strategy

VAUX-DE-CERNAY, France — Group of Seven foreign ministers met on Friday in France to discuss the Russia-Ukraine conflict, with deep divisions apparent over the U.S.-Israeli war with Iran, following President Trump’s repeated complaints that America’s allies have ignored or rejected requests for help in the military operation and in confronting Iran’s retaliatory attacks, including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz to most international shipping.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio joined his counterparts from the G7 just 24 hours after Trump’s latest round of insults lobbed at NATO and as instability in oil markets persisted with the Iran war entering its fourth week along with uncertainty over the status of potential negotiations to end the crisis.

Most of America’s closest allies have greeted the Iran war with deep skepticism, sentiments that were on display as the G7 foreign ministers met at a historic 12th-century abbey in Vaux-de-Cernay, outside Paris, even as they urged a diplomatic solution to resolve the situation.

As the diplomats gathered, France’s Minister of the Armed Forces Catherine Vautrin said the war in the Middle East “is not ours,” adding that the French position is strictly defensive.

“The aim is truly this diplomatic approach, which is the only one that can guarantee a return to peace,” she said on Europe 1 and CNews. “Many countries are concerned, and it is absolutely essential that we find a solution.”

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper, meanwhile, said Britain also favored a diplomatic path, acknowledging differences with the United States. “We have taken the approach of supporting defensive action, but also we’ve taken a different approach on the offensive action that has taken place as part of this conflict,” she said.

Rubio already faced difficulties in trying to sell the U.S. strategy for the Iran conflict, but Trump’s vitriolic comments about NATO countries not stepping up to help the U.S. and Israel during a Cabinet meeting on Thursday will likely make it an even tougher task.

Of the G7 nations — besides the U.S. — Britain, Canada, France, Germany and Italy are members of the trans-Atlantic military alliance. Japan is the only one that is not.

“We are very disappointed with NATO because NATO has done absolutely nothing,” Trump said in comments echoed later by his top diplomat.

“Frankly, I think countries around the world, even those that are out there complaining about this a little bit, should actually be grateful that the United States has a president that’s willing to confront a threat like this,” Rubio said Thursday.

Rubio, who chatted briefly with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha, also still has work to do to smooth things over with allies like those in Europe that have faced criticism or outright threats from Trump and others in his Republican administration. The Europeans are still smarting over Trump’s earlier demands to take over Greenland from NATO ally Denmark and are concerned about U.S. support for Ukraine in its war with Russia. The conflict in the Middle East has added another point of tension.

“Today at the G7 I reiterated that President Trump is committed to reaching a ceasefire and negotiated settlement to the Russia-Ukraine war as soon as possible,” Rubio said in a post on X containing a photo of him meeting with his counterparts.

Shortly before leaving Washington Rubio told reporters he was not concerned about G7 unhappiness with the Iran war.

“I’m not there to make them happy,” he said. “I get along with all of them on a personal level, and we work with those governments very carefully, but the people I’m interested in making happy are the people of the United States. That’s who I work for. I don’t work for France or Germany or Japan.”

Trump has complained about lack of support from allies

Trump has complained that he has not been able to rally support behind his war of choice in Iran and that NATO and most other allies have rejected his calls to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran’s chokehold has disrupted oil shipments and pushed up energy prices.

“We’re there to protect NATO, to protect them from Russia. But they’re not there to protect us,” Trump said Thursday.

Before the U.S. leader’s comments, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte reiterated the increase in defense spending by alliance members — which Trump has urged — saying Europe and Canada had been “overreliant on U.S. military might” but a “shift in mindset” has taken hold.

Iran has long insisted that its nuclear program is peaceful, and its ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that the United States and Israel’s “justification that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons is simply a big lie.” The ambassador, Reza Najafi, has accused the U.S. and Israel of attacking ”Iran’s peaceful safeguarded nuclear facilities.”

G7 host France has been skeptical of the Iran war

France is hosting the G7 meeting near Versailles and has been highly skeptical of the war. Besides Vautrin’s comments on Friday, the chief of the French defense staff, Gen. Fabien Mandon, complained this week that U.S. allies had not been informed about the start of hostilities.

“They have just decided to intervene in the Near and Middle East without notifying us,” Mandon said, lamenting that the U.S. “is less and less predictable and doesn’t even bother to inform us when it decides to engage in military operations.”

However, 35 countries joined military talks hosted by Mandon on how to reopen the Strait of Hormuz “once the intensity of hostilities has sufficiently decreased,” France’s Defense Ministry said.

Rubio said that with Iran threatening global shipping, countries that care about international law “should step up and deal with it.”

Similar sentiments to Mandon’s have been expressed by other allies that also worry about the U.S. commitment to Ukraine as the Iran war closes in on four weeks.

“We must avoid further destabilization, secure our economic freedom and develop perspectives for an end of and the time after the hostilities,” German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said Thursday. “Our joint support for Ukraine … must not crumble now. That would be a strategic mistake with a view to Euro-Atlantic security.”

Lee writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Lorne Cook in Brussels, John Leicester in Paris and Geir Moulson in Berlin contributed to this report.

Iran has kept up attacks on neighbouring Gulf states and Israel, despite intense US and Israeli bombing, with senior Iranian figures assassinated.

The Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed – limiting the transit of vital energy supplies.

So what’s Iran’s strategy, and what are its options?

Presenter: Nick Clark

Guests:

Foad Izadi – Professor in the Faculty of World Studies, University of Tehran

Mehran Kamrava – Professor at Georgetown University in Qatar and director of the Iranian Studies Unit, Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies

Elijah Magnier – Military and political analyst who specialises in wars in the Middle East

As the United States-Israeli war on Iran enters its fourth week, the conflict seems to have escalated beyond President Donald Trump’s control.

The Iranian government has been able to endure the killings of its top political and military leaders and has launched retaliatory attacks on Israel and Gulf countries despite weeks of air strikes.

Tehran has also been able to impose a de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway through which a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas supplies pass, sending oil prices soaring. Analysts said the conflict risks unleashing a global recession. And that has put pressure on Trump, prompting his administration to allow the sale of sanctioned Russian oil to try to ease the energy crisis and pressure allies to police the strait, so far unsuccessfully.

Trump’s response in how to deal with the situation has been anything but coherent.

On Saturday, Trump upped the ante, issuing a threat to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if Tehran does not reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours. This came a day after he said the US was “winding down” its military operations in Iran.

Analysts said Trump launched the war without a clear goal and misjudged how Tehran would respond. The conflict has expanded across the Middle East.

So is Trump looking to exit the war – or escalate it?

Trump’s mixed messaging on the Iran war

Here’s a brief look at the changing statements from Washington:

Is the war winding up or widening?

While one statement from Trump signalled that the US is considering “winding down” the war on Iran, another one indicated that the conflict would widen in the coming days.

On Saturday, Trump posted on his Truth Social platform that Washington was “very close to meeting our objectives as we consider winding down our great Military efforts in the Middle East with respect to the Terrorist Regime of Iran”.

Trump listed the goals of the war as: completely degrading Iran’s missile capability, destroying its defence industrial base, eliminating the Iranian navy and air force, never allowing Iran to get even close to having nuclear weapons, protecting Middle Eastern allies, and guarding and policing the Strait of Hormuz.

Both Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have claimed repeatedly in the past few days that Iranian military capabilities have been “completely destroyed” even as Tehran continues to retaliate against Israel and strike countries in the region.

US military officials said they have carried out heavy bombardments of Iran’s coast, including with bunker buster bombs, but still have not been able to limit Tehran’s capacity to disrupt the Strait of Hormuz.

On Saturday, Trump said the US “has blown Iran off of the map” and insisted that he has “met my own goals … and weeks ahead of schedule!” He also reiterated that Iran’s “leadership is gone, their navy and air force are dead, they have absolutely no defense, and they want to make a deal”.

Iranian leaders have consistently denied reaching out to the US with a ceasefire offer.

Just an hour later, Trump returned to his Truth Social platform with a warning for Iran.

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump wrote.

Iran has since responded by saying it will hit energy sites across the Middle East if its power facilities are targeted. It has already fired hundreds of missiles and drones on Gulf countries, targeting US assets as well as energy facilities.

Between Trump’s claims to be “winding down” operations and upping the ante later, his administration announced it is sending three more warships to the Middle East with about 2,500 additional Marines.

The US military said about 50,000 military personnel are already deployed for the war against Iran.

When will the war on Iran end?

That has been among the foremost questions posed to US officials, including Trump, since the war on Iran was launched on February 28.

The next day, Trump told the Daily Mail that “it will be four weeks or so. It’s always been about a four-week process.” A day later, Trump said at the White House: “We projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.”

On March 8, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told the CBS TV network’s 60 Minutes programme: “This is only just the beginning.” The next day, the US president told the same channel that he thinks “the war is very complete, pretty much.” And the US military operation was “way ahead of schedule”.

Then, on March 9, Trump said one could say the war is “both complete and just beginning”. Later the same day, the president said: “We’ve already won in many ways, but we haven’t won enough” and promised to go further and harsher against Iran.

On March 11, Trump said: “We don’t want to leave early, do we? We’ve got to finish the job.”

Why did US and Israel launch strikes on Iran?

Responses to this question are perhaps the most telling about US posturing in the war against Iran.

On March 2, Hegseth said the attacks were aimed at ending “47 long years” of war by “the expansionist and Islamist regime in Tehran” and were launched because Iran refused to negotiate with the US.

Hours later, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, told reporters the US knew Israel was about to strike Iran, adding that the Trump administration believed the US needed to launch a pre-emptive strike before Iran’s retaliation potentially targeted US forces. “We went proactively in a defensive way to prevent them from inflicting higher damage,” he said.

This sparked a massive row in Washington with critics saying Israel had forced the US into war with Iran. Soon Trump rebutted his top diplomat, saying: “They [Iran] were going to attack. If we didn’t do it, they were going to attack first. … So if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand.”

The next day, the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, concluded that Trump just had a “good feeling” that Iran would strike so Washington attacked Tehran.

The launch of the war came as Washington and Tehran were scheduled to meet for another round of talks that were started late last year. Before the war, their Omani mediator said a deal was “within reach”.

The US and Israeli assertion that Tehran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb has not been backed up by the United Nations nuclear watchdog. Last week, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also told Congress that Iran was not in a position to make an atomic bomb.

Some analysts said the Trump administration was convinced to go to war by Netanyahu, who has been seeking US military intervention in Iran for decades. They said Trump was buoyed by a swift US military operation in Venezuela and did not think through Iran’s strengths before going into the war. In January, the US military abducted President Nicolas Maduro in a military operation in Caracas that took two and a half hours.

What does the conflicting messaging mean for US strategy?

Analysts said the moving goalposts in the Iran war show the policy limits of the current Trump administration as well as its strategy, to some extent, of keeping off-ramps available.

Zeidon Alkinani, a Middle East analyst at the Arab Perspectives Institute, told Al Jazeera that in the earlier days of the hostilities, there appeared to be clearer targets and limited objectives.

“There now seems to be a more chaotic reaction,” he said. He described the attacks as increasingly reciprocal, suggesting strikes on oil or energy facilities could prompt further escalation.

Last week, Iran attacked energy facilities in Qatar and caused “significant damage”, knocking out  17 percent of Qatar’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) export capacity. Qatar produces 20 percent of global LNG supplies. Iran said the attack was in retaliation for Israeli attacks on a gas plant.

Paolo von Schirach, president of the Global Policy Institute, told Al Jazeera that Trump changes his mind “very quickly” and it is hard to predict what his next step could be in the war on Iran.

The analyst said it was unclear to him what “tools” Trump has to end the war.

“We look at his message saying the war is winding down. OK, good. Things are quiet. Maybe there is an off-ramp somehow. But now he says that if the Iranians don’t open the Strait of Hormuz, then we [the US] are going to unleash hell and what have you,” von Schirach noted.

“It is not quite clear to me what he wants and what the tools are to accomplish this.”

Von Schirach added that it would be difficult to predict whether the US could force Iran into submission, given its size and population. Using as a reference Iraq, where 150,000 American soldiers were deployed during the Second Gulf War, the analyst predicted that the US might need as many as half a million soldiers if Trump “wants to take over Iran”.

The BHA’s research into underrepresented groups in racing highlighted “negative experiences, barriers to progression (which are often hidden), inconsistent support, and a lack of trust in reporting systems”.

A study which focused on the Urban Equestrian Academy – a social enterprise aimed at providing people from inner-city and diverse backgrounds access to horses and equestrian – found that all 20 participants had reported experiencing racism.

In the same study, all participants said that race had impacted their career progression.

One participant shared that they had thought about suicide “on a few occasions because of the way I was treated”.

Meanwhile, 40% (67) of respondents in a separate survey said they had experienced, witnessed, or had reported to them inappropriate or poor behaviour because of ethnicity or cultural background.

Some reported verbal abuse including aggressive racist language such as “dirty refugee” and “better off if you had been bombed”.

“The strategy is rooted in evidence and shaped by the lived experiences of people working in racing today, and we offer a huge thank you to those who have taken the time and shown the courage to share these with us,” the BHA’s head of diversity and inclusion, Rose Grissell, said.

“Many have positive experiences, but not everyone does, and acknowledging that is an important step in supporting positive progress.

“Our aim is to make inclusion part of everyday practice, not an optional extra.”

The BHA’s new equality, diversity and inclusion strategy includes the following proposals:

BHA chief executive Brant Dunshea said the new strategy was about ensuring the “long-term health and success” of horse racing.

“To attract talent, fans and investment, we must ensure that everyone who works in or engages with racing feels safe, respected and able to thrive,” he said.

“British racing is at its best when it is open, welcoming and reflective of the society around us.”

On Monday came the latest evidence of dysfunction within the Trump administration’s counterterrorism apparatus, when Joe Kent, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, resigned, citing his opposition to the war in Iran. But the disarray is not new.

In July 2025, Sebastian Gorka, the senior director for counterterrorism on President Trump’s National Security Council, announced that he was “on the cusp of releasing the unclassified new presidential U.S. counterterrorism policy.” Yet eight months later, while America wages war on a notorious state sponsor of terrorism, the strategy has yet to be released.

Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security has not published a National Terrorism Advisory since September and has failed to issue the annual Homeland Threat Assessment report since Trump returned to office. This remains the case, even as counterterrorism experts have warned about the possibility of Iranian-backed sleeper cells being activated because of the current conflict with Iran.

Without a strategy that clearly lays out American priorities and responses, America’s counterterrorism defenses are divided, disorganized and under-resourced. It is this malfunction that left Trump answering a question about whether Americans should expect more violence in the homeland with an effective shoulder shrug: “I guess.”

The homegrown backlash to the Iran conflict began on March 1, when a naturalized U.S. citizen opened fire at a bar in Austin, Texas. The gunman, who was wearing clothing pointing to his support of Iran, killed three before being killed by police gunfire. On March 7, two Islamic State-inspired teens hurled improvised explosive devices at a group of far-right protesters outside the New York City mayor’s mansion. March 12 then saw two attacks. First, a shooting erupted at Old Dominion University, as a former U.S. National Guardsman who had been prosecuted for Islamic State-related plotting killed an ROTC instructor. Then, a U.S. citizen with family ties to Lebanon drove his vehicle into Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Mich., before dying in an exchange of gunfire with synagogue security officers.

In three of the four attacks, further violence was stopped by heroic takedowns on scene. Perhaps most notably, the Old Dominion attacker was neutralized by students, who stabbed the gunman to death. The heroic stories, while worth uplifting, underscore a bleaker truth: amid war abroad, Americans have been forced to take counterterrorism into their own hands in their own communities, left to fend for themselves against AR-15s, improvised explosive devices and weaponized vehicles.

The diversity of the attacks and the perpetrators makes matters worse. The attackers include a U.S. National Guard veteran who served several years in prison on terrorism charges, two teenagers who traveled to a different state with violent intentions, a man with an apparently long history of mental illness, and a U.S. citizen who lost family members in the latest Israeli-Hezbollah hostilities. Their targets also point to a complex and unpredictable terrorism environment.

Absent more predictable trends, law enforcement will be spread thin, asked to protect an impossible array of locations across the country against an impossible diversity of threats. In this environment, an effective national counterterrorism strategy would likely point to stopping terrorism further upstream, interrupting radicalization and violent mobilization at an earlier stage. Yet the Trump administration has effectively eviscerated its prevention infrastructure, largely dismantling the Department of Homeland Security’s Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships.

Notably, too, none of the attacks to date seem to be coordinated or directed by the Iranian regime, with the war instead inspiring Western lone actors to attack their own communities. Yet Iran has long engaged in assassination plots in the United States, often by enlisting third-party criminal groups, and may yet seek to activate such a program. As journalists Peter Beck and Seamus Hughes warn: “Iran’s past calculus was low-grade operations in the United States, enough to keep the FBI busy but not large enough to trigger serious military consequences. With the latter now already a reality, the Islamic Republic has less to lose by orchestrating bolder attacks.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly invoked Iran’s history of support for terrorist proxies to justify the conflict: On March 2, for instance, Trump explained that one of the operation’s objectives was “ensuring that the Iranian regime cannot continue to arm, fund and direct terrorist armies outside of their borders.” Indeed, should it follow its historical model, Iran will likely continue to make external operations and inspired violence a significant part of its response, adding sleeper cell activation and sponsored individuals to the ranks of homegrown violent extremists who have so far plagued America’s homeland since hostilities broke out. But without a more defined strategy, America will likely struggle to mount an effective response.

If, as the old saying goes, “all politics is local,” then the modern-day corollary in an era of smartphones is, “all conflict is global.” Whenever there is a war in the Middle East, as kicked off in Gaza following the Hamas terror attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, it exacerbates the terrorism threat landscape around the world, including in the West. When images and videos of the errant U.S. missile attack on a girls’ school flood the internet, it raises the temperature, making attacks by lone actors and other violent extremists with only tangential connections to the conflict more likely.

The breadth of the violence, however, was not guaranteed or pre-ordained. As a Shiite-majority nation, Iran has long held fractious and even hostile relationships with Sunni jihadist actors. The extent of the violence indicates a broader anti-American sentiment prevailing across diaspora communities, likely precipitated by the decades-long war on terror, greatly aggravated by Israeli abuses in Gaza since Oct. 7, 2023, and punctuated by the killings of schoolchildren. The Iran war, in other words, seems to be superseding earlier grievances and instead uniting disparate extremist forces against the United States.

In this environment, the Trump administration needs to stop being so cavalier about counterterrorism. Devoid of an actual strategy and without a director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the United States is even more vulnerable to an attack on the homeland than it would be with those in place. Writing on X, Robert A. Pape, a longtime scholar of terrorism, posted: “After tracking terrorism for 25 years, this is a flashing red light — as bright as I’ve seen prior to a serious attack.”

Only a serious approach to countering terrorism will keep the United States safe, and this is the moment for the Trump administration to demonstrate that it recognizes the stakes. In counterterrorism, inattention can be deadly.

Jacob Ware is a terrorism researcher and the co-author of “God, Guns, and Sedition: Far-Right Terrorism in America.” Colin P. Clarke is the executive director of the Soufan Center. His research focuses on terrorism, counterterrorism and armed conflict.

‘Israelis are not looking for a negotiating partner, they’re looking for decimation.’

Ross Harrison joins an Al Jazeera panel discussion on what the US and Israel are seeking with their killing of senior Iranian leaders.

Walt Disney Co.’s incoming president and chief creative officer, Dana Walden, has unveiled her leadership team, which includes several familiar faces from the company’s film, television and marketing units.

Walden will become Disney’s first woman president on Wednesday. She will report to Josh D’Amaro, who will succeed Bob Iger as Disney’s chief executive, following the company’s annual meeting with shareholders and its high-profile leadership handoff.

Walden’s senior team includes her longtime creative partner, Alan Bergman. As chairman of Disney Entertainment and Studios, Bergman will continue to oversee Disney’s film studios, including production, marketing and distribution.

Bergman also will retain oversight of Disney’s streaming programming in concert with Walden.

Disney executives Joe Earley and Adam Smith were named co-presidents of Disney’s entertainment direct to consumer offerings — Disney+ and Hulu. Both executives will be responsible for strategy and financial performance and report to Walden and Bergman.

Earley and Walden worked together when they were Fox executives; Earley will also serve as head of content strategy.

Smith continues in his role as Disney Entertainment chief product and technology officer. He also will continue to collaborate with ESPN Chairman Jimmy Pitaro on matters related to ESPN and ESPN+.

Debra OConnell will step into a newly-formed role as chairman of Disney Entertainment Television.

She will have a broad TV portfolio that includes ABC Entertainment, Disney-branded cable channels, Hulu Originals as well as programming from National Geographic, 20th Television and 20th Television Animation.

OConnell will continue to oversee ABC News and the ABC-owned television stations, including KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles.

Disney’s incoming president Dana Walden has established her senior leadership team.

(Richard Shotwell/Richard Shotwell/Invision/AP)

Sean Shoptaw, who serves as executive vice president for games and digital entertainment, and his organization, will shift from Disney Experiences and into Walden’s division.

Shoptaw oversees Disney’s games business and its collaboration with Epic Games to develop a Disney universe connected to Fortnite.

John Landgraf remains chairman of FX and will continue to report directly to Walden.

Asad Ayaz, who is chief marketing and brand officer, has an influential remit across Disney’s various business segments. He will report to D’Amaro and Walden.

“The strength of Disney has always been the emotional connection between our stories and the people who love them,” Walden said in a statement. “As fans engage with Disney across more formats and platforms than ever before, we are bringing together the full power of our creative businesses to build an even more connected experience for audiences.”

March 16 (Asia Today) — A bold bet by a South Korean shipping heir on ultra-large oil tankers is paying off handsomely as the war involving Iran disrupts global energy markets and drives tanker demand sharply higher.

Bloomberg reported that Sinokor Merchant Marine, a major South Korean shipping company, positioned itself to profit from the crisis after securing a large fleet of very large crude carriers (VLCCs) months before the conflict escalated.

The strategy was led by Jeong Ga-hyun, a director at Sinokor Petrochemical and the son of Sinokor Chairman Jeong Tae-soon, according to the report.

Bloomberg described the move as an unprecedented large-scale bet in the global tanker market, executed well before the outbreak of the Iran conflict.

Tankers deployed to Gulf before war

On Jan. 29, weeks before the war erupted in late February, Sinokor reportedly deployed at least six empty VLCCs to the Persian Gulf, positioning them to wait for cargo.

After disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz pushed tanker demand and charter rates sharply higher, the strategy began generating massive returns.

The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, handling roughly 20% of global oil shipments.

Tanker rates surge to $500,000 a day

With oil exports disrupted and storage facilities across the Middle East filling rapidly, oil producers have increasingly turned to tankers as floating storage units.

According to Bloomberg, Sinokor is now chartering vessels for about $500,000 per day, roughly ten times last year’s average tanker rates.

Industry estimates suggest that by late February the company controlled around 150 VLCCs, representing roughly 40% of available tankers not already tied up in sanctions or long-term contracts.

Quiet heir behind massive shipping strategy

Jeong is known in the shipping industry as the low-profile heir to one of South Korea’s major maritime families.

Bloomberg reported that he rarely appears publicly and is known internally for a military-style management approach. Industry anecdotes even describe him challenging employees and business partners to arm-wrestling contests.

Oil supply disruptions reshape tanker market

The Iran war has dramatically altered global oil transportation patterns, forcing ships to reroute and increasing the need for offshore storage.

Under those conditions, Sinokor’s aggressive tanker acquisition strategy is now being viewed as one of the biggest winners of the crisis, Bloomberg said.

WSJ: Sinokor among winners of Hormuz crisis

The Wall Street Journal earlier identified Sinokor as one of the companies benefiting from the Strait of Hormuz tensions.

According to the newspaper, the company purchased dozens of oil tankers and deployed some of them to the Gulf region even before the conflict intensified.

Sources told the Journal that Sinokor is leasing several vessels to ADNOC, the United Arab Emirates’ state-owned oil company, to be used as floating storage facilities.

These vessels can earn up to $500,000 per day in charter fees, the report said.

As land-based storage in Gulf oil-producing countries approaches capacity, producers have increasingly stored crude at sea. Drilling firms in Iraq and Kuwait have even slowed production due to storage shortages.

The WSJ also noted that Greek shipping magnate George Prokopiou adopted a similar strategy, sending at least five tankers to the Strait of Hormuz through his company Dynacom, which is reportedly earning up to $440,000 per day – about four times pre-war rates.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260316010004394

Iran has significant oil and gas reserves, and is a key supplier to China.

A member of US President Donald Trump’s inner circle has said control of those reserves is a key United States aim amid the country’s war against Iran.

So, how valuable are Iran’s natural resources? And could they be a factor in US thinking?

Presenter: Imran Khan

Guests:

Foad Izadi – Professor in the faculty of world studies at the University of Tehran

Mohammad Reza Farzanegan – Professor of Middle East economics at Marburg University

Paolo von Schirach – President of the Global Policy Institute, an independent think tank