026.

In September, the US Department of Defense approved a potential sale of F-16s to Peru.

But Boluarte was removed from office in October, and her successor, Jose Jeri, lasted just four months in office before he too was impeached.

The instability in Peru’s presidency comes at a time when the Trump administration is seeking greater influence over Latin America, as part of what the US president has called his “Donroe Doctrine”.

Already, the Trump administration has pushed Peru to distance itself from Chinese investment. In February, for instance, it publicly protested against Chinese ownership in the Pacific port of Chancay.

“Peru could be powerless to oversee Chancay, one of its largest ports, which is under the jurisdiction of predatory Chinese owners,” the Trump administration wrote in a social media post.

“We support Peru’s sovereign right to oversee critical infrastructure in its own territory. Let this be a cautionary tale for the region and the world: cheap Chinese money costs sovereignty.”

Just this week, one of Trump’s allies, Representative Maria Elvira Salazar, warned that the Chinese-owned port was a danger to the US.

“That’s a direct threat in our hemisphere, right in the country of Peru,” she told a congressional committee. “For that reason, the new Peruvian government, which will be elected next June, must take it back.”

She added that, if the Peruvian government responded accordingly, “the United States will help them under the Trump administration”.

The country, however, is enmeshed in a messy presidential race replete with vote-counting delays and accusations of malpractice.

Election experts have said there is no evidence of voter fraud. But the slow vote count has left the race’s outcome undetermined, more than a week after the ballots were cast on April 12.

Right-wing leader and former First Lady Keiko Fujimori is all but assured of progressing to a run-off in June. But who will join her is uncertain.

Left-wing Congress member Roberto Sanchez is currently in the lead in the race for second place, with 12 percent of the votes tallied, but far-right candidate Rafael Lopez Aliaga, a former mayor, is close behind with 11.9 percent. Lopez Aliaga has been a vocal supporter of the Trump administration.

The final vote count for the first round of the election is expected to be delivered in May.

Traditionally, Peru’s new president should be sworn in on July 28, the country’s independence day.

Kevin Warsh, United States President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Federal Reserve, has addressed concerns about his independence pending his appointment to the bank amid fears that Trump could sway his decisions on monetary policy.

On Tuesday, Warsh — who served on the central bank’s Board of Governors from 2006 to 2011 — faced waves of criticism during a confirmation hearing of the Senate Banking Committee where Democrats voiced concerns about the Fed’s independence should he be appointed to lead the organisation.

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the committee, questioned Warsh’s independence, alleging that he would be a “sock puppet” for Trump, concerns he pushed back against and addressed in his opening testimony.

“I do not believe the operational independence of monetary policy is particularly threatened when elected officials — presidents, senators, or members of the House — state their views on interest rates,” Warsh said.

“Monetary policy independence is essential. Monetary policymakers must act in the nation’s interest . . . their decisions the product of analytic rigour, meaningful deliberation, and unclouded decision-making.”

Warsh, 56, also called for “regime change” at the US central bank, including a new approach for controlling inflation and a communications overhaul that may discourage his colleagues from saying too much about the direction of monetary policy.

Warsh blamed the central bank for an inflation surge after it slashed interest rates to nearly zero in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a move that continues to hurt US households.

Concerned by the implications of artificial intelligence for jobs – expected to increase productivity – and prices, he said he would move quickly to see if new data tools could provide better insight on inflation, and would also discourage policymakers from saying too much about where interest rates might be heading.

“What the Fed needs are reforms to its frameworks and reforms to its communications,” the former Fed governor said. “Too many Fed officials opine about where interest rates should be … That is quite unhelpful.”

Warsh has also long been an advocate for shrinking the Fed’s $6.7 trillion balance sheet. In the Tuesday hearing, he said any such plans would take time and must be publicly discussed well in advance.

Jai Kedia, a research fellow at the Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives at the libertarian Cato Institute, told Al Jazeera that there were many “encouraging” signs in Warsh’s candidacy.

“Warsh is presenting himself as a regime change candidate at a time when the Fed needs serious reform,” Kedia noted. “Particularly encouraging was his understanding of the negative effects of QE and his focus on reducing the balance sheet. He also correctly criticised mission creep and acknowledged that the Fed did better when it kept its focus on the dual mandate [of keeping inflation at 2 percent and increasing employment].”

Quantitative easing or QE is an unconventional monetary policy under which a central bank lowers interest rates, among other measures, to boost the economy, a step taken by central banks in several developed countries during the pandemic.

Warsh’s private investments, at well over $100m, are also under scrutiny. Among them are two holdings in the Juggernaut Fund LP, apparently part of his work advising for the Duquesne Family Office, the private investment firm of Stanley Druckenmiller.

Warsh’s nearly 70-page financial disclosure also showed that his other holdings include investments in Elon Musk’s SpaceX and the prediction trading platform Polymarket.

“I agreed to divest virtually all of my financial assets, the large majority of which will be divested” before taking office, Warsh said without giving any details.

Warsh noted that selling his holdings comes with challenges. He said that when that process is completed, he would have “virtually no financial assets” and “we’ll be sitting in something like cash”.

Warren, however, questioned him about the divestment plan. “Do we have any way to verify that, in fact, these sales will occur if we have no idea what’s in them?” she asked.

Political hurdles

The hearing quickly turned contentious, and the pace of Warsh’s confirmation process through the Senate remained in doubt.

He would not directly say that Trump lost the 2020 election – a statement of fact that Senator Warren said was a litmus test of Warsh’s independence from the Republican president who nominated him for the top Fed job.

Yet even amidst the focus on independence, Warsh needs 13 votes to clear the 24-member Senate Banking Committee.

North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis said he would vote against Trump’s nominee and join Democrats, which would create a 12–12 split. The committee has 13 Republican members and 11 Democrats.

Tillis said he would not vote for any Trump nominee until an investigation into current Fed Governor Jerome Powell, whose term ends May 15, is either concluded or called off. Last month, federal prosecutors said they found no evidence of wrongdoing. But Jeanine Pirro, the US Attorney for the District of Columbia, has not indicated that the investigation will be dropped.

Tillis said on Tuesday that he would support Warsh’s nomination once the probe into Powell is dropped.

“Today’s confirmation hearing underscored that Warsh is aiming for independence with guardrails,” noted Selma Hepp, chief Economist of Cotality, a market analytics company. “He rejected being a political ‘sock puppet’ and argued the Fed protects its autonomy by ‘staying in its lane.’ He offered no pre-commitment on rates, while emphasising inflation discipline, a large balance sheet, and a desire for clearer Fed communication.”

Noel Dixon, senior macro strategist at State Street, said that with Warsh, the US would have a “dovish-leaning Fed”.

“When a senator asked him if he would lower rates to 1 percent – I guess Trump had indicated that he would like to have rates below 2 percent – Warsh didn’t really say no to that,” Dixon noted. “He didn’t say that it would increase prices. He kind of leaned on it and said there would be a lagged effect, and he was just very noncommittal to that. So it’s almost like – just reading between the lines – he’s giving himself space to maintain possible justification for rate cuts by the end of the year.”

Trump has continued to pressure the central bank.

On Tuesday, he said he would be “disappointed” if the Fed did not lower interest rates.

Tuesday’s remarks follow comments in December, when the US president said he would not appoint anyone to lead the central bank unless they agreed with him.

“The public needs to know whether Mr. Warsh will have the courage of his convictions or if he’s willing to compromise his independence and accommodate more Wall Street deregulation,” Graham Steele, an academic fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, told Al Jazeera in an email.

Warsh has praised the administration for its push for increased bank deregulation. In a November 2025 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Warsh claimed that Trump’s “deregulatory agenda” is “the most significant since President Ronald Reagan’s”.

Defence deal is latest example of deepening ties between Canberra and Tokyo amid shared concerns over China’s rise.

Australia and Japan have signed contracts for the first three of 11 warships set to be delivered to the Australian navy under a landmark $7bn defence deal, as the two close US allies in the Asia Pacific region deepen defence cooperation.

Australia’s Defence Minister Richard Marles and Japanese Defence Minister Koizumi Shinjiro made the announcement in Melbourne on Saturday at the signing ceremony for the Mogami-class warships.

The “Mogami Memorandum” pledges to deepen military ties, including through “closer industrial cooperation” in defence.

Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries will build three of the stealth frigates in southern Nagasaki Prefecture, while Australia’s Austal will build eight in Western Australia.

The first of the Japanese-built warships is scheduled to be delivered in 2029 and enter service in 2030.

“Our surface fleet is more important than at any time in decades,” Marles said in a statement.

“These general-purpose frigates will help secure our maritime trade routes and northern approaches as part of a larger and more lethal surface combatant fleet.”

Shinjiro said closer defence coordination was becoming more important as Australia and Japan faced an “increasingly severe security environment”.

Australia’s government last year announced that it had chosen Mitsubishi Heavy Industries to build its fleet of next-generation warships, following a bidding war between the Tokyo-based firm and Germany’s Thyssenkrupp.

Australia has committed to a record $305bn in military spending over the next decade, as part of a widespread defence overhaul aimed at boosting the country’s naval power to levels not seen since World War II.

Under the plans, Canberra’s defence spending is set to rise to 3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 3033, from about 2 percent now.

Australia and Japan, two of the United States’ closest allies, have ramped up military cooperation in recent years amid shared concerns about shifts in the regional security environment, particularly China’s rising influence. Tokyo and Canberra are also members of the Quad security bloc led by the US.

Mukalla, Yemen – The Yemeni government’s measures to curb the devaluation of the Yemeni riyal have finally borne fruit, but they have created another problem: A severe liquidity crunch.

The government’s central bank, based in the southern city of Aden, has shut down unauthorised exchange firms it says were involved in currency speculation, centralised internal remittances under a controlled system, and formed a committee to oversee imports and provide traders with hard currency.

These measures have helped curb the riyal’s freefall, from about 2,900 to the United States dollar months ago to about 1,500 today, a move that was initially welcomed. But the gains have been short-lived, as public frustration has grown over a worsening shortage of cash in riyals.

People across government-controlled cities such as Aden, Taiz, Mukalla and others have said they are facing an unprecedented shortage of Yemeni riyals in the market. Many, particularly those holding US dollars or Saudi riyals, said local banks and exchange firms are refusing to convert foreign currency, or are limiting daily exchanges to as little as 50 Saudi riyals per person, citing a shortage of local cash.

This has left many Yemenis unable to access cash or use their savings in hard currency at a time of mounting economic pressure, paralysing businesses and giving rise to a black market where traders exchange foreign currency at more unfavourable rates to the customer.

Businesses grind to a halt

Mohammed Omer, who runs a small grocery shop in Mukalla, said he has spent hours crisscrossing the city’s exchange firms trying to convert a few hundred Saudi riyals he received from customers. “I’ve gone from one exchange to another, and they refuse to exchange more than 50 riyals,” said Omer, a man in his early 50s with a salt-and-pepper goatee. “It’s a waste of time and effort – I’ve had to close my shop.”

Yemen has endured an economic meltdown for more than a decade, stemming from a war between the Saudi-backed government and the Iran-aligned Houthis that has killed thousands and displaced millions.

Alongside the fighting on the battlefield, the warring sides have targeted each other’s main sources of revenue, leaving both the Houthis and the government strapped for cash, struggling to pay public-sector salaries and fund basic services in areas under their control.

At a board meeting in March, the Central Bank in Aden said it was aware of the cash shortage and had approved several unspecified “short- and long-term” measures to address the problem, noting that it is pursuing “conservative precautionary policies” to stabilise the riyal and curb inflationary pressures.

Government employees have also complained that the cash-strapped Yemeni government is paying salaries in low-denomination banknotes – mainly 100 riyals – forcing them to carry their wages in bags.

Munif Ali, a government employee in Lahj, took to Facebook to express his frustration, posting a video of himself sitting beside large, tightly packed bundles of 100- and 200-riyal notes that he said he received from the central bank. Munif, like many Yemenis on social media, said traders are refusing to accept large quantities of low-value notes. “Merchants are refusing to recognise this,” Munif said, referring to the stacks of 100- and 200-riyal notes in front of him. “Legal action should be taken against them.”

People who have kept their savings in Saudi riyals, the de facto currency in parts of Yemen, as well as Yemeni expatriates who send remittances in hard currency to their families, and soldiers paid in Saudi riyals, are among those most affected by the cash shortage.

Finding workarounds

To cope with cash shortages and the refusal of exchange firms to convert hard currency, Yemenis have adopted a range of workarounds. Some rely on trusted shopkeepers who allow delayed payments, while others exchange foreign currency at local groceries or supermarkets, often at lower, unfavourable rates. Banks and exchange firms have also introduced online money transfers, which have helped ease the crisis for some.

In rural areas, where internet access is limited and exchange shops are scarce, the problem is even more acute.

Saleh Omer, a resident of the Dawan district in Hadramout, told Al Jazeera that he received a remittance of 1,300 Saudi riyals sent from Saudi Arabia. But the exchange firm that handed him the money refused to convert it into Yemeni riyals, citing a lack of cash, and advised him to try nearby shops.

With the official exchange rate at about 410 riyals to the Saudi riyal, a shopkeeper agreed – after repeated appeals – to exchange only 500 riyals, and at a lower rate of 400. “I nearly begged the shopkeeper to exchange 500 riyals,” Saleh said. To convert the remaining 800 riyals, he added, he would have to return another day and go from one shop to another. “We are suffering greatly just to convert Saudi riyals into Yemeni riyals.”

Connections matter

Well-connected individuals are often better positioned than others to navigate the cash shortage, with some relying on personal contacts at banks and exchange firms to access cash. Khaled Omer, who runs a travel agency in Mukalla, said most of his business transactions are conducted in Saudi riyals or US dollars. But when he needs Yemeni riyals to pay employees or cover utilities, he turns to a trusted contact at a local exchange firm. “We work with a money exchange trader when we need riyals to pay salaries or meet basic expenses,” Khaled told Al Jazeera. “Exchange companies say they are facing a liquidity crunch.”

On social media, Yemenis say some patients have been denied medication as health facilities refuse to accept payment in Saudi riyals, while exchange firms decline to convert the currency into Yemeni riyals.

In Taiz, Hesham al-Samaan said a local hospital refused to accept Saudi riyals from a relative of a patient, forcing him to roam the city in search of someone to exchange the money to pay for treatment. “Is there any justice for the people, oh government? Will anyone hold accountable those who refuse to exchange currency and exploit people’s needs?” al-Samaan wrote in a Facebook post that drew dozens of comments from others reporting similar experiences, including being denied medical services because they did not have local currency.

For traders who import goods from Saudi Arabia, the cash crisis has become something of a blessing in disguise, as Saudi riyals are increasingly available at discounted rates. A clothing trader in Mukalla told Al Jazeera that he accepts payments in both Yemeni riyals and Saudi riyals, partly to attract customers and partly to secure the foreign currency he needs for his business. “As a businessman who sells goods in Yemeni riyals, I benefit from the cash shortage,” he said on condition of anonymity. “Exchange companies that need local currency I hold sell me Saudi riyals at lower rates.”

The world is reckoning with the biggest oil supply disruption in history, one that has sent energy prices soaring, rattled stock markets and exposed the deep vulnerabilities of economies still hooked on fossil fuels. While millions face higher fuel and energy bills, top oil and gas companies are reportedly profiting about $30m per hour since the war began.

This week on UpFront, Redi Tlhabi speaks with renowned economist Mariana Mazzucato about what a genuine green industrial strategy looks like, why the World Bank has fallen short, and how her concept of the “common good economy” offers a new compass for governments navigating crises.

Brent crude falls more than 9 percent after Iran said it will reopen the strategic waterway, only to shut it down again over US blockade of its ports.

Oil prices have plummeted to their lowest point in weeks after Iran said the Strait of Hormuz was open for passage during a ceasefire in Lebanon, and United States President Donald Trump said he expected to ⁠reach a deal to end the war soon.

Brent crude, the international benchmark, fell more than 9 percent to $90.38 a barrel on Friday, taking it below $91 for the first time since March 10.

The plunge came after Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the strait was “completely open” and would remain so for the duration of the 10-day ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon, which took effect on Friday.

Hailing Tehran’s announcement, Trump declared the waterway “ready for business and full passage,” but said the US Navy’s blockade of Iranian ports would remain in “full force” until the sides reached a peace deal.

On Saturday, however, Iran rowed back on its decision to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, warning that it would continue to block transit through the key waterway as long as the US blockade of Iranian ports remained in effect.

The announcement came after Trump said the blockade “will remain in full force” until Tehran reaches a deal with the US, including on its nuclear programme.

Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil passes through Hormuz and further limits would squeeze already constrained supply, driving prices higher once again.

Amid the escalation, Pakistani officials say they are trying for more talks between the US and Iran ahead of the April 22 ceasefire deadline.

Meanwhile, ship tracking data displayed by MarineTraffic earlier on Saturday showed a significant uptick in vessels crossing the strait, which is located between Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

“It’s busy out there, the busiest I’ve seen it since the Strait of Hormuz was effectively closed at the beginning of the war,” Michelle Wiese Bockmann, an analyst at maritime intelligence firm Windward, said in a post on X.

“Last night there were few ships taking the risk but overnight there seems to have been a change.”

While Iran allowed a limited number of vetted ships to transit the waterway since the start of the war, traffic has remained at a trickle compared with pre-conflict levels.

The near-total closure of the strait has triggered one of the worst energy shocks in history, driving up fuel prices and prompting governments to roll out emergency measures.

Oil prices have swung wildly since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran on February 28, hitting a post-conflict peak of $119 a barrel on March 19.

Shipping companies said several things had to be clarified, including the presence of mines, Iranian conditions, practical implementations.

Shipping companies have cautiously welcomed Iran’s announcement that the Strait of Hormuz is open but said they would require clarifications, including about the risk of mines, before vessels move through the entry point to the Gulf.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Friday that the Strait of Hormuz was open to all commercial vessels during a 10-day Lebanon ceasefire accord, prompting a fall in oil and other commodity prices while stock markets rose.

All commercial ships, including United States vessels, can sail through the strait, although their plans need to be coordinated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a senior Iranian official told the Reuters news agency.

Transit would be restricted to lanes which Iran deemed safe, adding that military vessels were still prohibited, the official said.

“We are currently verifying the recent announcement related to the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, in terms of its compliance with freedom of navigation for all merchant vessels and secure passage,” said Arsenio Dominguez, secretary-general of the United Nations shipping agency, the International Maritime Organization.

The Norwegian Shipowners’ Association said several things had to be clarified before any ships could transit the strait, including the presence of mines, Iranian conditions and practical implementation.

“If this represents a step towards an opening, it is a welcome development,” said Knut Arild Hareide, CEO of the association which represents 130 companies with some 1,500 vessels.

Shipping association BIMCO cautioned members on returning to the strait.

“The status of mine threats… is unclear and BIMCO believes shipping companies should consider avoiding the area,” said Jakob Larsen, BIMCO’s chief safety and security officer.

The threat posed by mines in parts of the strait is not fully understood, and avoidance of the area by ships should be considered, a US Navy advisory on Friday, seen by Reuters, also said.

German shipping group Hapag-Lloyd on Friday said it was working for its ships to sail through the strait “as soon as possible”, but added that several questions remained.

“Our crisis committee is in session and will try to resolve all open items with the relevant parties within the next 24-36 hours,” it added.

Its Danish peer Maersk said it was closely monitoring the security situation and would act based on its risk assessment.

France’s CMA CGM and Norwegian oil tanker group Frontline declined to comment.

A recent route imposed by Tehran through its territorial waters near Larak Island would present navigational challenges even if vessels were not required to pay a toll, and would raise questions regarding compliance and insurance, said Matt Wright, lead freight analyst at data intelligence firm Kpler.

US President Donald Trump on Friday said Iran had agreed to never close the strait again, and that it was removing sea mines from it.

One of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints, disruption in the strait has forced shipping companies to suspend sailings, reroute cargo and rely on costly workarounds to keep goods moving in and out of the Gulf.

Hungary’s newly elected leader, Peter Magyar, stormed to power last weekend after campaigning to, among other things, take a step back from Russia.

Instead, Magyar has promised voters he will steer Hungary back towards the European Union, following the 16-year rule of far-right Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who went to great lengths to deepen ties with Russia.

Under Orban, Hungary opposed most of the European Union’s stances against Russia and  blocked sanctions and obstructed military aid for Ukraine.

Above all, he and his Fidesz party entrenched Hungary’s reliance on Russian oil.

Now, following a massive electoral turnout and a landslide victory, Magyar – once a devotee of Orban and now leader of the centre-right Tisza party – has promised to end Russian oil imports by 2035. But how realistic a goal is that? And can he achieve it?

How much does Hungary depend on Russia for energy?

Hungary has been central to keeping Russian oil and gas flowing into the EU, even as Europe and the US banned some imports and imposed sanctions on anyone paying more than $60 a barrel for Russian oil.

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU banned seaborne imports of Russian oil but kept land flows legal. That allowed Hungary to continue importing most of its crude by pipeline via Ukraine.

The EU first announced plans to phase out Russian energy imports in May 2022, shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In December 2025, a binding agreement was made for member nations to completely phase out Russian oil and gas imports by late 2027. But, instead of diversifying from Moscow, Hungary increased its dependency.

According to a 2026 report by the Center for the Study of Democracy (CSD), Hungary had expanded its reliance on Russian crude from 61 percent in 2021 to 93 percent by 2025.

Much of the crude oil Hungary imports from Russia comes via the Druzhba pipeline. It is one of the key pipelines that ensures the continued flow of Russian crude to both Hungary and Slovakia. At 5,500 km (3,420 miles) long, it begins in Almetyevsk in western Russia and runs into Belarus. It splits at Mozyr, with one branch going to Poland and Germany and the southern branch goes through Ukraine into Slovakia, Hungary and Czechia.

In January, the section of the pipeline running through Ukraine suffered significant damage. Ukraine blamed a Russian airstrike – Moscow denies that.

Hungary and Slovakia have complained that Ukraine has been deliberately slow to repair the damage. As a result, in March, Orban vetoed a 90 billion euro ($106bn) loan from the EU to Ukraine until the pipeline reopens.

On Tuesday this week, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said oil will flow again through the conduit by the end of April as he expects the new Hungarian leadership to lift its veto on the loan by then.

As for gas, Hungary remains one of the most dependent EU member states on Russian natural gas, accounting for roughly three-quarters of its annual imports, the CSD report shows.

Since the start of Russia’s invasion, Hungary has imported an estimated 15.6 billion euros ($18.4bn) worth of Russian gas. Long-term contracts with Russia’s state-owned Gazprom, the continued reliance on TurkStream – a natural gas pipeline running from Russia to Turkiye – and “the weak use of alternative interconnectors have locked the country into Russia’s reconfigured gas export system”, the CSD report states.

Nuclear energy dependency is yet another issue. Hungary granted Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear energy corporation, the construction contract for the expansion of its Paks atomic plant, 100km (62 miles) southwest of Budapest on the Danube River. Russia, in turn, provided Hungary with a state loan to finance most of the development of new reactors. The European Commission approved the plan in 2017 and construction started in February.

Now, Magyar says he intends to reassess the project’s financing. But the Paks plant provides 40 to 50 percent of all electricity generated in Hungary. The expansion plans will increase that to between 60 and 70 percent, which would cut reliance on imported energy, but keep Hungary tied to Russia. 

According to a 2025 joint research paper by the Center for the Study of Democracy and the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, Hungary could potentially diversify its energy supply by importing non-Russian oil via alternative sources such as the Adria pipeline. It transports crude from the Adriatic Sea to refineries in Croatia, Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. Their refiners, which are controlled by Hungarian oil and gas company MOL, are capable of processing non-Russian crude, the research paper said.

Russian oil has been coming in at a discounted rate as a result of Western sanctions, so any diversification will likely be more expensive.

Can Hungary wean itself off its dependence on Russian oil?

It won’t be easy, and Magyar knows it. “The geographical position of neither Russia nor Hungary will change. Our energy exposure will also be here for a while,” he said before last weekend’s election. And in an interview with the Financial Times, Magyar insisted that Russian imports should remain an option. “This does not mean that by ending dependence on someone you no longer continue to buy from them,” he said.

Magyar will seek to strike a balance between respecting current contracts with Moscow to ensure Hungary’s energy security, while establishing political distance, said Pawel Zerka, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

“I would expect this government not to be pro-Russia in the sense of going to Moscow and keeping ties with the Russian government, but they don’t have easy options to replace Russian fuel with something else, especially considering the international situation with the Middle East,” Zerka said, referring to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf which has blocked the shipping of 20 percent of the world’s oil and LNG supplies.

Zerka added that the newly elected leader will not have political room to be particularly cordial with Russian President Vladimir Putin, considering the disapproval of Russia by his electoral base. A recent poll by the European Council on Foreign Relations shows that a majority of Tisza’s voters see Russia as an adversary or rival to compete with.

“It will be interesting to see how he combines this with energy needs,” Zerka said.

How does the EU view Hungary’s energy ties to Russia?

The strong energy ties between Russia and Hungary have long caused friction with the EU. Following Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the European bloc has worked to cut imports of Russian oil and gas. Budapest has done the opposite.

In January, the EU passed legislation to completely phase out Russian gas and LNG imports by late 2027.

Orban’s government had called for all restrictions on Russian oil to be lifted as a result of the global energy crisis triggered by the war in the Middle East. While Trump has made some concessions on Russian oil already loaded on tankers at sea – causing several heading for China to head to India instead – EU leaders have maintained they will hold firm on sanctions.

In the lead-up to last weekend’s election, Magyar’s manifesto called the dependence on Russian energy a “systemic risk” and he would wean Hungary off its reliance by 2035. But whether he can do that in time to beat the EU’s 2027 deadline is likely to provoke discussion in Brussels.

The International Monetary Fund has downgraded its global growth forecast for 2026 from 3.3 to 3.1 percent, citing the impact of the United States-Israeli war on Iran and the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz on the world economy.

The war has damaged energy infrastructure across the Gulf, while critical exports like oil, gas, chemicals and fertiliser remain largely stranded by Iran’s shutdown of the strait and the subsequent US naval blockade of Iranian ports.

In the worst-case scenario of a prolonged war, the IMF said global growth could fall to 2.5 percent in 2026, with low-income and developing economies hit the hardest by soaring commodity and energy prices. The global shipping and logistics industry is facing a separate crisis.

But every economic crisis also has beneficiaries: despite the dire macroeconomic outlook, some corners of the global economy are thriving on the uncertainty.

Here’s a look at five industries that are doing well either despite – or because of – the darkening economic outlook.

Wall Street investment banks

Global investors have been on a rollercoaster since the start of US President Donald Trump’s second term last year. The president’s erratic decision-making, where he often issues an ultimatum one day and then changes it the next, has led traders to coin the term “TACO trade”, where TACO stands for “Trump Always Chickens Out”.

The recent volatility has made some investors anxious, but it’s been a boon to investment banks, which make millions in commissions and revenue from the surging volume of trade, according to Sean Dunlap, a director of equity research at Morningstar Research Services.

“Clients want to reposition, so they trade frequently,” he told Al Jazeera. “Spreads tend to increase, which increases the profitability for trade intermediaries like banks.”

First-quarter results for 2026 – released this week – showed that Morgan Stanley reported a profit of $5.57bn, up 29 percent year on year, while Goldman Sachs reported a profit of $5.63bn, up 19 percent year on year.

JP Morgan Chase also reported major gains, with first-quarter earnings of $16.49bn, up 13 percent year on year. The banks all cited high levels of trading, deal-making, and “robust client engagement” as the reasons behind surging profits.

The boomtime for banks could reverse course, however, if volatility persists for too long, Dunlap warned, because investors may become increasingly cautious and less willing to borrow money to make trades.

Prediction markets

As mainstream Wall Street banks reap profits, the crypto-based prediction platform Polymarket has been earning upwards of $1m a day since the start of the month by letting users make peer-to-peer bets on everything from sports tournaments to elections.

Polymarket has been doing well since the start of the war, but it revised its fee structure on March 30 to cash in even more on its popularity.

Rival platforms like Kalshi, Novig and Robinhood also follow the same business model, but Polymarket has been the standout winner of 2026 because it controversially allows users to bet on the outcome of conflicts like the Iran war.

Polymarket revised its fee structure on March 30 to cash in on its popularity. The change has already netted the platform more than $21m in fees since April 1, up from $11.6m for all of March and $6.23m for all of February, according to DefiLlama, a website that provides data analysis for decentralised finance platforms.

If the current trend continues, Polymarket could make $342m in fees this year alone, according to DefiLlama’s analysis.

Anonymous users have also made millions correctly predicting the dates of major events like the US-Iran ceasefire, but the outcomes for rank-and-file users are typically less impressive.

Researchers found that the top 1 percent of Polymarket users captured 84 percent of all trading gains, according to a new report released this month analysing 70 million trades from 2022 to 2025. The returns are so high that US federal regulators have pledged to crack down on insider trading in prediction markets following suspiciously well-timed bets on Iran war outcomes.

Aerospace and defence

Unsurprisingly, the aerospace and defence industries are booming this year due to major conflicts in Ukraine, Iran, Sudan, Gaza and Lebanon and a surge in global defence spending.

About half of the world’s countries have increased their military budgets over the past five years, according to an April report from the IMF, which means they are also buying everything from drones to missiles — more than ever before. Demand is growing particularly fast in Europe, where NATO countries have committed to raising defence spending to 5 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035.

The defence industry has, in turn, seen major gains on the stock market. The MSCI World Aerospace and Defence Index – which tracks aerospace and defence stocks across 23 global markets – reported net returns of 32 percent year on year at the end of March.

The defence index outpaced the MSCI World Index, which tracks 1,300 large and mid-cap companies across the same 23 markets. The index, which gives a broader overview of global stock markets, reported net returns of 18.9 percent over the same period.

Artificial intelligence

Last year, the United Nations Trade and Development (UNCTAD) office predicted that the AI industry would grow from $189bn in 2023 to $4.8 trillion by 2033, and the Iran war does not seem to have dented the outlook.

“Despite the shocks from the Iran war, we’re still seeing resilience in a lot of sectors like artificial intelligence and renewable energy,” said Nick Marro, lead analyst for global trade at the Economist Intelligence Unit.

One metric for the AI boom has been the high volume of semiconductor chips still being exported out of East Asia, he said. At the top of the chart is chipmaking powerhouse Taiwan, which reported record-breaking merchandise exports of $80.2bn in March, up 61.8 percent year on year, according to EIU analysis.

The surge was led by exports to the US, which grew by 124 percent year on year, the EIU said.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s top chipmaker better known by its acronym “TSMC,” on Thursday posted a net income of 572.8 billion New Taiwan Dollars (NTD) ($18.1bn) for the first three months of 2026 – up 58 percent year on year in NTD.

Another metric, initial public offerings or “IPOs,” also shows that the industry is confident for the moment, with industry leaders Anthropic and OpenAI both planning to go public this year.

Renewable energy

The Iran war has highlighted the need to transition from fossil fuels not only for environmental reasons, but also for reasons of energy security. The war marks the third major energy shock this decade, following the COVID-19 pandemic and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The Iran war has “boosted” renewable energy “given the urgency to switch away from fossil fuels and diversify towards renewable sources,” Marro of the EIU said.

Even before the Iran war began, the International Energy Agency reported that global governments were already taking active measures to invest in renewable energy for geopolitical reasons.

According to an IEA report released this month, “150 countries have active policies to advance renewable and nuclear deployment, 130 have energy efficiency and electrification policies, and 32 have policies to incentivise supply chain resilience and diversification across critical minerals and clean energy technologies.”

The Iran war has triggered another flurry of policymaking in Asia, which typically buys 80 to 90 percent of the oil and gas that transits through the Strait of Hormuz. Since the shutdown, the region has been struggling to find alternative sources of energy, forcing governments to deploy emergency measures like fuel rationing and price caps.

South Korea, Thailand, India, Cambodia, Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines have all announced a variety of measures from tax breaks for at-home solar panels to commissioning new renewable energy projects – and even restarting nuclear reactors.

The surge in policymaking has been good for the renewable industry. The S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index, which tracks 100 companies that produce solar, wind, hydro, biomass and other renewable energy across emerging and developed markets, is up 70.92 percent year on year.

The company’s stock plunged about 8 percent on the news of Hastings’s departure.

Netflix Chairman Reed Hastings is leaving the streaming service he cofounded 29 years ago as the company regains its footing after it lost its $72bn deal for Warner Bros Discovery to Paramount Skydance.

In a letter to investors released on Thursday, Netflix said Hastings will not stand for re-election at its annual meeting in June and plans to focus on philanthropy and other pursuits.

The company’s stock plunged about 8 percent on the news of Hastings’s departure. The cofounder is credited with helping to revolutionise how movies and television shows are delivered in homes, upending Hollywood’s business model.

“Netflix is growing revenues double-digits, expanding margins in 2026 and gushing free cash flow,” said LightShed Partners media analyst Richard Greenfield. “While the Q1 was uneventful financially, the departure of Reed Hastings has spooked investors.”

Netflix reaffirmed in a 14-page shareholder letter that its mission remains “ambitious and unchanged” – to entertain the world, providing movies and series for many tastes, cultures and languages. The company’s full-year outlook remained unchanged.

The company did not say how it plans to spend the $2.8bn termination fee it received after losing the Warner Bros movie studio and HBO, and lifted its earnings per share to $1.23 in the first quarter compared with 66 cents per share in the same quarter last year.

Revenue rose to $12.25bn, an increase of 16 percent from the year-ago period, modestly exceeding analyst forecasts of $12.18bn.

Netflix, which long told investors that a Warner Bros acquisition was a “nice to have, not need to have” proposition, highlighted areas of future growth.

The company said its investment in expanding its entertainment offerings, with video podcasts and live entertainment – such as the World Baseball Classic in Japan – is driving engagement.

It plans to use technology to improve the user experience and improve monetisation, as advertising revenue remains on track to reach $3bn in 2026 – a twofold increase from a year ago.

Modern warfare has dramatically changed as we have seen from the Russia-Ukraine war, conflicts involving Gaza, India and Pakistan, and the recent US-Israeli strikes on Iran. At the centre of this shift is a surging global reliance on drone and missile technology as well as advanced air defence systems.

Turkiye, one of the largest military powers in the Middle East, is increasingly positioning itself as a major supplier in the global defence sector. Central to this effort is Roketsan, a company founded in 1988 to supply the Turkish Armed Forces, which has since evolved into the country’s primary manufacturer of missile and rocket systems.

Currently exporting to approximately 50 countries, the firm is one of the fastest-growing defence companies globally.

So how did Roketsan secure a large share of the global arms trade?

Bypassing Western embargoes

Turkiye’s defence expansion was largely accelerated by restrictions placed upon it. Western embargoes aimed at halting its military advancement meant Ankara could not acquire the necessary technical systems or components.

In 2020, the United States imposed Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) restrictions on Turkiye – a key member of the transatlantic military alliance NATO. These sanctions targeted Turkiye’s military procurement agency, its chief Ismail Demir, and three other senior officials. Washington also ejected Ankara from the F-35 stealth jet programme in July 2019.

The measures came after Ankara purchased Russia’s S-400 missile defence system, which was seen as a potential threat to NATO security. The European Union also prepared limited sanctions and discussed restricting arms exports following energy exploration disputes in the Eastern Mediterranean.

To circumvent this, the country built an integrated, domestic defence ecosystem. Today, Turkiye relies on a vast supply chain of nearly 4,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) scattered across the country. As a result, the Turkish defence industry now operates with a local production rate exceeding 90 percent.

This shift has yielded significant financial returns for Ankara. In 2025, Turkiye’s defence industry reported $10bn in exports. Roketsan’s General Manager Murat Ikinci told Al Jazeera that the company currently ranks 71st among global defence firms, with ambitions to break into the top 50, then the top 20, and ultimately the top 10.

To support this expansion, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan inaugurated several large-scale facilities last week, including:

• Europe’s largest warhead facility.
• new research and development (R&D) centre housing 1,000 engineers.
• the “Kirikkale” facility dedicated to rocket fuel technology.
• new infrastructure for the mass production of ballistic and cruise missiles.

These projects represent a $1bn investment, with the company planning to inject an additional $2bn to expand mass production capabilities.

The ‘Tayfun’ and modern warfare

Roketsan’s R&D strategy – which employs 3,200 engineers and makes the company the third-largest R&D institution in Turkiye – is heavily influenced by data gathered from ongoing global conflicts.

According to Ikinci, the war in Ukraine highlighted the impact of cheap, first-person view (FPV) and kamikaze drones supported by artificial intelligence. In response, Roketsan developed air defence systems like “ALKA” and “BURC,” alongside the “CIRIT” laser-guided missile.

The regional landscape was further complicated during the US-Israel war on Iran, as cheap Iranian-designed Shahed drones – recently upgraded by Russia with “Kometa-B” anti-jamming modules – overwhelmed defences and even struck a British base in Cyprus in March 2026. During the same month, NATO air defences were forced to intercept three Iranian ballistic missiles that entered Turkish airspace.

Meanwhile, the recent conflict between Israel and Iran showcased the use of complex attacks combining ballistic missiles with “swarms” of kamikaze drones designed to overwhelm air defences. This environment makes hypersonic technology a critical asset.

This brings the Tayfun (Typhoon) project into focus. Tayfun is a developing family of long-range ballistic missiles. Its most advanced iteration, the Tayfun Block 4, is a hypersonic missile engineered to penetrate advanced air defence systems by travelling at extreme speeds.

When Al Jazeera asked for specific details regarding the Tayfun’s exact operational range, Ikinci was elusive. “We avoid mentioning its range; we just say its range is sufficient,” he noted.

Similarly, historical Western sanctions have pushed Turkiye to form new cooperation initiatives, effectively accelerating an “Eastern shift” away from Western defence dependence. Turkish drones are now being used by a growing number of countries, including by Pakistan during its war against India last May.

Based on these threat assessments, Roketsan has prioritised five key areas of production:

1. long-range ballistic and cruise missiles.
2. air defence systems, including the “Steel Dome”, Hisar-A, Hisar-O, and Siper.
3. submarine-launched cruise missiles, utilising the AKYA system to leverage Turkiye’s large submarine fleet.
4. smart micro-munitions designed specifically for armed drones.
5. long-range air-to-air missiles, a need highlighted by the brief India-Pakistan skirmish.

A strategic export model

Unlike traditional arms procurement, Turkiye is marketing its defence industry to international buyers as a strategic partnership.

“Our offer to our partners… is as follows: Let’s produce together, let’s develop technology together,” Ikinci stated.

By establishing joint facilities and R&D centres in allied nations across the Middle East, the Far East, and Europe, Turkiye is attempting to secure long-term geopolitical alliances rather than purely transactional sales. Ikinci highlighted Qatar as a prime example of this model, describing it as a benchmark for technological, military, and security cooperation in the region.

Filling the global stockpile gap

This rapid expansion comes at a critical time for the global arms trade. Ongoing wars have severely depleted the stockpiles of advanced weapon systems worldwide.

During the recent US-Israel war on Iran, Washington relied heavily on multimillion-dollar Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems to intercept cheap Iranian drones targeting US assets across Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. With growing concerns that US interceptor supplies could run low, Gulf states – which have collectively detected over 1,000 drones in their airspace – are actively seeking alternative defence technologies, creating a highly lucrative opening for Turkiye’s missile industry.

Defence analyses indicate that even military superpowers like the US will require significant time to replenish their current air defence inventories due to the complexity and massive infrastructure required to build them.

Turkish defence officials view this shortage as a strategic opening. Having localised its supply chain, Turkiye claims it can manufacture and export these highly sought-after complex systems independently.

As global demand for air defence and ballistic technologies rises, Roketsan is aggressively reinvesting its revenues into production infrastructure to expand its footprint in the international arms market.

The US has spent decades trying to squeeze Iran economically.
Six weeks into the Middle East conflict, Tehran is still standing.
US and Israeli attacks on infrastructure, industry and trade have damaged Iran’s sanctioned economy even further.

But oil revenues have kept flowing, giving the regime a financial cushion.

The Strait of Hormuz is now at the centre of this economic battle; whoever controls it controls the pressure.

At the negotiating table, sanctions relief, billions in frozen assets and war reparations are all at stake.

Meanwhile, millions of Iranians are bearing the brunt of inflation, shortages and a collapsing currency.

Now, the United States is the one shutting the Strait of Hormuz, even as President Donald Trump was calling for it to reopen just a few days ago. He said ships entering or leaving Iranian ports would be stopped by the navy after talks between Tehran and Washington fell apart.

However, this is not just about a blockade. Iran is tightening its grip on the strait, demanding the right to impose tolls on ships passing through it.

The ripple effects could go beyond energy and trade flows, challenging the dominance of the US dollar in global shipping.

Shipping costs have increased by more than 10 percent in the past month due to the US-Israel war on Iran.

Shipping and oil costs have continued to surge a month after United States President Donald Trump issued a waiver for the Jones Act, a maritime law that bars foreign-flagged vessels from transporting goods between US ports.

The 60-day waiver came into effect on March 18, as the movement of energy supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway that carries roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supply, was choked off on account of the US-Israel war on Iran.

Under the Jones Act, goods shipped between US ports must be carried on vessels that are US-built, US-flagged and mostly US-owned, limiting the number of tankers available for domestic shipments.

The Trump administration argued that the temporary waiver of the law would lower energy costs. As the waiver approaches the 30-day mark, it has had little impact on oil prices.

“It is estimated that it’s going to be about 3 cents on the East Coast and it might go up on the Gulf Coast, but these changes are so small that they’re overshadowed by the spikes in oil prices, and the oil prices keep going up,” Usha Haley, a professor of management at the Wichita State University, told Al Jazeera.

“It is minuscule, a drop in the bucket compared to the rise in oil prices.”

Oil prices have continued to rise amid the ongoing conflict, which is disrupting transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

Brent crude futures rose 4 percent on the day amid a US blockade of Iranian ports, reaching $98.91 after hitting $101.03 earlier in the day. US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude rose $2.53, or 2.6 percent, to $99.10.

The US Navy imposed a blockade of Iranian ports on Monday to prevent the movement of oil to and from Iran after talks between US and Iranian negotiators failed to reach an agreement.

The strain is also hitting consumers at the petrol pump in the US. The American Automobile Association reports that the average price of gas is $4.125 per gallon (3.78 litres), compared with $3.63 at this time last month.

Meanwhile, shippers have adapted their routes, with more than 34,000 ships diverting from the strait over the past month.

The Containerized Freight Index, the benchmark for shipping container costs, jumped more than 10 percent over the last month, and is up more than 35 percent from this time last year, amid pressure on the market to find alternative shipping strategies.

In March, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd suspended vessel routes through the strait, a waterway connecting the Gulf of Oman and the Gulf.

Also in March, within days of the start of the US-Israel war on Iran, several major vessel insurers cancelled war risk coverage for ships travelling through the waterway, including Norwegian insurers Gard and Skuld, as well as the United Kingdom’s NorthStandard, dissuading ship owners from going through the Gulf.

Since then, even though maritime insurance has become available – at 10 times the price as before the war on Iran – fuel prices are expected to normalise only once traffic through the strait goes back to pre-war levels, experts have said.

Benin will elect a new president on Sunday in a race that is shaping up to favour the chosen successor of the governing party, which has been in power for the past decade.

Outgoing President Patrice Talon, 67, is barred under the constitution from running again after two terms in power, and will step down with a legacy of mixed results: economic growth, but also a clampdown on the opposition and critics.

The small West African nation with a population of 14 million has also seen increasing numbers of attacks in its north as Sahel-based armed groups expand their territories towards the Atlantic coast.

Benin is sandwiched between its bigger neighbour, Nigeria, to the east and Togo to the west. The coastal country has increasingly gained attention as a tourist destination as more people from the African diaspora flock to its windy beach towns.

A former French colony, Benin retains French as its official language. Fon, Yoruba, Bariba, and Fulfulde are among the largest local languages spoken in the country.

Here’s what to know about Sunday’s election:

What’s happening?

About eight million eligible voters will choose a president for the next seven years.

Candidates will need to secure at least 50 percent of the votes; otherwise, a run-off will be called on May 10 between the top two candidates.

There are only two candidates, however.

The main opposition party, the Democrats, failed to get enough lawmakers to sponsor a candidate, so it is not on the presidential ballot. It earlier failed to win any seats in legislative elections in January.

Reporting from a governing party campaign event in the commercial capital, Cotonou, this week, Al Jazeera’s Ahmed Idris said the mood there was lively, but that it did not represent feelings in all of Benin after the main opposition party was sidelined.

“Most supporters of President Talon feel that this is a walkover …The only question will be whether the voting population will turn out in huge numbers. The last election we had only 50 percent,” he said.

Who is running?

Romuald Wadagni: The 49-year-old is presently the country’s finance minister and is the candidate of the governing alliance between the Progressive Union Renewal (UPR) and the Republican Bloc (BR).

A former Deloitte executive, he is expected to take a comfortable lead on Sunday, having been endorsed by current leader Talon, with whom he says he has a “father-and-son” relationship.

Wadagni, in his campaign, has touted the benefits of continuity that would come with his win. He has highlighted achievements under Talon, like tripling the national budget and posting the cotton-exporting country’s highest GDP growth rates in more than two decades.

He is also proposing new development hubs and expanding healthcare access.

Under Talon, “I had the honour of managing one of your most precious assets: your money,” Wadagni told supporters on the campaign trail in March. “I will do the job with the same seriousness and dedication,” he said.

On Friday, the final day of campaigning, he told supporters in Cotonou: “We are going to move forward, go even further with what began before your very eyes,” referring to a decade of economic transformation in the country.

Paul Hounkpe: The 56-year-old is the only opposing candidate.

A former teacher, he represents the Cowry Forces for ⁠an Emerging Benin party (FCBE).

He was formerly the culture minister under the government of ex-leader Thomas Boni Yayi of The Democrats. He also ran as a vice presidential candidate in the 2021 elections.

He is seen as a moderate, and has pledged to reduce the price of basic products and to secure the release of opponents imprisoned under Talon’s administration.

Hounkpe has campaigned on the perceived sidelining of citizens despite economic growth and flashy tourism projects under the current government.

What are the key issues?

Continuing Talon’s economic legacy

Economic growth sustained for a decade has been among Talon’s strongest achievements, and Beninese will be looking for a president who can sustain or improve on that.

Benin’s economy grew 7 percent in 2025 according to the International Monetary Fund, making it one of the region’s steadiest economies.

That’s driven by investments in trade, agriculture and infrastructure, including port expansions in Cotonou.

On the other hand, benefits have not been equally distributed across the country as poverty remains widespread in rural areas, especially in the poorer north.

Rising insecurity and political stability

Benin made headlines in December after a group of military officers attempted but failed to seize power. About 100 alleged coup planners are still in jail awaiting trial.

The coup leaders’ key complaints were the deterioration of security in northern Benin, where al-Qaeda and ISIL(ISIS)-affiliated armed groups from neighbouring Sahelian countries have increasingly launched attacks on communities. They said soldiers were “neglected” on the front lines.

Benin’s north is close to the tri-border area, a hotbed for armed violence. Lack of security cooperation with Niger and Burkina Faso, both now led by military leaders, has worsened the situation.

An attack by the al-Qaeda-backed Jama’at Nusrat al‑Islam wal‑Muslimin (JNIM) on Benin military posts last year killed 54 soldiers. Last month, another 15 were killed.

Candidate Wadagni has promised to defend the north by creating municipal police forces to guard border towns.

Shrinking democratic space

Talon has also been accused of dragging the country back into an era of autocracy, especially after authorities shut down cost-of-living protests in April 2024.

Beninese treasure the country’s reputation as one of West Africa’s most stable democracies in recent times, but critics say that has changed under Talon, and opposition groups accuse him of using the justice system to undermine other parties.

A constitutional reform in November extended presidential terms from five to seven years. It also established grounds for the president to nominate candidates to the Senate, which further raised the bar for opposition parties to enter parliament.

In January’s parliamentary election, Talon’s two allied parties controlled all 109 seats in the National Assembly.

Rights groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have meanwhile accused Talon’s government of cracking down on dissent through arbitrary detentions, restrictions on demonstrations, and pressure on independent media.

Even though a fragile ceasefire between Iran and the United States and Israel has been announced, it’s going to be a long time before prices of oil and gas come back to pre-war levels, experts say.

In response to the US-Israeli attacks, Iran choked off the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow channel linking the Gulf to the Gulf of Oman, through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil and gas exports pass from the Middle East, mainly to Asia and also to Europe.

It also attacked energy infrastructure in several Gulf countries, leading to soaring prices of not just energy but also of byproducts like helium, used in a range of products like tiles used in homes and semiconductor equipment. Fertilisers that rely on some of these inputs were hit too, impacting sowing seasons.

As a result, consumers the world over, but particularly in developing countries of Asia and Africa, have felt the brunt of those shortages and soaring prices. The question on many minds: Now that there is a ceasefire in place, how quickly will prices normalise?

“Anyone who tells you they know the answer to that question is lying,” said Rockford Weitz, professor of practice in maritime studies at The Fletcher School at Tufts University. “It’s too early to tell when we return to normal.”

There needs to be a predictable and stable flow of cargo through the strait before markets can stabilise, experts say.

“What we’re seeing is the biggest disruption in the history of global oil markets,” said Weitz.

Before this conflict, approximately 120-140 ships passed through the Strait of Hormuz every day. On Wednesday, only five vessels crossed the strait, while seven passed through the waterway on Thursday.

That shows why “to get back to normal is going to be a while”, Weitz told Al Jazeera. “And it’s too complicated to know at this stage when that will happen, as it requires collaboration with the great powers [US, China and Russia], but also regional powers [UAE, Saudi Arabia, India and Pakistan]. It’s hard to say when it will end, as there are so many parties who can make it not happen.”

There is also some concern that developments, like Iran charging a toll fee to allow ships to pass through and skyrocketing insurance fees, will keep oil prices high.

“There are reports that Iran is charging fees to tankers going through the Hormuz Strait,” US President Donald Trump wrote on TruthSocial Thursday.

“They better not be and, if they are, they better stop now.”

But experts agree that those fees, rumoured to be about $2m per vessel, are not enough to move the needle on oil prices.

“What is causing oil prices to rise is not insurance. It’s about getting tankers through. Tolls won’t be the cost driver,” said Weitz.

‘Signs of strain’

Some of that reality was on display with the reopening of the strait, showing “signs of strain just hours after the ceasefire was announced”, said Usha Haley, W Frank Barton Distinguished Chair in international business at Wichita State University.

Compounding that problem was the fact that some countries, including Iraq, had shut down production because of limited storage capacity, further taking oil supplies offline.

“That will take weeks and months to reopen,” Haley added.

“It’s going to be a contested reopening … LNG [liquefied natural gas] will take months to rebalance because of the hits to infrastructure, and can take three to six months to normalise if everything else remains normal. And it’s not.”

Slower growth

On Thursday, International Monetary Fund managing director Kristalina Georgieva warned that the fund will downgrade its forecast for the world economy next week from the current expectation of 3.3 percent. “Growth will be slower – even if the new peace is durable,’’ Georgieva said.

While the war has hit most economies, “it hasn’t really affected the two primary [US] targets – Russia and China. Russia, in fact, has benefitted enormously, and Chinese ships have been allowed to go through,” said Haley.

The US has hit Russia with multiple sanctions for its war on Ukraine, including capping sales of Russian oil to undercut its income stream. Similarly, the first Trump administration put tariffs on China and curbed US exports of certain high-end technology, measures that were held up under the administration of former US President Joe Biden and further ratcheted up by Trump last year with his tariffs blitz.

But amid the war on Iran and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the US temporarily eased some sanctions on Russian oil, and countries desperate for crude have since paid far higher prices to Moscow than the subsidised energy that President Vladimir Putin’s government was previously offering them.

“We [the US] really need to decide what we want to do long-term, who our targets are. There’s got to be some coherence to what we want to do.”

For now, “an overhang of greater risk premium of supplies out of the Gulf means oil prices will remain higher than what they were before the attack started”, said Rachel Ziemba, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

While it’s possible that some of the blocked oil and oil products could be released soon, providing a short boost of supplies in the coming days and weeks, “that would be a temporary support” and is still conditional on the ceasefire holding and converting to a broader deal, said Ziemba.

For now, she’s keeping an eye on Iraq to see if it strikes a side deal with Iran. Iraq, long a proxy battleground between the US and Iran, can produce at least 3.5 million barrels of oil per day, production that it had shut off because of limited storage capacity, said Ziemba.

Should that come back online, it will help oil flows and, eventually, prices. But the uncertainty of the truce and the history of attacks on Iraq mean that the future of the country’s oil production remains unclear. “In that environment, who wants to invest in scaling up production?” Ziemba wondered.

Washington and Tehran accuse each other of not honouring truce agreement.

Shipping remains at a standstill in the Strait of Hormuz despite the ceasefire agreement between the United States and Iran, dampening hopes for a resolution to one of the worst global energy disruptions in history.

Only a handful of vessels have transited the critical strait since Washington and Tehran on Tuesday announced a two-week pause in fighting, according to ship tracking data.

Five vessels crossed the strait on Wednesday, down from 11 the previous day, and seven transited on Thursday, according to data from market intelligence firm Kpler.

More than 600 vessels, including 325 tankers, are still stranded in the Gulf due to the blockage of the strait, according to Lloyd’s List Intelligence.

“While some vessel movement has resumed, traffic remains very limited, compliant shipowners are likely to stay cautious, and safe transit capacity is expected to remain constrained at maximum 10–15 passages a day if the ceasefire holds, without consideration of tolls applied,” Kpler trade risk analyst Ana Subasic said in an analysis on Thursday.

The waterway, which usually carries about one-fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies, typically handled about 120-140 transits before the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran on February 28.

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump accused Iran of failing to live up to its part of the ceasefire agreement, which includes a commitment to allow “safe passage” through the waterway for two weeks.

“Iran is doing a very poor job, dishonorable some would say, of allowing Oil to go through the Strait of Hormuz,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“That is not the agreement we have!”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi earlier accused the US of not honouring the deal, warning, in reference to Israel’s ongoing attacks on Lebanon, that it had to choose between a ceasefire or “continued war” via its ally.

“The world sees the massacres in Lebanon,” Araghchi said in a post on social media.

“The ball is in the US court, and the world is watching whether it will act on its commitments.”

After plummeting on the back of the ceasefire announcement, oil prices have begun to tick up as markets digest the reality that maritime traffic remains effectively halted despite the truce.

“This moment requires clarity. So let’s be clear: the Strait of Hormuz is not open,” Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, the CEO of the United Arab Emirates’ state-run oil company, ADNOC, said in a social media post on Thursday.

“Access is being restricted, conditioned and controlled. Iran has made clear – through both its statements and actions – that passage is subject to permission, conditions and political leverage. That is not freedom of navigation. That is coercion.”

Brent crude, the international benchmark, stood at $96.39 as of 02:00 GMT on Friday, after falling below $95 a barrel on Wednesday.

Asia’s main stock markets opened higher on Friday, following overnight gains on Wall Street driven by hopes of a resolution to the war.

Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 was up 1.8 percent in early trading, while South Korea’s KOSPI and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index were up about 2 percent and 1 percent, respectively.

The government of Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa has surged its tariffs on the neighbouring country of Colombia to 100 percent, effective May 1.

On Thursday, Ecuador’s Ministry of Production issued a statement blasting Colombia for failing to adequately address drug-trafficking and border security.

It was the latest salvo in an ongoing cross-border dispute between the right-wing Noboa and his left-wing counterpart in Colombia, Gustavo Petro, who have been feuding for months.

“After noting the lack of implementation of concrete and effective measures regarding border security on the part of Colombia, Ecuador is obliged to take sovereign actions,” the Ministry of Production wrote in its statement.

It justified the tariff hike as a necessary incentive to “confront the presence of drug trafficking on the border”.

“For Ecuador, security, as well as the fight against corruption and drug trafficking, are a non-negotiable priority,” the ministry said. “This measure reaffirms the country’s commitment to protecting its citizens and safeguarding the integrity of its territory.”

Already, Noboa had slapped Colombia with 50 percent tariffs on its exports to Ecuador as of March. That, in turn, was a spike from a 30 percent tariff rate announced in January and implemented in February.

Just over an hour after the new tariff rate was announced, Petro responded on social media that Ecuador’s actions were causing the collapse of the Andean Pact, a regional free-trade agreement whose origins stretch back to the 1960s.

“This is simply a monstrosity, but it signifies the end of the Andean Pact for Colombia. We have no business there anymore,” Petro wrote.

He called on Colombia to shift its focus away from its Andean trading partners and towards Mercosur, a trade alliance helmed by Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and Bolivia.

“The Foreign Minister must initiate the process for us to become full members of Mercosur and steer us — with greater vigor — toward the Caribbean and Central America,” Petro added.

The escalating tensions between Ecuador and Colombia come within the final months of Petro’s presidency. Elected in 2022, Petro is Colombia’s first left-wing president and a former rebel involved in the country’s six-decade-long armed conflict.

But his government has faced stiff opposition from right-wing political movements both domestically and abroad.

Leaders like Noboa and United States President Donald Trump have repeatedly condemned him for not doing enough to tackle the illicit drug trade, despite historic drug seizures during Petro’s term in office.

Just last November, Petro’s government seized a shipment of cocaine worth roughly $388m, the largest drug bust in a decade.

But Petro has also championed a policy he calls “Total Peace”, which involves negotiations with rebel groups and criminal networks to put an end to the country’s internal conflict.

Trump and Petro have been at odds over multiple issues, including US immigration policies and its boat-bombing campaign in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.

In September, however, the Trump administration took the extraordinary step of decertifying Colombia as an ally in its “war on drugs”, saying that it had “failed demonstrably” in its efforts.

Then, in October, Trump sanctioned Petro and his family, blaming the Colombian president for having “allowed drug cartels to flourish”.

Noboa has echoed Trump’s stance on several foreign policy issues, including its pressure campaign on another left-wing government, Cuba.

He was among the right-wing leaders in Latin America to join Trump’s “Shield of the Americas” coalition, designed to confront criminal networks and cartels in the region.

In announcing the initial volley of tariffs in January, Noboa claimed his country had shown a “genuine commitment” to combatting drug trafficking, while Colombia had not.

“We have made genuine efforts to cooperate with Colombia, even while facing a trade deficit exceeding $1bn annually,” Noboa wrote.

Colombia remains the world’s largest producer of cocaine, a persistent trend that has existed since before Petro’s presidency.

But other factors have aggravated tensions between the two neighbours.

On Wednesday, for instance, Ecuador recalled its ambassador from Colombia over statements Petro made about its imprisonment of left-wing politician Jorge Glas, calling the former vice president a “political prisoner”.

Noboa had warned earlier in the week that he considered such rhetoric an “assault on [Ecuador’s] sovereignty”. He had previously faced criticism for authorising a raid on Mexico’s embassy to arrest Glas, which prompted Mexico to sever its relations with Ecuador.

Petro, meanwhile, has accused Noboa of bombing close to the Colombian border, as part of joint military operations with the US. Colombian officials have said they recovered 27 charred bodies from the border region.

Since Ecuador first imposed its tariffs, Colombia has suspended cross-border energy sales, which have been vital in helping Ecuador’s government navigate electricity shortages prompted by recent droughts. It has also issued retaliatory tariffs on certain Ecuadorian products.