Lebanon is facing a rapidly worsening food security situation as the fallout from the war involving Iran disrupts supply chains and drives up prices. The warning comes from the World Food Programme, which says the crisis is deepening alongside ongoing displacement and economic strain.
A fragile ceasefire between the United States and Iran has done little to stabilise conditions, with continued tensions and regional spillover, including Israeli strikes inside Lebanon, undermining recovery efforts.
From Displacement to Hunger
According to WFP officials, Lebanon’s crisis is evolving beyond displacement into a full scale food emergency.
As conflict intensifies and populations are forced to move, demand for food is rising sharply. At the same time, supply disruptions are making essential goods increasingly scarce and unaffordable.
This combination of rising demand and shrinking supply is accelerating inflation, placing basic food items out of reach for many households.
Collapse of Local Markets
The crisis is not uniform across the country but reflects a fragmented economic landscape
In southern Lebanon, where bombardment has been most intense, more than 80 percent of markets have ceased functioning altogether In the capital, Beirut, markets remain operational but are under growing pressure from increased demand and limited supply
This two tiered breakdown highlights the uneven but interconnected nature of the crisis, where disruption in one region intensifies strain in another.
Supply Chains Under Strain
One of the most immediate concerns is the rapid depletion of food stocks. Traders report having less than a week’s worth of essential supplies remaining in some areas.
The disruption of key shipping routes and broader regional instability linked to the Iran conflict has made it difficult to replenish these stocks.
Even when aid is available, delivering it has become increasingly challenging. A recent WFP convoy to southern Lebanon took over 15 hours to complete a journey that would normally take only a few hours, underscoring logistical and security constraints.
Ceasefire Fragility and Regional Spillover
The instability of the ceasefire is a central factor in the worsening situation. Accusations of violations, particularly around the Strait of Hormuz, and continued military actions in Lebanon are undermining confidence and prolonging uncertainty.
This environment prevents the normalisation of trade routes and discourages commercial activity, both of which are essential for stabilising food supply.
Lebanon’s vulnerability is heightened by its dependence on imports, making it especially sensitive to external shocks in global and regional supply chains.
Implications
The emerging food crisis carries significant risks
A sharp increase in food insecurity among already vulnerable populations Further displacement as living conditions deteriorate Greater reliance on international humanitarian assistance
The situation also places additional strain on aid organisations, which must operate under increasingly difficult conditions while demand for assistance continues to grow.
Analysis
The crisis in Lebanon illustrates how modern conflicts extend far beyond immediate battlefields, disrupting economic systems and humanitarian conditions across borders.
The intersection of war, supply chain disruption, and domestic fragility has created a compounding effect. Lebanon’s pre existing economic weaknesses, including reliance on imports and limited state capacity, amplify the impact of external shocks.
At the same time, the breakdown of local markets and logistical bottlenecks reveals how quickly food systems can collapse under sustained pressure. The difficulty in delivering aid further complicates the response, turning what might have been a manageable shortage into a systemic crisis.
The situation also highlights the limits of ceasefires that fail to stabilise broader regional dynamics. Without secure trade routes and consistent de escalation, even temporary pauses in fighting offer little relief to economies and populations already under strain.
It is also scheduled to start flying to Dubai, Doha and Tel Aviv on July 1 at the earliest.
But these services will be reduced from what they were before the conflict began.
Flights to Dubai will go from three each day to one daily flight while services to Doha, Tel Aviv and Riyadh will drop from two flights to just one a day.
Flights to the city of Larnaca in Cyprus are scheduled to resume on May 22.
Meanwhile, services to Bahrain and the city of Amman in Jordan, are paused until October 25.
British Airways said: “Due to the ongoing situation in the Middle East, we have made further changes to our flying schedule to provide greater clarity for our customers.
“We’re keeping the situation under constant review and are directly in touch with affected customers to offer them a range of options.”
Due to its reduced flight schedule, BA has said it will use its freed up aircraft to head to other destinations like India and Kenya.
It will begin daily flights to Bengaluru in India and Nairobi in Africa during the summer season until late October.
It will operate a third daily service from London Heathrow to Delhi until May 31.
The airline will add its third daily flight from London Heathrow to Mumbai from May 15 to 31.
Pakistan has emerged as a key mediator in ceasefire talks between the United States, Iran and Israel, hosting negotiations in Islamabad. The announcement of the initial ceasefire by Shehbaz Sharif signaled Islamabad’s unexpected diplomatic centrality in a high stakes conflict.
This role is not incidental. It reflects Pakistan’s long standing regional ties, security concerns, and strategic positioning between major global and regional powers.
Historical Leverage with Iran Pakistan’s mediation draws on decades of close ties with Iran, shaped by shared borders, religious linkages, and past strategic cooperation. Since 1947, both states have supported each other in regional disputes, creating a baseline of trust that allows Islamabad to act as a credible interlocutor.
Despite occasional tensions, Iran continues to view Pakistan as a state willing to engage without overt hostility, making dialogue politically feasible.
Security Driven Diplomacy Pakistan’s involvement is rooted in hard security calculations. Instability in Iran could spill over into Balochistan, where separatist movements already challenge state authority. A fragmented Iran risks amplifying cross border militancy and separatist narratives.
Additionally, Pakistan’s status as a nuclear power makes regional de escalation a priority, as prolonged conflict increases the risk of external pressure on its own strategic assets.
Military Influence and US Access The central role of the military, particularly Asim Munir, has strengthened Pakistan’s credibility with Donald Trump. Direct engagement between military leadership and Washington has enabled Islamabad to maintain influence within US strategic circles.
This relationship enhances Pakistan’s ability to act as a bridge, especially under an administration that values strong security partnerships.
Emerging Strategic Alignments Pakistan’s deepening ties with Saudi Arabia and parallel coordination with the United States suggest the emergence of a loose strategic alignment. At the same time, Islamabad maintains close relations with China, which has a vested interest in Gulf stability due to energy dependence.
This dual alignment uniquely positions Pakistan as a mediator acceptable to multiple competing blocs.
Implications Pakistan’s role signals a shift in regional diplomacy, where mid tier powers can leverage geography and relationships to shape major geopolitical outcomes. Successful mediation could elevate Pakistan’s global standing, while failure risks exposing its strategic vulnerabilities.
The talks also highlight how regional conflicts are increasingly multi layered, involving overlapping alliances and competing security priorities.
Analysis Pakistan is not acting as a neutral peace broker but as a strategic actor pursuing its own stability. By engaging all sides, it reduces the risk of regional spillover while enhancing its diplomatic relevance.
Its ability to maintain simultaneous ties with Washington, Tehran, Riyadh and Beijing gives it rare flexibility. However, this balancing act is inherently fragile. Any perceived bias could undermine trust and derail negotiations.
Ultimately, Pakistan’s mediation reflects a broader geopolitical reality: influence in today’s conflicts belongs not only to superpowers, but to states that can navigate between them.
The US-Israel war on Iran has sparked a global fuel crisis as thousands of tankers carrying crucial deliveries of oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) remain stranded on either side of the Strait of Hormuz, currently under a blockade imposed by Iran.
On Saturday, Egypt’s government said it is among the “best-performing” countries in tackling the crisis because of the measures it has implemented to save on fuel.
Here is what we know about the steps Egypt is taking and whether other countries are doing the same.
Why has the Iran war caused an energy crisis?
Pressure on oil and gas markets is mounting due to the almost complete halt to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz as well as air strikes on and around key energy facilities in the Gulf as the United States-Israel war on Iran enters its sixth week.
One-fifth of the world’s oil and LNG is shipped from producers in the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz in peacetime. This is the only route from the Gulf to the open ocean.
On March 2, two days after the US and Israel began strikes on Iran, Ebrahim Jabari, a senior adviser to the commander in chief of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), announced that the strait was “closed”. If any vessels tried to pass through, he said, the IRGC and the navy would “set those ships ablaze”. Since then, traffic through the strait, carrying cargoes including 20 million barrels of oil each day, has plunged by more than 95 percent.
Now, Tehran is allowing just a handful of tankers through after reaching agreements with some countries to do so.
Besides this, energy infrastructure in the Middle East has suffered damage over the course of the war.
On March 24, QatarEnergy declared force majeure on some of its long-term LNG supply contracts after an Iranian attack on Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG facility – the largest in the world – wiped out about 17 percent of the country’s LNG export capacity, causing an estimated $20bn in lost annual revenue and threatening supplies to Europe and Asia.
All of this disruption has sent energy prices soaring. On Tuesday, global oil benchmark Brent crude was around $109 per barrel, compared to around $65 per barrel right before the war started.
How is Egypt tackling the energy crisis?
Egypt’s Petroleum Ministry has announced rises in fuel prices ranging from 14 percent to 30 percent.
On March 28, Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly’s office told a press conference that the country’s energy import bill had increased from $1.2bn in January to $2.5bn in March.
Egypt is both one of the region’s largest energy importers and among its most heavily indebted economies. While domestic gas and oil account for the majority of its total energy supply, the country still relies on imported fuels, especially refined oil products and some natural gas, from Israel and the Gulf states.
Madbouly announced measures Egypt is taking to mitigate this and preserve state energy resources.
From March 28, shops, malls and restaurants are closing at 9pm (19:00 GMT) every day for one month, except Thursdays and Fridays.
On Thursdays and Fridays, the closing time will be 10pm (20:00 GMT).
Fuel allocations for government vehicles will be reduced by 30 percent.
Street lighting and street advertisement lighting will be cut by 50 percent.
From April 1, eligible employees will work remotely on Sundays, the first day of the working week. Some essential services, such as pharmacies, grocery stores and tourist facilities, will be exempted from this.
Which other countries have introduced energy conservation measures?
Besides Egypt, other countries are also taking steps to save energy.
Last week, Malaysia ordered civil servants to work from home to save energy in government offices.
In mid-March, it was revealed that government offices in the Philippines had moved to a four-day work week, officials in Thailand and Vietnam were being encouraged to work from home and limit travel, and Myanmar’s government had imposed alternating driving days.
Pakistan, which imports about 80 percent of its energy from the Gulf, announced on Monday of this week that markets and shopping malls would close at 8pm (15:00 GMT) across the country, except in Sindh province. The government’s statement added that food outlets would close at 10pm (17:00 GMT), which is also when marriage ceremonies at private properties and houses must end.
Bangladesh has reduced working hours for government and private workers and banking services hours in a bid to conserve electricity.
In Sri Lanka and Slovenia, authorities have introduced fuel rationing and purchase limits to manage shortages and soaring costs.
HAVANA — Two U.S lawmakers called for a permanent solution to Cuba’s crises after witnessing the effects of a U.S. energy blockade during an official visit to the island.
Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Jonathan Jackson of Illinois met with Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel, Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez and members of Parliament during a five-day trip that ended Sunday.
Díaz-Canel wrote on X Monday that upon meeting with Jayapal and Jackson, he “denounced the criminal damage caused by the #blockade, particularly the consequences of the energy embargo imposed by the current US administration and its threats of even more aggressive actions.”
Díaz-Canel added: “I reiterated our government’s willingness to engage in serious and responsible bilateral dialogue and find solutions to our existing differences.”
Both the U.S. and Cuba have acknowledged recently that talks are ongoing at the highest level, but no details have been disclosed.
Jayapal told reporters she believes that recent steps taken by Cuba, such as opening the economy to certain investments by Cuban Americans living abroad; the recent announcement that more than 2,000 prisoners would be pardoned; and the arrival of an FBI team to collaborate in the investigation of a fatal shooting involving a U.S.-flagged boat, “indicate that the moment is here for us to have a real negotiation between the two countries and to reverse the failed U.S. policy of decades, a Cold War remnant that no longer serves the American people or the Cuban people.”
Cuba’s government has released the pardoned prisoners who were accused of a variety of crimes, although none so far appear to be political prisoners.
In late January, President Trump threatened to impose tariffs on any country that would sell or provide oil to Cuba, although he made an exception for a Russian ship that reached the island last week with 730,000 barrels of crude oil. It was the first petroleum shipment in three months to dock in Cuba, which produces only 40% of the oil it needs.
“This is cruel collective punishment — effectively an economic bombing of the infrastructure of the country — that has produced permanent damage. It must stop immediately,” Jayapal and Jackson said in a statement released Sunday.
Critical oil shipments from Venezuela were halted after the U.S. attacked the South American country in early January and arrested its leader, Nicolas Maduro.
Cubans already suffering from five years of economic crisis have acutely felt the impact of the fuel shortage: national blackouts, gasoline shortages and rationing, lack of public transport, cuts in working hours, paralyzed hospitals and surgeries, and suspension of flights, among other things.
Russia has promised a second delivery of petroleum, although it’s not clear when it might arrive. Experts have said that the first shipment could produce about 180,000 barrels of diesel, enough to feed Cuba’s daily demand for nine or 10 days.
Jayapal said that while such shipments are critical, they are only temporary solutions: “We need a longer, permanent solution for the Cuban people and the American people.”
Meanwhile, Jackson compared the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz off Iran’s coast to the oil blockade in Cuba, adding that the island “is the most sanctioned part of Earth.”
“Our government is fighting to keep the Strait of Hormuz open so there is a free flow of oil around the world. We want, for humanitarian reasons, a free flow of oil, fuel, and energy in our own hemisphere,” he said.
Jackson and Jayapal said they would prepare a report and continue to work on initiatives proposed by fellow members of the U.S. House of Representatives to lift sanctions against Cuba to alleviate the ongoing humanitarian crisis.
Mesquita and Rodríguez write for the Associated Press.
Conditions in Gaza worsen amid the United States-Israel war on Iran.
Humanitarian conditions in Gaza remain dire, despite the “ceasefire” that came into effect in October.
For months, the Israeli military has violated the agreement – carrying out air strikes and limiting the entry of aid.
But the situation got worse when Israel and the United States launched their war on Iran on February 28.
The Rafah border crossing was closed again. And deliveries of food, fuel and aid were further restricted.
With the Iran war disrupting global supply chains and the United Nations warning of threats to food security, what are the implications for Palestinians in Gaza?
Presenter: Imran Khan
Guests:
Dr Mohammed Tahir – Orthopaedic surgeon who has worked extensively in Gaza
Alex de Waal – Executive director of the World Peace Foundation
Xavier Abu Eid – Political analyst and former communications director for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)
When I cracked open retired firefighter Bruce Hensler’s 15-year-old book, Crucible of Fire, I felt I had found an oracle.
Before 15 out of California’s 20 most destructive fires on record, Hensler described large chunks of cities burning to the ground, insurance companies jacking up premiums after realizing they wildly underestimated the risk and politicians failing to enforce the few fire safety rules on the books.
He even describes the fire chief of a decimated city criticizing city its politicians for failing to properly prepare for such a disaster, resulting in the city ousting the chief. (Sound familiar, Palisadians?)
Yet Hensler wasn’t trying to predict what would unfold in California’s wildland-urban interface in the 21st century. He was simply telling the story of the late 1800s and early 1900s in the Eastern U.S.’ downtowns of dense, wooden buildings.
Spoiler: Firefighters, policymakers, local advocates and, notably, insurance professionals figured out how to stop it from happening. Here’s how they did it.
You’re reading Boiling Point
The L.A. Times climate team gets you up to speed on climate change, energy and the environment. Sign up to get it in your inbox every week.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
The Industrial Revolution, supercharged by the Civil War, transformed Northeastern cities into denser and denser wooden tinderboxes filled with tons of humans more than capable of accidentally generating sparks.
Fire departments, inspired by the war, were already reorganizing under a new paramilitary structure to more quickly and aggressively respond to blazes although most were still primarily volunteer-based. And beyond a few ad hoc fire safety laws that were scarcely enforced, cities’ building codes and water infrastructure naively lagged far behind the threat cities were creating.
So, cities started burning.
In 1866, a Fourth of July firecracker burned down much of Portland, Maine.
The destruction — more than $240 million in damage in today’s dollars — seriously spooked insurance companies focused on downtown industrial properties. Within days, they joined together to form the National Board of Fire Underwriters to try to stabilize their industry and promote fire-safety measures.
It wasn’t enough. A barn fire burned down Chicago in 1871 — more than $4 billion in damage in today’s dollars. A warehouse fire burned down Boston the next year — causing more than $1 billion in damage.
After the Boston fire, the board raised rates by 50% in large cities and began hurling ham-fisted threats to pull coverage altogether if cities didn’t get their act together and address their tinderbox problems quickly.
Over the next few decades, the board slowly got its own act together: It began collecting data on what caused cities to burn and funded a lab to run experiments. After Baltimore burned in 1904, the board released its own national fire-safety building codes based on that knowledge and created a grading scale to identify the risk of different cities based on their fire departments and water utilities as well as how closely their building practices aligned with the board’s building and electrical codes.
For politicians who dragged their feet because bolstering a water system or fire department is costly and designing a fire-safe building is, quite frankly, more cumbersome, the grading system made maintaining the status quo no longer viable — try explaining to your constituents that insurance rates in town are through the roof simply because the city won’t adopt the board’s new codes.
At some point, cities no longer burned down, only blocks or buildings did. As fire departments and cities continued to adopt new tech (with some pushing from the insurance industry) — motorized fire engines to replace horse-drawn ones, and later, smoke detectors and indoor sprinklers, then air tanks that allowed firefighters to enter buildings — fires didn’t often spread past a single floor or room.
These reforms, targeted mainly at commercial and industrial buildings in dense downtowns, largely missed the looming crisis in suburban residential areas that were slowly building themselves into a different kind of tinderbox that burned from the outside in.
In those areas, we’ve already seen many of the same dynamics play out: first the insurance rate hikes, then the cancellations. Now, some conversations and many heated debates — often driven by the insurance industry — are taking place around what we ought to do to protect our urban-wildland interface areas and how we can make them insurable again.
As Hensler wrote in 2011, we now “accept building fires as commonplace but no longer expect them to consume adjacent buildings or blocks.”
It reminds me of a text Keegan Gibbs, who leads the Community Brigade program with the Los Angeles County Fire Department, sent me when I asked what he hopes to see in 10 years’ time: “neighborhoods where wildfire can move through the landscape without becoming a community-level disaster.”
More recent wildfire news
State Farm reached a deal with California last month to keep a 17% rate hike that took effect after the 2025 L.A. County fires, my colleague Paige St. John reports. The state initially rejected State Farm’s 22% rate hike request but eventually offered a temporary approval of the 17% hike last year. State Farm — which said it paid $6.2 billion in claims last year, largely from the L.A. County fires — said the increase enables the company to continue serving Californians.
A monthlong heat dome over the American West, fueled by climate change, has melted mountain snowpacks significantly this year, writes fellow Boiling Point host Ian James. With more time for vegetation to dry out, the early melting brings an increased risk of wildfire across the region this year.
The U.S. Forest Service announced a major reorganization effort Tuesday that will move its headquarters from Washington to Salt Lake City, close research and development facilities in more than 30 states and shift management from broader regional offices to more localized state offices, reports Christine Peterson for High Country News. Former Forest Service employees and tribal leaders expressed concern that the move would uproot thousands of employees, scattering specialized regional knowledge. The chief of the Forest Service said the plan is intended to make the agency more “nimble, efficient, effective and closer to the forests and communities it serves.”
Gas prices in Los Angeles surged to $6 per gallon this week after the U.S. and Israel’s and the U.S.’s attack on Iran prompted the nation to close the Strait of Hormuz. However, California’s petroleum market watchdog is warning that some of the inflated price may be due to price gouging, my colleague Blanca Begert reports. In January, refineries were making 49 cents on the gallon, the watchdog group said; now, it’s closer to $1.25.
Honda is scrapping plans to build and sell three new electric-vehicle models in the U.S. after the Trump administration abandoned Biden-era policy goals to increase EV manufacturing and adoption, Dan Gearino reports for Inside Climate News. It comes after similar moves by Ford and Ram.
Finally, Heatmap News, in collaboration with MIT, has launched a new tool tracking electricity prices across the country on a month-to-month basis all the way down to the Zip Code level. You can check it out here.
This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. And listen to our Boiling Point podcast here.
Gurdaspur, Punjab, India – Ramesh Kumar, 42, is anxiously doing the calculations for his crops this year.
Standing at the edge of his wheat field in northwest Punjab’s Gurdaspur, he runs through the numbers in his head, totting up fertiliser costs, expected yield, and market prices.
Then he shifts to more personal concerns: School fees, household expenses, loan repayments and the money he has been saving for his daughter Varsha’s wedding.
“I don’t know if we can afford it this year,” he says. “Everything depends on the crop.”
The uncertainty has crept in quietly.
Fertiliser, once a fairly predictable staple in farming, has become more expensive and harder to secure in time. For Kumar, it is not so much a question of cost as it is the difference between stability and strain.
“If prices go up more, we will have to cut somewhere,” he says. “Maybe delay the wedding. If things get worse … even children’s education becomes difficult.”
School fees for his eldest son, Amit, 12, are due in the coming weeks, and Kumar has been setting aside money for his younger daughter Varsha’s future wedding.
It’s never easily affordable, even in good times. “We somehow manage,” Kumar says. “But if the harvest is weak, then we have to think about what to prioritise, what to delay.”
For farmers like him across South Asia, the United States-Israel war on Iran – unfolding thousands of kilometres away – is not just a matter of distant geopolitics.
It is shaping decisions inside their homes.
A worker pours fertiliser into a sack at a storage facility in Srinagar, Indian-administered Kashmir [Sajad Hameed/Al Jazeera]
A distant crisis with local consequences
At the centre of the unfolding crisis is the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow shipping lane more than 2,000km (1,240 miles) from India’s northern plains. It lies between Iran and Oman, linking the Gulf and its oil producers to the open ocean and, from there, to global markets.
About one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) supplies pass through this body of water, which Iran closed down shortly after the first US-Israeli strikes on Tehran on February 28.
Vast volumes of LNG, essential for manufacturing nitrogen-based fertilisers, are transported from Gulf producers to Asia via this route. Any disruption can delay shipments, push up freight and insurance costs and place a stranglehold on supply.
Interruptions to the supply of fertiliser can ripple quickly, reducing crop yields, increasing costs and raising food prices.
The risks are already being felt thousands of kilometres away.
South Asia, home to nearly two billion people, relies heavily on fertiliser-intensive farming to produce staple crops such as wheat and rice. Over the past few decades, the increasing use of fertilisers – which can hugely boost crop yields – has played a key role in agricultural productivity across the region.
The agriculture sector now employs about 46 percent of the workforce in India, about 38 percent in Pakistan, nearly 40 percent in Bangladesh, and more than 60 percent in Nepal.
A farmer spreads fertiliser around apple trees in an orchard in Baramulla, Indian-administered Kashmir, March 2026 [Sajad Hameed/Al Jazeera]
The degree to which countries in the region depend on the Strait of Hormuz varies, but all rely heavily on the trade in fertilisers that this shipping route facilitates.
In India, the agriculture sector is worth $400bn, according to Indian government and World Bank data, and supports the livelihoods of more than half the population, either directly or indirectly. More than 100 million farming families are directly dependent on the sector.
The country imports a substantial share of its fertiliser requirements and other key raw materials, particularly phosphates and potash, as well as natural gas used to manufacture fertiliser, with about 30–35 percent of these supplies moving through or originating from routes that pass via the Strait of Hormuz.
In Pakistan, the agriculture sector contributes close to 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), according to Pakistan government estimates, and employs millions. About 20-25 percent of Pakistan’s fertiliser imports, particularly DAP (diammonium phosphate), pass through the Strait of Hormuz at some point in transit. Additionally, the sector relies on domestic natural gas for the production of urea, a key nitrogen-based fertiliser and, with Gulf natural gas supplies held up in the Strait of Hormuz, the price of natural gas everywhere – even at home – is on the rise.
In Bangladesh, where millions of smallholder farmers rely heavily on imported fertilisers, the agricultural sector accounts for about 12-13 percent of GDP, according to government data. The country’s farming industry relies heavily on imported fertilisers to sustain crops, meaning farmers are highly exposed to international supply shocks and price swings.
Furthermore, roughly 25-30 percent of Bangladesh’s imported fertiliser is shipped via routes passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
Nepal, where agriculture contributes about 24 percent of GDP, imports nearly all of its fertiliser needs, with about 25-30 percent of arriving via India, via the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
A worker handles granular fertiliser at a storage facility in Punjab, northern India, March 2026 [Sajad Hameed/Al Jazeera]
Livelihoods at stake
Overall, even minor disruption in the Gulf – let alone the complete closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz – can have dire consequences for hundreds of millions of people.
The Indian government has sought to reassure farmers that supplies remain secure – for now.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi told Parliament on March 23: “Adequate arrangements have been made for fertiliser supply for the summer sowing season…The government has diversified options for oil, gas and fertiliser imports… Domestic production of urea, DAP and NPK [nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilisers] has been expanded… Farmers now have access to Made in India Nano Urea and are encouraged to adopt natural farming…”
He added: “Under the PM Kusum scheme, more than 22 lakh (2.2 million) solar pumps have been provided, reducing dependence on diesel… I am confident that through joint efforts, India will manage these challenges effectively and continue to support our farmers.”
On the ground, however, confidence is low. Farmers say uncertainty is already influencing decisions.
In Pampore, in the south of Indian-administered Kashmir, 53-year-old mustard farmer Ghulam Rasool says price signals travel faster than supply disruptions.
“We hear about war, about shipping problems,” he tells Al Jazeera. “Even before shortages happen, fertiliser becomes expensive.”
Rasool says farmers often respond early by cutting down on the amount of fertiliser they are using, even before actual shortages emerge.
“If we use less, production will fall,” he says. “But sometimes we have no choice.”
In Pakistan’s South Punjab, wheat farmer Muneer Ahmad, 45, is preparing for the next sowing cycle.
“If fertiliser becomes expensive, it will affect everyone here,” he says.
Government officials have expressed confidence in Pakistan’s fertiliser supply amid the Middle East conflict, and claim the government is fully prepared to ensure adequate supplies during the region’s peak sowing period, which typically begins between April and June, depending on the crop.
According to a statement by Pakistan’s federal secretary for agriculture to Al Jazeera, Federal Minister Rana Tanveer Hussain told a meeting on March 25 that the government has started proactive monitoring, is expanding domestic urea and DAP production and taking steps to ensure fertilisers reach farmers at affordable prices.
However, urea production requires supplies of natural gas, meaning global energy price shocks can still translate into rising production costs.
A farm worker spreads fertiliser across a field as part of routine crop management during the growing season in north India [Sajad Hameed/Al Jazeera]
For farmers, even small increases matter
“We already have loans and expenses,” Ahmad says. “If costs go up, we feel it immediately.”
In Rangpur, northwestern Bangladesh, farmer Mohammad Ibrahim, 41, says fertiliser supplies are already becoming unpredictable.
“Sometimes it is available, sometimes not,” he says. “And when it comes, the price is higher.”
Meanwhile, in Nepal’s Gulmi district, farmer Meghnath Aryal, 38, worries that crops will be reduced if a major supply problem does appear.
“If fertiliser does not arrive on time, the crop suffers,” he says. “If it becomes expensive, we reduce use.”
Bangladesh’s Agriculture Secretary Rafiqul Mohammad told Al Jazeera the government is “closely monitoring the situation” and officials have tried to reassure farmers that fertiliser supplies are sufficient for the coming months.
The government has finalised plans to import about 500,000 tonnes of urea in the near term, while also exploring alternative suppliers such as China and Morocco to secure additional supplies in the longer term.
There is no immediate shortage at present, the Agriculture Ministry says.
Ram Krishna Shrestha, joint secretary at Nepal’s Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, told Al Jazeera that fertiliser distribution within the country remains largely stable for now, with supplies already secured for the upcoming rainy season, particularly for paddy crops such as rice.
However, he warned that there may be delays to contracted shipments as a result of the Middle East crisis.
“We have managed fertilisers for the upcoming season, but there could be challenges in timely supply because of the current situation,” he said, pointing to global price increases and logistical disruptions, including those caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Shrestha added that as companies report shortages and rising prices in international markets, the government has asked suppliers to expedite deliveries.
“Authorities are also advising farmers to increase the use of traditional nutrient sources such as farmyard manure, compost, green manuring and azolla [a natural fertiliser] to offset any potential shortfall in chemical fertilisers,” he said.
No immediate new fertiliser subsidies have been announced, he said, though adjustments remain under discussion as the situation evolves.
Mustard farmer Ghulam Rasool scatters fertiliser by hand in a field in Pampore, Kashmir, India [Sajad Hameed/Al Jazeera]
Rising food prices on the horizon
The implications extend beyond individual farmers.
Across South Asia, fertiliser use has been central to maintaining crop yields – and keeping large populations fed. Any reduction in availability or increase in costs can quickly lower production. That, in turn, pushes up food prices, a sensitive issue in a region where households spend a large proportion of their income on food.
For governments, the challenge is complex.
In the past, subsidies have kept fertilisers affordable for farmers, but this becomes a fragile balancing act if global prices rise, placing additional pressure on public finances.
In India, Ramesh Kumar is already making adjustments – but he is walking a tightrope.
He has decided to use less fertiliser this season, even though he knows it could reduce yields.
“It is a risk,” he says. “But what choice do we have?”
Lower production will mean less income and harder decisions at home.
“School fees have to be paid,” he says. “Household expenses cannot stop.” He looks across his field.
“And the wedding… we will see.”
Ultimately, sacrifices will have to be made in his household.
Across borders, the same uncertainty is unfolding.
In Pakistan, Ahmad is worried about rising costs. In Bangladesh, Ibrahim is mostly concerned about the availability of fertiliser and, in Nepal, Aryal fears delays in supply.
For Ramesh Kumar, the stakes are clear.
“For others, this is about war,” he says. “For us, it is about whether we can take care of our family.”
He explained: “At a time of great economic uncertainty and steps being taken to conserve energy worldwide, it is neither environmentally nor economically sound for us to continue flying with vastly reduced passenger numbers.”
Passengers affected will be fully refunded.
The flights between London and Cornwall take around 1hr20 and start from £79.99 each way.
This is not only faster – trains take around five hours and include a change to Newquay – but cheaper than the average train fare which is around £85.
Some passengers use it as a way of travelling further onto Europe as well.
One Brit, who was meant to fly from Newquay to Gatwick, then onto Seville told the BBC: “Gatwick is not the easiest airport to get to so our contingency is probably to use rail.”
In the mean time, Ryanair offers flights between Newquay and London Stansted all year round.
And easyJet is due to start a new flight route to Newquay from June 23, with two a week from London Gatwick on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
A Cornwall Airport Newquay spokesperson said: “We are actively working with airline partners and stakeholders to secure sustainable London connectivity for the future.”
He said: “We don’t expect any disruption until early May, but if the war continues, we do run the risk of supply disruptions in Europe in May and June.”
While he said he didn’t see the airline having to cancel flights just yet, he warned that as much as 20 per cent of its jet fuel is costing them nearly $150 a barrel.
Other airlines around the world have already started cancelling flights.
Both Air New Zealand and SAS confirmed that more than 1,000 have been cancelled, mainly affecting domestic routes.
And United Airlines said five per cent of flights would be cancelled in the second and third quarters of 2026 – working out to around 250 a month.
The airline will still operate flights to Newquay from the Isles of ScillyCredit: Alamy
It was just past 10:30 p.m. on Sunday, Sept. 14, 2025, when Allwell Nelson was abducted from her family residence in Dong, a community in Jos North Local Government Area (LGA), Plateau State, North Central Nigeria.
She and her niece had just finished bathing and were in their pyjamas, settling down to watch a film before bed, when her brother-in-law burst into the room.
“Armed robbers! Armed robbers! Call the police!” he shouted.
Her heart leapt. She grabbed her phone and called a friend who works at a nearby police station, barely ten minutes away, then tried to alert the neighbours. No one came out. Outside, the attackers struggled to break the front doors.
At the time, Allwell was serving with the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) in Bauchi, northeastern Nigeria. She had returned home to prepare for her wedding, scheduled for the following Saturday.
The attackers, armed with handguns, cutlasses, an axe, and a digger, operated for over 45 minutes, she recounted. They first went to the master bedroom, which was empty. Her brother-in-law had fled through the back door, jumping over the fence to get help. From there, they moved to the children’s room, where the children were sleeping, before arriving at Allwell’s room.
“We were five in my room,” she said. “Me, my sister, my one-year-old niece, my older niece, and my cousin. We ran into the bathroom and locked ourselves in.”
When the attackers found them, they asked after her brother-in-law, insisting they had heard his voice, but they told them that he wasn’t around. After firing a gunshot, the four kidnappers moved the family to the living room and continued questioning them. “They eventually asked my cousin and me to follow them,” Allwell said.
Before leaving, they went to the kitchen and packed foodstuffs such as noodles and garri. One of them never spoke; his face was covered, and he carried the food. They forced the victims through the fence and across a nearby river, pausing at one point to make a phone call.
“The question here is, who were they calling?” she asked. “The person who sent them [informant], or the security agency?”
A spreading pattern across Jos
Welcome to Dong. Photo: Johnstone Kpilaakaa/HumAngle.
Dong is a fast-growing neighbourhood, bordering the conflict-hit Bassa Local Government Area and the Jos Wildlife Park. Despite nearby security posts and military checkpoints positioned at both ends of the route into the community, kidnappings have continued. Notably, these measures were already in place as the attacks persisted.
But the pattern seen in Dong is not confined to a single neighbourhood. Across the Jos-Bukuru metropolis, which includes Jos North and Jos South LGAs, similar incidents have emerged, suggesting a far-reaching threat.
Dong borders the Jos Wildlife Park and Bassa LGA. Map illustration: Mansir Muhammed.
On March 24, Sunday Agang, chairperson of the Board of Trustees of Evangelical Church Winning All (ECWA), was abducted from his residence in the Faringada area of Jos North. Earlier, in January 2026, three daughters of the Managing Director of the Plateau State Water Board, Apollos Samchi, were abducted during an attack on his residence in Rantya, in Jos South, about a fifteen-minute drive away from Dong.
In the same month, a retired Nigerian Army colonel was kidnapped in Rukuba Road, not far from Dong, and he was later rescued by security operatives. Barely weeks after Allwell’s abduction, Laven Jacob, a member of the Plateau State House of Assembly, was abducted in Dong.
These incidents, alongside others that often go unreported, reinforce the sense that kidnapping in Jos has evolved into a citywide crisis rather than a series of isolated events. Between September 2025, when Allwell was abducted, and March 2026, at least four reported kidnapping incidents were recorded in the Jos-Bukuru metropolis.
Similar incidents stretch back years. For instance, in 2022, a retired naval officer, Hellen Godos, was killed in her home in Dong by kidnappers, who were attempting to abduct her son.
The role of informants
Many of these incidents, residents and officials say, are driven by insiders within the communities themselves.
“The people work with informants,” said Peter, a community elder in Dong who gave only his first name. “They target specific people, who they believe are doing well.”
He added that during a security meeting held in the community in December 2025, the role of informants was discussed as one of the major factors responsible. “These criminals don’t know the communities; they depend on people from within.”
Generally, kidnappers often rely on information from inside communities to identify their targets, quietly shaping who is taken and when. A recent HumAngle investigation in Kano State found how kidnappers targeted a man after local knowledge of his movements and finances was passed on to criminals.
Get our in-depth, creative coverage of conflict and development delivered to you every weekend.
Subscribe now to our newsletter!
In December 2025, troops of the Joint Task Force, Operation ENDURING PEACE, neutralised a suspected kidnapper and arrested three alleged informants who were targeting Dong. In October 2025, the Plateau Police Command also arrested suspected kidnappers, including an informant who supplied foodstuffs to kidnappers in the mountainous Mazah community in Jos North.
Even so, the sense that local knowledge is being used to enable abductions persists.
Chris Iyama, an influential civil society leader in the state, described a similar pattern after he was abducted on March 8 in front of his residence in Rayfield-Guratopp.
“One of them, I presumed to be the leader of the [kidnappers], called my name and wanted to be sure if my name was Chris. I immediately affirmed. That was the beginning of my ordeal as we walked through different forests, mountains…,” he said.
He added that they took him to a forest somewhere between Bokkos and Barkin Ladi.
Captivity, ransom, and survival
A fact-finding committee set up by the Plateau State government reported that at least 420 communities across 13 local government areas – particularly in Bokkos, Barkin Ladi, and Riyom – were attacked between 2001 and 2025, with more than 11,000 people killed.
“They have been taken over, renamed, and people are living there conveniently on lands they pushed people away to occupy,” said Governor Caleb Mutfwang. “For those who think that the current situation is a farmer-herder issue, let me disabuse your mind from that perception; it is a product of organised crime by malicious elements who do not want peace to reign in the state.”
Allwell’s abduction unfolded within that wider landscape. She and her cousin were taken towards Bassa LGA, another hotspot. In April 2025, terrorists killed 52 people overnight in Zike village, in the Kimakpa/Kwall District of Bassa.
She said they were forced to walk through nearby Dong Kassa towards the Rafiki-Miango axis in Bassa. Along the way, they saw a police truck, and the kidnappers made them squat in the bush. “We trekked for over an hour,” she said.
The region where Allwell and her abductors went through. Illustration: Mansir Muhammed/HumAngle.
When they arrived in Bassa, the abductors, who she said did not speak Hausa properly but Fulfulde, led them towards an area where herders kept cattle. At the time, she was serving in the country’s North East, and she said she was able to identify the language.
“When we got nearby, the people tending the cattle started shining torchlights at us and asked who we were and why we were in their territory,” she said. The kidnappers shot two of the herders who questioned them. “At that point, I felt like I was dying.”
Hannah Silas, a development worker in the region, said incidents like this can feed into cycles of violence. “For instance, when the herders wake up and see someone dead, they will assume it was the locals who killed them, and it will lead to reprisals that should not happen,” she said.
The Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association of Nigeria (MACBAN) has stated that “bad elements” and criminals have infiltrated their ranks, masquerading as herders to commit kidnappings and violent crimes. Misidentification, in this context, risks reinforcing the very cycles of violence residents are trying to survive.
They continued walking until they reached the captors’ den.
Allwell and her cousin spent more than three nights in captivity. Unlike Chris Iyama, who said he “was beaten black and blue and at some point they wanted to pull the trigger on my head”, Allwell told HumAngle that they were not physically assaulted and were given food, but she described intense fear and psychological pressure.
“I remember I was sick at that time, and one of them went to town to get medication for me,” she recounted. “I couldn’t take it because I was scared.”
The abductors demanded ₦50 million. “I told them that I am a civil servant and I don’t have [such an amount of money],” said Solomon Dansura, her brother-in-law.
As the incident gained attention on social media, NYSC officials visited the family.
“The authorities knew about the incident, but nothing was done,” Allwell said.
While negotiations continued, the abductors threatened to kill her cousin if the ransom was not paid. The family tried to raise funds without assistance from authorities.
A ransom was eventually paid, and they were released on Wednesday, Sept. 14, 2025.
Allwell does not know the exact amount, but the last figure she overheard was about ₦5 million. “The security did not rescue us,” she said.
A security post at the entrance of Dong. Photo: Johnstone Kpilaakaa/HumAngle.
Chris Iyama also said his family paid a ransom, and that his release was arranged in a forested, mountainous area in Bokkos.
Security gaps and fading trust
For residents, these experiences are rarely reflected in official communication.
Kidnap-for-ransom remains one of Nigeria’s most persistent security crises. Although ransom payments are illegal, families often treat them as the only viable option, citing slow responses from authorities. In some cases, influential public figures, including government officials, have openly crowdfunded ransom payments.
Between July 2024 and June 2025, at least 4,722 people were abducted across nearly 1,000 incidents nationwide, according to SBM Intelligence. Kidnappers demanded about ₦48 billion in ransom during that period, while families paid an estimated ₦2.57 billion. At least 762 people were killed in abduction-related violence.
Earlier in January, the Jos North Local Government Council launched a police outpost in Dong to improve security.
“This police outpost is not just a structure of blocks and mortar; it is a symbol of our resolve to protect lives and property,” said John Christopher, the local government chairperson, at the launch. “For the people of the Dong community who have endured the trauma of insecurity and kidnapping, this facility represents hope, reassurance, and a renewed sense of safety.”
A police post beside the Jos Wildlife Park, near the entrance of Dong. Photo: Johnstone Kpilaakaa/HumAngle
When HumAngle visited the facility, which is five minutes on foot from the main entrance to Dong, in March, it was deserted. Dry weeds filled the compound, the gate was locked, and no officers were present.
An 8 p.m. curfew imposed in Dong in 2025 was later relaxed in January, according to a security officer at a local church. “But once it is 10 p.m., you will not see people outside,” he said. “Some of the local hunters, who protect the community, recently engaged in a gun battle and killed a suspect, so the incidents have reduced.”
Even with that, some residents say they still feel unsafe.
SACRAMENTO — California has a huge deficit, a looming cash crisis, an angry public and pressure to raise taxes — and in this dismal state of affairs, the state’s minority Republicans see opportunity.
GOP lawmakers hope to use their leverage over the state budget, which cannot pass without some of their votes, to roll back landmark policies implemented by Democrats and the governor. Among them are curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, regulations banning the dirtiest diesel engines and rules dictating when employers must provide lunch breaks for workers.
None of those laws has any direct connection to the state budget; changing them will do nothing to close California’s $15.2-billion deficit. And the Democrats who control the Legislature already have rejected Republican proposals to delay or eliminate the laws through the regular legislative process.
But as pressure mounts on lawmakers to resolve the budget crisis, the GOP’s renewed requests could get some traction. Republican clout grows along with the state’s financial problems — at least during the summer budget season.
“We think the budget is an appropriate place to talk about these issues,” said Sen. George Runner (R-Lancaster). “We are setting them on the table for discussion.”
Runner acknowledges that the proposals won’t help balance the books in the coming fiscal year, but he argues that they would stimulate the economy and thus generate cash for the state over time.
“They are reasonable issues to bring up” now, he said.
Lawmakers are making little progress in those negotiations. Legislators did not meet their June 15 constitutional deadline for passing a budget, and they are saying publicly that a spending plan is unlikely to be in place by the July 1 start of the fiscal year.
The state will run out of cash in September, according to the state treasurer, and finance officials say that borrowing to remain solvent will be extremely tough without a budget in place by July. Securing a loan takes time, and lenders look for an enacted budget as assurance that the state will have enough cash to repay them.
Democrats, meanwhile, are calling for as much as $11.5 billion in new taxes — though they have not specified what they want to tax.
Republicans say cuts in government services and programs are the way to go — though they, too, mostly demur when it comes to specifics.
Republicans have made clear, however, that relaxing the environmental and labor laws would put them in more of a mood to compromise. That position has drawn a sharp rebuke from Democrats and activists.
“Using a fiscal crisis to delay and roll back protections for Californians is just wrong,” said Sen. Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach).
Sierra Club lobbyist Bill Magavern called the GOP lawmakers “a dwindling minority trying to exploit the limited leverage they have.”
Environmentalists are particularly outraged by the Republican call for a delay in the curbs on greenhouse emissions.
The global warming measure is one of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s proudest accomplishments. It has landed the governor, himself a Republican, on the covers of magazines around the world.
State officials are drafting rules for implementing the emissions caps, which are scheduled to take effect in January 2010. GOP legislators say complying with the rules will be costly for businesses at a time when they already are reeling from the poor economy and higher oil prices.
They want the governor to exercise a provision in the law that allows him to postpone implementation by declaring that it would cause the state “significant economic harm.”
“We’ve got a major downturn in the economy,” said Dave Cogdill of Modesto, leader of the state Senate’s Republicans. “We’re trying to convince the governor to give us more time on this.”
Republicans are making the same case for new rules requiring retrofitting of diesel engines on trucks, tractors and heavy construction equipment. The engines are a leading source of pollution and have been singled out by scientists as a cause of thousands of premature deaths and hospital admissions for respiratory problems in California each year.
Supporters of the laws say that the sickness they will prevent and the boost they will give to “green” technologies promise to be far more helpful to California’s economy than a delay in their implementation.
Schwarzenegger has said through aides that he does not wish to postpone environmental regulations and won’t let the budget situation sidetrack his long-term goals. But he also says nothing is off the table.
“We have open doors where everything is on the table,” Schwarzenegger said in a speech last month to the California Peace Officers Assn. “I don’t want to go and say to anything, ‘No.’ ”
Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear said the governor is interested, for example, in working with Republicans on a relaxation of workplace rules that dictate when employees must be granted lunch breaks.
The governor, an ally of the state Chamber of Commerce and other business groups, is sympathetic to complaints from business owners that some workplace rules cost them money without benefiting employees.
The example most often cited comes from restaurant owners who say they must give their workers breaks at particular times, even if it is in the middle of the busiest shift, when many would rather be working tables to collect tips.
The Legislature must sign off on changes to such laws, something Democrats say they have no intention of doing. Their labor allies say budget season is a cynical time to raise the issue.
“If these were viable policy proposals, they would pass on their own merits,” said Emily Clayton, policy coordinator with the California Labor Federation.
Republicans, she said, “are trying to hold the budget negotiations hostage.”
United Airlines is the latest to confirm that it would be cutting five per cent of flights in the second and third quarters of 2026.
With up to 5,000 flights a month – working out to around 4,000 domestic and 800 international routes – this means it affects around 250 flights a month.
And with this set to last until the end of summer, it means thousands of passengers will be affected.
While the affected flights haven’t been confirmed, it will mainly affect the “less profitable” routes so including midweek flights, as well as overnight and Saturday routes.
United Airlines has the world’s largest airline fleet with more than 1,075 aircraft.
United Airlines‘ Chief Executive Scott Kirby said the cancellations were due to fears of oil rising to as much as $175 (£131) a barrel, and remaining above $100 (£75) until the end of next year.
This would mean the airline’s fuel costs would rise to $11billion (£8.2billion) – double the profit of their best year which was $5billion (£3.7billion).
They warned: “There’s no point in burning cash in the near term on flying that just can’t absorb these fuel costs.”
It’s not just the cost of fuel but how much is being used by airlines as well.
The closure of airspaces and Middle East airports, particularly Dubai which is one of the world’s busiest, has forced airlines to fly alternative – and longer – routes, which burn more fuel.
Other airlines have already confirmed they would be cancelling flights due to expected fuel costs.
Workers in India’s textile hub Surat are returning home after days without cooking gas, as an LPG crisis linked to Iran war disruptions halts supplies. Industries face shutdowns, while authorities invoke emergency measures to prioritise households.
When the United States and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran on February 28, the Strait of Hormuz—the narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil passes each day—effectively ceased to function as a shipping corridor. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps responded by warning off tanker traffic, and within days maritime transit had fallen to nearly zero. The consequences were immediate and severe: Brent crude has not dropped below the $100 threshold since March 13 and touched $119 on March 19 following Israeli strikes on Iran’s South Pars gasfield and retaliatory Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure in Qatar and the UAE. For Venezuela, a country sitting atop the world’s largest proven reserves but producing around 900,000 to one million barrels per day (a fraction of its historical capacity of over 3 million in the late 1990s) the disruption arrived at a peculiar moment. It was not a crisis of Venezuela’s making. But how Caracas responds to it may define the country’s energy trajectory for years to come.
On paper, the arithmetic is striking. Alejandro Grisanti, director of Ecoanalítica, estimates that Venezuela receives approximately $400 million in additional revenue for every extra dollar in the average crude price. This figure, at current price levels, represents a fiscal windfall without precedent in the post-Maduro transition. Venezuelan crude exports had already rebounded sharply in February to around 788,000 barrels per day (up from a depressed 383,000 bpd in January, when the post-Maduro-arrest disruption had frozen trade flows), with US refineries absorbing the majority of shipments directly through Chevron or energy intermediaries. Of course, production and exports are different things: Venezuela produces roughly one million bpd but consumes some 230,000 bpd domestically, meaning effective export capacity sits considerably below gross output.
The Hormuz disruption accelerated the export recovery dynamic: with Gulf supply stranded and Asian buyers scrambling for alternatives, Venezuelan crude became a more attractive proposition. Washington has responded in kind. On March 18, the US Treasury issued a broad license authorizing established American entities to conduct transactions with PDVSA directly, a landmark shift after years of near-total sanctions isolation, explicitly framed as a supply-side response to the Iran war. There are structural constraints baked into the relief: payments cannot flow directly to sanctioned Venezuelan entities but must pass through US-controlled accounts, and transactions involving Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or designated Chinese entities remain prohibited. The US will allow the oil trade, but it will control the cash flow.
The production ceiling, however, remains a formidable obstacle, and not merely a financial one. Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt produces extra-heavy crude with an API gravity typically in the 8–16° range and high sulfur content, which cannot simply be blended into a market substitute for the medium-sour grades displacing from the Persian Gulf. To reach export markets, Orinoco crude must either pass through an upgrader—facilities like Petropiar, which converts it to a synthetic crude of around 26° API—or be diluted with imported naphtha or lighter crude to create exportable blends like Merey. This means Venezuelan barrels serve a specific refinery profile: predominantly the cooking-capable refineries along the US Gulf Coast, which are well-suited to process heavy, sulfurous feedstocks. They are not a drop-in replacement for Middle Eastern crude, but a complementary supply for a defined segment of global refining capacity.
The US military backstop, the reformed hydrocarbon law, and now the broad PDVSA sanctions relief have together reduced the perception of expropriation risk and policy reversal that kept capital at bay for two decades.
ExxonMobil, whose assets were expropriated twice under chavismo, announced it would send an evaluation team to Venezuela within weeks, with Senior Vice President Jack Williams acknowledging the company’s heavy oil expertise from Canadian operations in Kearl and Cold Lake. The caveat was pointed: “Today it’s uninvestable,” CEO Darren Woods had said in January, and Williams’ more cautious optimism reflects the institutional memory of a company burned twice.
Chevron and PDVSA have meanwhile agreed on preliminary terms to expand Petropiar into the adjacent Ayacucho 8 block of the Orinoco Belt, while Shell is in advanced talks to develop the Carito and Pirital fields in eastern Monagas. These are among the few areas that produce the light and medium crude needed as diluent and blendstock for Venezuela’s heavy exports. Delcy Rodríguez has projected fresh oil investments of $1.4 billion for the year under the amended hydrocarbons law. These are meaningful steps. But a preliminary deal and a production ramp are different things. Rystad Energy estimates that simply holding production flat at around 1.1 million bpd requires $53 billion in upstream investment over 15 years, and getting to 2 million bpd by 2032 would demand $8–9 billion per year in sustained capital.
What has shifted—materially and quickly—is market sentiment about Venezuela as an investable destination, and the trajectory is meaningfully positive. Dozens of US hedge funds, asset managers, and energy investors are organizing trips to Caracas in the coming weeks: Signum Global Advisors is running a two-day conference in Venezuela from March 22–24 with 55 participants, roughly half of whom are bondholders who own or have recently purchased Venezuelan government and PDVSA debt (both in default since 2017).
Separate delegations invited by Trans-National Research and other groups are arriving, with agendas featuring meetings with Rodríguez and PDVSA CEO Héctor Obregón. The interest marks a sharp break from the isolation of the Maduro years. Country risk, while still elevated in absolute terms, has been repriced substantially since January: the US military backstop, the reformed hydrocarbon law, and now the broad PDVSA sanctions relief have together reduced the perception of expropriation risk and policy reversal that kept capital at bay for two decades.
Venezuela’s challenge is to use this window of geopolitical necessity to lock in investment commitments, debt restructuring negotiations, and production agreements that survive the normalization of oil markets.
What investors are now stress-testing is no longer whether Venezuela is open for business, but whether the legal and institutional architecture is durable enough to support long-horizon commitments. As analysts at Debatesiesa have noted in examining Venezuelan financial markets, sentiment can shift on headlines, but binding investment decisions require structural reforms and credible enforcement mechanisms. The framework is improving; the question is whether it improves fast enough, and on a stable enough trajectory, to convert this geopolitical moment into a genuine investment cycle.
The deeper question the Hormuz crisis forces is one of timing and durability. Oil prices are now trading above $110 per barrel and analysts at Wood Mackenzie and Rystad are no longer dismissing scenarios above $150 while the conflict shows no sign of imminent resolution, with Pete Hegseth signaling the “largest strike package yet” against Iran on March 19. The EIA, in its latest forecast issued prior to these newest escalations, projected Brent to remain above $95 through the next two months before falling below $80 in the third quarter of 2026 if supply flows gradually normalize. Whether that normalization materializes is the variable on which everything else depends. Venezuela’s challenge is not simply to capture today’s price premium, but to use this window of geopolitical necessity to lock in investment commitments, debt restructuring negotiations, and production agreements that survive the normalization of oil markets.
The country has rarely faced a more favorable confluence of factors: surging global demand for its barrels, a reformed legal framework for private investment, an unprecedented degree of US political and financial backing, and prices that make otherwise marginal projects viable. Whether Caracas—and the Rodríguez administration in particular—has the institutional bandwidth to convert a crisis into structural recovery, rather than another cycle of windfall and waste, is the defining question of Venezuela’s energy sector in 2026.
Health and environment advocacy groups in the United States are suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw a key 2009 climate change ruling known as the “endangerment finding”.
That finding had established that greenhouse gases are a risk to public health and environmental safety, given that they are the primary drivers of climate change. It formed the legal basis for many regulatory policies aimed at curbing climate change.
When US President Donald Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and a “con job”, rescinded the declaration in February this year, the EPA supported the move, deeming it the “single largest deregulatory action in US history”.
The lawsuit, filed on Wednesday this week, alleges that the Trump administration’s decision will risk the health and welfare of US citizens.
“Repealing the Endangerment Finding endangers all of us. People everywhere will face more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths,” Peter Zalzal, the associate vice president of clean air strategies at the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement.
Trump’s revocation of the endangerment finding is the latest in a series of steps he has taken to prioritise deregulation, boost fossil fuel production and reverse climate regulations.
But Trump is not the first US president to enact policy damaging to the environment. Here’s how decades of US policy have harmed the environment before he arrived in the White House
What is the ‘endangerment finding’?
The endangerment finding was established under the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama. It states that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and welfare.
That ruling allowed the EPA under President Obama to move forward on policy aimed at limit the release of greenhouse gases in the US, Michael Kraft, professor emeritus of political science and public and environmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, told Al Jazeera.
Under the endangerment finding, power plants were required to meet federal limits on carbon emissions or risk being shut down. This forced oil and gas companies to invest more to detect and fix methane leaks, curb flaring, and improve tailpipe and fuel‑economy standards to enable automobile companies to manufacture more efficient, lower‑emitting vehicles.
What does rescinding it mean?
“By allowing for increased pollution, these recent changes [by the Trump administration] will harm practically every single person on the planet,” Washington, DC-based policy researcher Brett Heinz told Al Jazeera.
“People living near fossil fuel facilities will be some of the most immediately affected, as they will be exposed to the new air and water pollution unleashed by deregulatory policies,” Heinz added.
Without the endangerment finding in place, the EPA has lost a key legal basis on which to limit greenhouse gas emissions, making it easier for coal plants, oil refineries and petrochemical complexes to run older, dirtier equipment for longer, expand without installing modern pollution controls, and emit more soot, smog‑forming gases and toxic chemicals into nearby communities.
Heinz explained that higher greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels in power plants, cars and industry as well as continued deforestation will also amplify the dangers posed by natural disasters. This is because increased warming exacerbates heatwaves, storms, floods and droughts, and raises sea levels – all of which turn existing natural hazards into more frequent and more destructive disasters.
“The only people who will benefit from these decisions are a small handful of wealthy fossil fuel executives and shareholders, who will see healthy profits while the world grows sick. These fossil fuel elites, many of whom contributed money to Trump’s presidential campaign, have now gotten a return on this investment,” Heinz said.
Experts say that Trump’s decision to entirely do away with environmental policy is unlike any president before him.
“The White House’s tidal wave of new pro-pollution policies is completely unprecedented. While past administrations have modified environmental rules, the second Trump administration is essentially trying to eliminate them entirely. So far, this has been the most radically anti-environmental presidency in American history,” Heinz said.
How have previous US presidents endangered the environment?
Trump is by no means the first US president to enact policy which is damaging to the environment, however.
Under Republican Theodore Roosevelt, who was president from 1901 to 1909, Congress passed the Reclamation (Newlands) Act of 1902, which treated land and rivers primarily as raw material for large infrastructure projects rather than as ecosystems in need of protection.
This was furthered by Democrat Harry Truman, who was president from 1945 to 1953 and pushed for rapid post‑war industrial and suburban expansion by commissioning the construction of interstate highways and promoting car‑centric development.
Under Republican Dwight Eisenhower, who was president from 1953 to 1961, the interstate highway system burgeoned, and the private car became a developmental priority in the US.
While Republican Richard Nixon, who was president from 1969 to 1974, signed key environmental laws, he also backed massive fossil‑fuel expansion. Under Nixon, the highly toxic herbicide, known as Agent Orange, was used by the US military during the Vietnam War.
Republican Ronald Reagan, who was president from 1981 to 1989, appointed people to the EPA and the Department of Interior who pushed for expanded oil, gas, coal and timber extraction on public lands.
To facilitate this, they favoured deregulation and industry interests, and rolled back existing environmental policy, slashing budgets for EPA enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, easing rules on toxic emissions and pesticides, and opening up more federal land – including wilderness and wildlife habitat – to oil, gas, mining and logging activities.
Republican George W Bush, who was president from 2001 to 2009, refused to ratify the 1997 UN-backed emissions reductions Kyoto Protocol and actively undermined global climate negotiations by formally withdrawing US support for Kyoto in 2001, appointing senior officials who questioned climate science, and pushing voluntary, industry-friendly approaches instead of binding emissions cuts.
While Obama, who was president from 2009 to 2017, introduced several landmark climate regulations, he also oversaw the fracking boom, making the US the world’s largest oil and gas producer, and locking in long-term fossil infrastructure.
Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves blasting water, sand and chemicals into shale rock to release oil and gas, a process believed to cause methane leaks, groundwater contamination, heavy water use and increased local air pollution.
Democrat Joe Biden, who was president from 2021 to 2024, approved large fossil projects such as the Willow project in Alaska. This involved oil development on federal land in the National Petroleum Reserve, projected to pump hundreds of millions of barrels of crude over several decades.
Figures released by the the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) suggested that the project would release 239 million to 280 million tonnes of greenhouse gases over its lifetime. The project, approved in 2023 and ongoing, was projected to continue for 30 years.
Biden also backed LNG export growth by approving new and expanded export terminals and long‑term export licences, allowing companies to lock into multidecade contracts to ship US gas to Europe and Asia.
Is this a partisan issue?
No.
“The failure of US policymakers to aggressively tackle global warming is not so much a Democrat versus Republican matter,” Steinberg said.
“It’s neoliberalism, a form of corporate freedom, that is the heart of the problem. A bipartisan consensus on the need for economic growth has led to a general trend toward weakening environmental regulations,” he added.
The US once led the world in conservation by creating an extensive national park system in the 19th century, Ted Steinberg, a history professor at the US-based Case Western Reserve University, told Al Jazeera.
“That was then. US corporate interests, especially the fossil fuel industry, combined with the one-party political system, in which both Republicans and Democrats indenture themselves to the business class, have caused the United States to drag its feet on global warming,” Steinberg said.
What is the history of Washington’s impact on the environment?
The US has historically been the largest contributor to global warming, experts say.
“As in most countries, US environmental policy has been a response to the problems caused by industrialisation and urbanisation, starting in the mid-19th century and proceeding from there, happening at the local, state and national levels,” Chad Montrie, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts Lowell, told Al Jazeera.
“Much of that policy has been limited and inadequate, especially when corporations were able to exert their influence, but in some cases, it has been ahead of what other nations were doing,” Montrie, who specialises in environmental history, added.
There was a time when environmental policy was bipartisan. The EPA was, in fact, created by Republican President Richard Nixon in 1970.
“It wasn’t until the rise of pro-business politics in the 1980s that Republicans like President Reagan took a hard turn against environmental protections,” Heinz said.
“The Democratic Party continues to believe in environmental protection and climate-friendly policies to some degree, while the Republican Party has become one of the few political parties worldwide that completely denies the scientific facts around climate change.”
How does this affect the rest of the world?
“US policy often sets the standards for policy in other parts of the world, both because of its cultural influence and because of the control that the US has over global bodies like the International Monetary Fund,” Heinz said.
“Right now, the US is actively pushing dirty fossil fuels on the rest of the world and even threatening some of its allies for trying to negotiate new environmental agreements.”
Heinz explained that this pressure, coupled with soaring energy prices, seems to have convinced Europe to retreat from some of their climate goals. Household electricity prices jumped by about 20 percent across the European Union between 2021 and 2022, according to Eurostat data.
Heinz said that if the latest United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP negotiations are any indication, global climate ambition appears to be on the decline right now.
The latest conference concluded in November 2025 in Brazil with a draft proposal which did not include a roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, nor did it mention the term “fossil fuels” at all. This drew rebuke from several countries attending the conference.
“So long as Donald Trump remains in office, the hope of future generations relies upon the nations of the world coming together and acting responsibly to preserve a healthy environment at a time when the United States has gone truly mad.”
WASHINGTON — In the escalating war in Iran, the State Department’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs would ordinarily be at the center of the geopolitical fray.
Typically led by a veteran diplomat, the bureau’s role would be to coordinate U.S. foreign policy across an 18-country region, much of which has become a chaotic battlefield scarred by drone and missile strikes as the U.S. and Israel remain locked in conflict with Iran.
The Trump administration for a time put Mora Namdar, a lawyer of Iranian descent with limited management experience, in charge before later moving her to a different post. One of her credentials was her contribution to Project 2025, a conservative think tank’s blueprint for the second Trump administration. Namdar’s last Senate-confirmed predecessor was a longtime Middle East expert who had been with the department since 1984 and had served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Arab Emirates.
Now that bureau is also working with far fewer resources. The administration’s most recent budget proposed a 40% cut to the bureau, though Congress eventually enacted less dramatic cuts. The administration also eliminated the dedicated Iran office, merging it with the Iraq office.
Staff reductions and management choices hamper emergency response
These kinds of personnel and management choices — coupled with President Trump’s moves to shrink government and confine decision-making to a tight circle — are limiting the ability of the United States to handle a global emergency, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former U.S. officials, many of whom recently left government.
In divisions of the State Department that typically would handle the Iran response, numerous veteran diplomats with decades of collective experience were fired, retired or were reassigned — replaced by more junior officials or political appointees. The administration cut more than 80 staffers in Near Eastern Affairs, according to numbers compiled by a State Department employee who was terminated last year based on surveys of colleagues. (The department does not release official figures on Foreign Service officer staffing levels but did not dispute the number.)
The Trump administration has left the assistant secretary position in charge of Near Eastern Affairs vacant, along with key ambassadorships in the Middle East. Four of the five supervisors in the bureau have temporary titles.
The current and former officials, some of whom asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive internal matters during an active conflict, paint a portrait of an understaffed government workforce struggling to execute the president’s agenda. Those who remain tell colleagues that their analysis, recommendations and advice go unheeded.
The State Department vigorously disputed those assessments.
“As far as we can tell, AP’s entire ‘report’ on the evacuations does not include any conversations with people actually involved. Instead, it relies on ‘outside’ or ‘former official’ sources that have no idea what they are talking about. We walked AP through specific inaccuracy after specific inaccuracy — indeed how the whole premise was wrong,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.
More than 3,800 State Dept. employees departed since Trump took office
The State Department saw a departure of more than 3,800 employees since President Trump took office through a combination of reductions in force, staffers taking the Fork in the Road deferred resignation plan and ordinary retirements. According to estimates by the American Foreign Service Association, the labor union that represents foreign service officers, senior foreign service ranks were disproportionately represented in the layoffs compared to their share of the overall workforce.
“He’s making choices without the larger expertise of the United States government that would flag issues of consequence,” said Max Stier, CEO of the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service, a nonprofit group that studies federal workforce issues. “Sometimes government is slow-moving because there are a lot of different factors that need to be balanced against each other.”
For instance, the administration appears to have been caught off guard by what would happen once the U.S. struck Iran — something Trump himself acknowledged this week when he expressed surprise that Tehran retaliated with strikes on American allies in the region. “Nobody expected that. We were shocked. They fought back,” Trump told reporters this week.
Pigott said staffing reductions “are not having any negative impact on our ability to respond to this operation, our ability to plan, and our ability to execute in service to Americans.” He added that the department “rejects the premise that key decisions were made without meaningful input from experienced professionals.”
But Iranian retaliation on U.S. allies was predictable, according to former officials, as well as previous war games and conflict models run by both the U.S. military and private organizations. The National Security Council, which Trump has pared, typically would have presented the president with analysis from experts within the bureaucracy.
Instead, decisions are made by a small group of officials close to the president without the planning or coordination of the larger machinery of government, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who also serves as the president’s national security adviser.
“In the Trump Administration, decisions are made by President Trump and senior administration officials and not by no-name bureaucrat leakers who whine to the press about not being consulted about highly classified operations,” White House spokesperson Dylan Johnson said.
Advice from career officials often went unheeded
“In the time that I was there, there was no policy process to speak of,” said Chris Backemeyer, who served in Near Eastern Affairs as a deputy assistant secretary of state before resigning last year. Backemeyer was a major proponent of the Iran deal that Trump abandoned. He recently left government to run for Congress as a Democrat in Nebraska.
“They did not want to hear any advice from career people,” said Backemeyer.
Namdar was later moved to be the head of Consular Affairs, the part of the department responsible for providing assistance to American citizens overseas and issuing visas to foreign visitors.
When the U.S. made the decision to strike Iran, Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee offered embassy staff in Jerusalem the opportunity to evacuate — a sign that he knew strikes were coming. But some other embassies in the region did not make similar arrangements — leaving nonessential personnel and their families stranded in a war zone.
The department said it has been issuing travel warnings since January and was fully staffed to handle the crisis the moment the strikes were launched.
Evacuation planning was chaotic
Still, little planning appears to have gone into how to evacuate the Americans who were living, working, visiting or studying in many of the countries that became engulfed in the conflict — in part because the White House seems to have underestimated the possibility of the strikes expanding into a prolonged multi-country war, as evidenced by Trump’s own remarks.
After Iranian attacks on allies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, the State Department began calling for Americans to leave the region. But numerous former Consular Affairs staffers say such planning should have begun long before U.S. strikes started.
In a statement posted to social media, Namdar only told Americans to evacuate several days into the conflict, when airspace was largely closed and many commercial flights were unavailable.
“The messaging that went out to American citizens — after the U.S. struck Iran — was woefully late and, initially, confusing,” said Yael Lempert, who served as U.S. ambassador to Jordan until 2025. Lempert is one of five former ambassadors expected to speak about the department’s failures at an event Thursday at the American Academy of Diplomacy in Washington.
Other poorly executed evacuations, such the Biden administration’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, have drawn criticism.
But this time they’re compounded by the loss of experienced people, officials say. Consular Affairs has lost more than 150 jobs in the Trump administration due to a combination of reductions in force, dismissals of probationary employees and retirements, according to a U.S. official who asked for anonymity — though other parts of the department were hit much harder.
The department notes that it has offered assistance to nearly 50,000 Americans impacted by the conflict, with more than 60 flights evacuating citizens from the region. In total, the department says more than 70,000 Americans have been able to return home since the outbreak of hostilities on Feb. 28.
“The loss of experienced personnel through these RIFs has clearly undermined the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ ability to fulfill its most important mission, to protect Americans abroad,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a statement.
Language skills at the department are also atrophying. Thirteen Arabic speakers and four Farsi speakers, all trained at taxpayer expense, were among employees let go, according to a draft letter being circulated by former foreign service officers.
It can cost $200,000 to train a foreign service officer in a language. The letter estimates that the total number of people fired by the State Department in the name of efficiency received more than $35 million in taxpayer-funded language training and more than $100 million in total training and other career development.
The State Department has set up two temporary task forces to deal with the crisis in the Middle East. One aims to bolster the capacities of Near East Affairs and another is aimed at helping Consular Affairs evacuate Americans.
A group of more than 250 Foreign Service officers were part of the administration’s reduction-in-force last year but still remain on the State Department’s payroll. Many have volunteered to return to the department to work on either a task force or do any other job that needs to be done with the outbreak of a global crisis.
“I haven’t been given any separation paperwork. I still have an active clearance. I could go back to the department tomorrow, either to backfill or staff a task force,” said one foreign service officer who asked for anonymity because they are still technically on the department’s payroll and are not authorized to speak to the press. “I will do the scutwork jobs.”
The department hasn’t responded to their offer but said in a statement that the task force is “fully staffed.”
THERE could be trouble ahead for those who have booked holidays to far-flung destinations as airlines are warning of even more flight cancellations.
The rising price and shortage of jet fuel caused by the Iran crisis means airlines may be forced to axe longer journeys.
Sign up for the Travel newsletter
Thank you!
Certain airlines have already announced axing of flightsCredit: AlamyScandinavian Airlines System said it would be cancelling 1,000 flightsCredit: Alamy
Following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the price of jet fuel has risen sharply from $90 (£67) per barrel to as much as $200 (£150) per barrel – with oil traders now also expecting a shortage of it in the coming weeks.
As a result, there’s a rising risk of airlines cancelling services especially to long-haul destinations.
This is because airlines heading to far-flung places may not have enough fuel for the return journey.
The Times reported that the problem could even go on until summer quoting an industry source that said it could “take up to six months to get back to normal” – which sees us through to August.
The airline will see roughly a five per cent reduction in its services which works out to around 1,100 flights.
Following suit, Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS) announced that it would be cancelling 1,000 flights.
Certain countries, like Vietnam have now warned that flights could be cancelled from April, affecting the Easter break.
Meanwhile, China and Thailand have halted exports of fuel to maintain their own supplies – which in turn will affect airlines operating in other countries.
Closer to home, Brits could be affected as some of its jet fuel is imported from the likes of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE.
International Air Transport Association said that “Europe is among the most exposed, with 25–30 per cent of its jet fuel demand originating from the Persian Gulf.”
Meanwhile, Watson Farley & Williams, the energy, infrastructure and transport law firm, said: “If airports and airlines’ stocks of fuel are depleted for any length of time, airlines will cease to be able to fuel their aircraft and will have to reduce their operations.
“This may have far-reaching consequences.”
This implies that there could be a knock-on effect for airlines later on, too.
It added that “further flight cancellations can be expected, even by airlines operating from home bases where there is a reliable supply of fuel.”
Certain UK airlines are less affected for now because they have secured some of their fuel at a fixed price for a certain amount of time.
