maritime

Inside the EIB’s Global Maritime Blitz

From Spain to Cabo Verde, the EIB is building a blueprint for global maritime decarbonization.

When the European Investment Bank (EIB) signed off on an €80 million loan to Bilbao’s Port Authority in late 2024, most observers logged it as routine. It was anything but.

The facility bundled three priorities that now define the bank’s maritime strategy: capacity expansion, grid electrification, and renewable energy generation on port land. Over the past 18 months, operating through its core European window and EIB Global, the bank has deployed or committed well over €400 million in maritime financing, for the most active period of EIB maritime engagement in a generation.

The Bilbao loan and a subsequent package for Málaga form the European spine of the push. Bilbao’s €80 million facility finances breakwater expansion, the landside electricity grid, and renewable generation, positioning the port on the Atlantic Corridor of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) as a lower-carbon alternative to road freight. Málaga’s €50 million loan, signed in spring 2025, follows the same template on the Mediterranean Corridor: a new multi-purpose terminal, full shore-power electrification for docked vessels, and upgraded border and passenger facilities.

Regulatory Revolution

Both foreground onshore power supply (OPS)—enabling ships to cut auxiliary engines at berth—in anticipation of FuelEU Maritime, the EU regulation that mandates OPS at designated EU ports as of 2030.

The Cabo Verde Blue Economy Sustainable Ports Facility remains the EIB’s most ambitious external maritime bet in recent memory, however.

Assembled in layers over the past two years, the program combines €114 million in EIB loans with a €34 million EU investment grant for a total €148 million concessional package under the Global Gateway, the EU’s strategy to invest in sustainable infrastructure. The undertaking spans three of the four maritime hubs across the Cape Verde archipelago: Mindelo’s Porto Grande (new breakwater, expanded container and fisheries infrastructure), Palmeira on Sal (larger-vessel reception, improved fish-landing facilities), and Santo Antão’s Porto Novo (inter-island connectivity upgrades).

Solar energy systems across multiple ports aim to cut diesel dependency. The centerpiece of the project is the rehabilitation of CABNAVE, Cape Verde’s sole naval repair yard. The EIB intends to develop it into a regional maritime center of excellence: a goal with geopolitical resonance, given China’s longstanding interest in the facility.SUBHED

The series of deals comes fully into focus as an accompaniment to the regulatory revolution unfolding in parallel in the EU. FuelEU Maritime, in force since the beginning of last year, mandates progressive greenhouse-gas intensity cuts for ships above 5,000 gross tonnes calling at EU ports: 2% against a 2020 baseline now, rising to 6% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Simultaneously, the EU Emissions Trading System covers shipping; companies must surrender allowances for 40% of verified emissions from 2024, 70% from 2025, and 100% from 2026.

This double pressure—a fuel-intensity standard alongside a carbon price—is the commercial incentive structure the EIB’s port electrification investments are designed to capitalize on. The bank is de-risking regulatory transitions for port authorities that might otherwise be delayed while awaiting final implementing rules. Additionally, bundling electrification, renewables, and capacity expansion into single loan instruments is more sophisticated than the EIB’s earlier methods of generating port loans, which were piecemeal and perceived as non-strategic.

€100 Billion Funding Gap

But the EIB is not the only major backer of the energy transition, nor could it be.

Last year, the European Investment Fund approved infrastructure fund investments explicitly targeting shipping-sector decarbonization, signaling a move beyond pure debt into equity and quasi-equity instruments that aim to crowd in pension funds and insurers at a scale individual EIB loans cannot reach. The European Commission has estimated that the full maritime energy transition will require around €100 billion by 2035; the EIF’s fund route is considered the most plausible mechanism for mobilizing capital at that magnitude.

Yet gaps remain. The portfolio is still weighted heavily toward port-side infrastructure rather than the fleet itself; direct EIB financing for vessel retrofits and alternative-fuel newbuilds has yet to materialize at scale. OPS deployment across all TEN-T ports by 2030 is a larger task than two Spanish loans can address. And the geopolitical role the bank has assumed in Cape Verde raises questions about mandate and institutional capacity that extend beyond the mid-Atlantic.

The EIB’s maritime schemes of the past 18 months are not isolated transactions; they are the outline of a strategy. Whether the bank receives the resources and political backing to match the scale of the transition it’s trying to finance is an open question.


Source link

Project Freedom and the UAE Attack: What It Means for the Iran Ceasefire Now

The ceasefire between the US and Iran has been in place for nearly four weeks. The Strait of Hormuz has not been at peace for a single day.

This week pushed that contradiction to its most dangerous point yet. The United States launched Project Freedom, a naval escort operation designed to guide roughly 2,000 ships stranded on either side of the Strait through to open water. Iran said any ship attempting passage without IRGC permission would be fired on. Within hours, both sides were claiming to have hit the other, the UAE was scrambling missile alerts for the first time since the ceasefire began, an oil refinery in Fujairah was on fire, and commercial aircraft bound for Dubai were turning around mid-air.

As of Tuesday evening, Trump announced Project Freedom would be paused “for a short period of time” to see if an agreement with Iran could be reached. Secretary of State Rubio told reporters the US was now in a “defensive” posture. Twenty-four hours earlier, both sides had been shooting and denying it simultaneously.

Here is what we know, what is contested, and what it means.

What Is Project Freedom and Why Did the US Launch It?

Trump announced the operation on Sunday, framing it in humanitarian terms, an effort to free the seafarers and cargo companies that had done nothing wrong and were caught between two governments fighting a war neither had formally ended. About 2,000 ships have been stranded on either side of the Strait since late February, unable to move without IRGC permission, which Iran began requiring and charging for after the ceasefire took effect.

The US had already begun a naval blockade of Iranian ports on April 13. Project Freedom was the next escalation — a direct challenge to Iran’s assertion that the Strait was now under its operational control. Trump described it as a “humanitarian gesture.” Iran described it as a violation of the ceasefire and an act of military aggression in a sensitive oil region that affects the economies of countries around the world.

Two American-flagged merchant ships successfully transited the Strait on Monday with US Navy escort. A Danish shipping company confirmed one of its vessels crossed with US military protection. But the transit did not go smoothly.

Did Iran Attack a US Warship? What the Claims Say

By Monday afternoon, the competing narratives had become almost impossible to untangle, which is itself part of the story.

Iran’s Fars News Agency reported a US warship had been hit by two Iranian drones after refusing to turn back from the Strait. CENTCOM denied any warship had been hit. US Admiral Brad Cooper said CENTCOM forces had sunk six IRGC vessels that tried to interfere with Project Freedom. Trump later said seven. Iran’s state broadcaster then reported that Tehran had launched an investigation and its preliminary conclusion was that the vessels the US claimed to have sunk were not IRGC boats at all, they were two small civilian craft carrying passengers from Oman to the Iranian coast, and five civilian passengers had been killed. The US has not commented on that claim and it has not been independently verified.

Why Iran Attacked the UAE in 2026: The Fujairah Strike Explained

The UAE’s Ministry of Defense said its air defenses engaged 15 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles, and four drones launched from Iran on Monday, the first Iranian attacks on the UAE since the ceasefire took effect on April 8. One drone struck an oil refinery in Fujairah, wounding three Indian nationals and setting the facility ablaze. Four missile alerts were issued across the country, sending residents to shelter. Commercial aircraft bound for Dubai and Abu Dhabi turned around in mid-flight.

Iran’s position was that the Fujairah attack was not a premeditated strike on the UAE but a consequence of what it called US military adventurism in the Strait. An Iranian military official said the Islamic Republic had no preplanned programme to attack UAE facilities, and that what happened resulted from the US attempt to create an illegal passage through restricted waters. The UAE’s Foreign Ministry rejected that framing entirely, condemning what it called renewed terrorist and unprovoked Iranian attacks on civilian sites, and warning it reserves the full right to respond.

Why the Attack Claims Cannot Be Independently Verified

One detail worth noting is the shifting count of Iranian vessels supposedly sunk. Admiral Cooper said six. Trump said seven. No independent observer has confirmed either figure, and Iran has denied any IRGC boats were hit at all. This pattern: each side claiming damage inflicted while denying damage received, with no neutral verification , has run throughout the conflict and is not unique to this week’s exchange. What is different now is that the Strait is supposed to be under a ceasefire, and the exchanges are happening in a waterway where 2,000 civilian ships are anchored and waiting to see who wins the argument.

How the Hormuz Escalation Is Threatening Iran Ceasefire Talks in 2026

Trump’s decision to pause Project Freedom on Tuesday is significant precisely because of how quickly it followed the launch. The operation began Sunday. By Tuesday, with the UAE under attack, Iranian drones targeting ships in the Strait, and competing claims circulating with no resolution, the White House stepped back. Rubio reframed the entire mission as defensive rather than offensive, and a new UN Security Council resolution on freedom of navigation was announced, co-authored by Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Qatar. A previous similar resolution was vetoed by China and Russia, and the outlook for this one is no clearer.

The pause does not resolve the underlying problem. The Strait remains contested. Iran still insists ships must seek IRGC permission and pay for transit. The US still insists the Strait is international water under international law. Two thousand ships are still stranded. And the ceasefire that is supposed to govern all of this is being tested in ways its text was never designed to handle.

The attacks this week did not happen in isolation from the negotiations still technically underway. Pakistan has been trying to bring the US and Iran back to a second round of talks after the Islamabad discussions collapsed on the nuclear question in April. Every exchange of fire, every competing claim, every missile alert in Abu Dhabi makes that second round harder to convene and harder to trust once convened.

As Shahram Akbarzadeh, a professor in Middle East and Central Asian politics at Deakin University, told Al Jazeera: “We see escalation after escalation against the backdrop of shuttle diplomacy. Such attacks, even if they are aimed to be contained, risk exploding into another major combat.” Neither the Americans nor the Iranians want a return to full-scale war, Akbarzadeh said, but neither is prepared to show weakness. “This dynamic has locked them in a perpetual conflict and in desperate need of a circuit breaker.”

The circuit breaker Pakistan offered in April produced a ceasefire. That ceasefire is now generating its own escalation cycle, in twenty-one miles of water, over a question neither side has answered: who controls the Strait of Hormuz, and on what terms does the world’s most important waterway reopen.

Two thousand ships are waiting for the answer.

Source link

U.S. Moves Warships Into Gulf, Sends Two Destroyers Through Strategic Strait

The U. S. military announced that two Navy guided-missile destroyers entered the Gulf to counter an Iranian blockade, while two U. S. ships passed through the Strait of Hormuz. This follows Iran’s claim of preventing a U. S. warship from entering the Gulf. U. S. Central Command (CENTCOM) stated that forces are supporting President Trump’s “Project Freedom,” aimed at helping commercial ships stranded due to the U. S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, and are enforcing a blockade on Iranian ports.

The U. S. intervention increases the possibility of direct confrontation with Iran in a crucial waterway that carries a significant portion of the world’s oil and gas, which has been blocked for two months because of the war. CENTCOM reported that two U. S.-flagged vessels successfully transited the strait while destroyers worked in the Gulf. Iran claimed it made a U. S. warship turn back, but CENTCOM denied reports of any missile strikes on the ship. An Iranian official mentioned a warning shot was fired, with uncertainty about any resulting damage to the warship.

Trump detailed a plan to assist ships running low on supplies in the Gulf, stating, “We will guide their Ships safely out of these restricted Waterways. ” In response, Iran warned oil tankers and commercial ships to coordinate movements with its military, asserting that it controls security in the Strait of Hormuz and would attack any foreign armed forces, particularly the U. S. military, attempting to enter. Since the war began, Iran has largely blocked shipping movements, causing oil prices to surge significantly.

CENTCOM plans to support “Project Freedom” with 15,000 troops, over 100 aircraft, warships, and drones, asserting that this mission is vital for regional security and the global economy.

With information from Reuters

Source link

Why are maritime laws failing to secure the seas? | Show Types

Wars and territorial disputes are rewriting the rules of global shipping.

Wars and territorial disputes are rewriting the rules of global shipping.

From the Strait of Hormuz to the Panama Canal, and the Red Sea to the Black Sea, maritime traffic is under increasing threat.

Is shipping becoming the new global battleground? And why are the decades-old laws governing the seas failing?

Presenter: James Bays

Guests:

Rockford Weitz – director of the Fletcher Studies programme at Tufts University

George Theocharidis – professor of maritime law and policy at the World Maritime University

Stavros Karamperidis – associate professor in maritime economics at Plymouth University

Source link

With talks in ruins, Iran displays its power over strait

Iran displayed its strengthened control over the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday by releasing video footage of its commandos boarding a large cargo ship. The video, aired on state television, showed masked troops storming the MSC Francesca and included scenes of another captured ship, the Epaminondas, which Iran accused of trying to cross the strait without proper permits.

As tensions remain high, the U. S. announced that it boarded another tanker, the Majestic, in the Indian Ocean. This was likely a reference to the supertanker, the Phonix, which was carrying 2 million barrels of crude oil off Sri Lanka. Since the start of conflict in February, Iran has effectively restricted access to the strait, asserting control after peace talks between the U. S. and Iran were halted shortly before a ceasefire expired.

Iran’s willingness to re-engage in talks depended on the U. S. lifting its blockade and releasing Iranian ships. In a post on Truth Social, U. S. President Donald Trump indicated that he ordered the Navy to “shoot and kill” Iranian boats that were laying mines in the strait, escalating military actions without addressing other Iranian tactics like speedboats and drones.

Iran’s judiciary chief stated that the merchant vessels attacked by Iran’s forces had faced legal consequences, while Iran’s vice speaker announced that the first toll revenue collected from ships using the strait had been transferred to the central bank, but provided no specifics on payments or amounts.

Tehran proclaimed it would not reopen the strait, which typically handles a significant portion of global oil and gas shipments, until the U. S. lifted the blockade considered a breach of the ceasefire. Although Trump refrained from escalating attacks in the ceasefire’s final hours, he remained firm on not lifting the blockade. There was no formal extension of the ceasefire nor plans for new negotiations.

Iranian citizens faced uncertainty and anxiety in what they termed a state of “neither peace nor war,” fearing potential attacks from the U. S. or Israel. Pakistan, previously facilitating talks, remained in contact with both countries about reviving discussions, but Iranian officials hesitated to commit due to the U. S. blockade.

On the U. S. side, another round of discussions was set for Thursday, focused on Israel and Lebanon, where Lebanon sought an extension of a recent ceasefire amidst continued Israeli airstrikes that resulted in casualties, marking a significant day since the ceasefire began.

In a significant personnel change, U. S. Navy Secretary John Phelan was dismissed amid conflicts over shipbuilding decisions and tensions with high-ranking officials.

The ongoing situation in the Strait of Hormuz has caused volatility in markets, pushing oil prices upward, while stock prices in the U. S. reached record highs despite uncertainty about energy supply. Washington has thus far failed to achieve its stated war goals of limiting Iran’s military capabilities, ending its nuclear efforts, and fostering regime change. Iran maintains its missile and drone capabilities and stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, while its government remains resilient against internal dissent. Despite threats from Trump, Iran’s control over the strait appears to strengthen its position in the conflict.

With information from Reuters

Source link

U.S. says blockade has ‘completely halted’ Iran’s maritime trade

The U.S Central Command said late Tuesday that its forces have halted all maritime traffic to and from Iran. File Photo by Ali Haider/EPA-EFE

April 15 (UPI) — The U.S. military’s maritime blockade of Iran has “completely halted” sea-based trade with the Middle Eastern country, U.S. Central Command said late Tuesday.

President Donald Trump announced the blockade on Sunday after negotiations to end the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran collapsed.

The blockade of 12 U.S. warships, more than 100 fighter and surveillance aircraft and more than 10,000 soldiers began at 10 a.m. EDT Monday, an effort to prohibit maritime traffic to and from all Iranian ports.

According to U.S. military officials, it covers the entire southern coastline of Iran, including ports on the Arabian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, between which lies the Strait of Hormuz.

“A blockade of Iranian ports has been fully implemented as U.S. forces maintain maritime superiority in the Middle East,” Adm. Brad Cooper, Central Command commander, said in a statement.

“In less than 36 hours since the blockade was implemented, U.S. forces have completely halted economic trade going into and out of Iran by sea.”

Central Command said earlier Tuesday that no ships had made it through during the blockade’s first 24 hours and that six vessels had complied with U.S. forces’ direction to return to an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman.

“The blockade is being enforced impartially against vessels of all nations entering or departing Iranian ports and coastal areas,” Central Command said.

The blockade comes amid a two-week cease-fire between the United States and Iran that Trump announced on April 8. During the fragile truce negotiations on a permanent end to the war were to be conducted.

However, negotiations with Iran collapsed in Pakistan on Sunday, seemingly over disagreements on Iran’s nuclear program and control of the Strait of Hormuz.

Not long after the war began with the United States and Israel attacking Iran on Feb. 28, Iran sharply restricted vessel traffic to the Strait of Hormuz, an important trade route through which flows roughly 27% of the world’s maritime trade in crude oil and petroleum products as well as 20% of global liquefied natural gas trade, according to the U.S. Congressional Research Service.

Iran’s control of trade through the strait has caused gas prices to spike, threatening countries with energy crises.

The U.S. blockade appears aimed at financially squeezing Iran by cutting it off from maritime trade revenue.

According to Maid Maleki, senior fellow of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a nonpartisan Washington, D.C., research institute, the blockade could cost Iran about $435 million a day.

“The blockade makes continued resistance economically impossible,” he said in a statement.

Source link