USA

The aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, six frigates, three light warships, and approximately thirty fighter jets and support aircraft have entered the Middle East by order of Donald Trump who, by repeatedly touting the slogan “I have ended six/seven/eight wars,” has considered (and continues to consider) himself deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize. What objective do all these tensions that the U.S. administration has generated in the region actually pursue? The weakening of Iran, or the overthrow of the incumbent government? Whatever his and his administration’s aim may be, it appears that—within the cost–benefit calculations of his trader’s mindset—he has yet to arrive at a definitive conclusion as to what kind of blow, and at what scale, could deliver the desired outcome. His recent military posturing around Iran and his increasingly threatening rhetoric against the Islamic Republic have placed him in a no-win situation whose end few can predict.

Why a no-win situation for Trump?

First Strike Doubt: Trump and the constellation of officials currently in the White House—who, notably, are far from unified or aligned on how to approach Iran—have reached no certainty regarding the effectiveness of a first strike against Iran or the likelihood of achieving their desired results. It is evident to all that the Islamic Republic of Iran is neither Venezuela, nor Libya, nor Syria, nor Afghanistan, nor Iraq, nor anything akin to the historical cases in which the United States has intervened militarily in the name of democracy verbally and in pursuit of its own interests operationally. This very reality has, thus far, prevented Trump from issuing the order to “open fire” on Iran up to now.

On the other side, there is no sign of the flexibility or concession sought by the United States in the behavior or rhetoric of Iranian officials—a fact acknowledged by American officials themselves. This indicates that pressure, intimidation, and threats have thus far yielded no results. The reason is clear: the Islamic Republic views any potential confrontation as an existential war and is unwilling to grant any concessions. Trump, however—who seeks to manufacture achievements out of even the smallest events and whose penchant for exaggeration is among his defining traits—perceives such circumstances as detrimental to his personal prestige and standing.

Iran’s Resilience: The experience of the Israeli attack and the hybrid war launched against Iran in June 2025, with direct assistance from the United States and indirect support from so many others, demonstrated that the instability they sought within the governing structure of the Islamic Republic and even the internal social fragmentation and rifts that had been cultivated for years through various media tools did not materialize. Despite the blows inflicted on Iran, none of the long-term strategic objectives of the United States and Israel were achieved. Likewise, the unrest and riots of January 8 and 9, despite the violence and damage they caused to the public and the state, were ultimately brought under control and culminated in a multi-million-person rally on January 12 condemning the unrest and supporting the central government of the Islamic Republic.

High costs and Persian Gulf Worries: Operationalizing a military threat would impose heavy costs on the United States and its allies. The Islamic Republic has explicitly declared that any military action against its territory, at any scale, would be regarded as all-out war, and that, consequently, the entire region—as well as U.S. interests wherever they may be—would fall within range of Iran’s retaliatory strikes. This serious warning has also prompted Persian Gulf states to mobilize their capacities to dissuade Trump from attacking Iran. The strikes on U.S. bases at Ayn al-Asad and Al-Udeid entrenched the perception that the Islamic Republic does not shy away from responding to foreign aggression, even if large segments of the world regard the attacking state as a “superpower.”

Global Energy Risks: The ignition of war in the Persian Gulf would amount to a grave threat to global energy supply routes. Roughly 30 percent of the world’s crude oil and 20 percent of liquefied natural gas are supplied by Persian Gulf countries, and 20–25 percent of global crude oil transits the Strait of Hormuz. Any aggressive action by the United States would jeopardize the security of one-fifth of the world’s fuel and profoundly affect the global economy.

Although the U.S. National Security Strategy does not place the Middle East among America’s top strategic priorities, the same document states that: “We (the United States) want to prevent an adversarial power from dominating the Middle East, its oil and gas supplies, and the chokepoints through which they pass while avoiding the forever wars”, which shows Persian Gulf oil is still of high importance for Washington.

Tilting Power Balance: In addition, heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf would endanger China’s economic interests, and any large-scale military confrontation would likely lead to a more pronounced military-security presence by Russia and China in the Gulf—tilting the balance in favor of America’s rivals.

And finally?

The embers beneath the region’s ashes today could be ignited by the slightest breeze, engulfing a vast area. Israel, while likely the first target of Iran’s retaliatory response in the event of a U.S. attack, is nevertheless eager to initiate confrontation based on the calculation that a war waged with the full might of the United States could ultimately erode the very existence of the Islamic Republic or weaken it to the point of capitulation. In this context, it is not far-fetched to suggest that the disclosure of new documents and details concerning Trump’s links to the notorious Epstein case and his mysterious island may have been driven by the Mossad, as such revelations could compel the U.S. president to undertake an irrational action to divert attention elsewhere.

Today, Trump is acting more than ever in contradiction to his own professed principles—from trampling on his signature MAGA slogan and morphing it into MIGA (Make Israel Great Again), to undermining his administration’s efforts to reduce unnecessary international expenditures; from his paradoxical pride in having ended “eight wars” to the strategy of off-shore balancing the Middle East. Should a war of this magnitude and consequence erupt, no country involved—whether through direct action or geographic proximity—would be spared its consequences. Regarding these circumstances, it appears that the only desirable scenario for Trump, the region, and the world at large is the opening of a genuine dialogue, free from the shadow of threats, intimidation, and American bullying.

U.S. trade policy uncertainty has sent shockwaves through global markets, as President Donald Trump moved to impose a 15% tariff following the Supreme Court of the United States ruling invalidating his emergency trade levies. Investors reacted quickly, rotating out of risk assets and the dollar, while seeking shelter in gold, silver, and safe-haven currencies. The turbulence highlights the fragility of global investor confidence when policy reversals collide with high-stakes geopolitical and economic risks.

Wall Street and Currency Volatility

U.S. stock futures fell sharply, with S&P 500 futures down 0.5% and Nasdaq futures slipping 0.6%. The dollar weakened across major pairs, losing 0.21% versus the yen and 0.34% against the Swiss franc, while the euro gained 0.23%. European equities also reflected caution: the STOXX 600 fell 0.19%, Germany’s DAX slid 0.36%, and Britain’s FTSE 100 edged down 0.1%.

Asian markets, however, were mixed. The MSCI Asia index excluding Japan rose 0.83%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng surged 2.53% on expectations of lower tariffs for China. Japan’s Nikkei futures fell 0.4% ahead of a holiday, highlighting regional divergence driven by perceived winners and losers in U.S. tariff policy.

Safe-Haven Assets Rally

Amid the uncertainty, investors sought protection in gold and silver, which climbed 0.6% and 2% respectively. Safe-haven currencies, including the Japanese yen and Swiss franc, appreciated as risk-off sentiment grew. Government bonds saw slight gains, with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield dipping to 4.077%, reflecting flight-to-quality buying. Brent crude prices fell 1.1% to $70.97 a barrel, reversing gains from earlier geopolitical risk sentiment linked to U.S.-Iran tensions.

Tariff Confusion and Its Economic Implications

Trump’s latest tariffs add layers of ambiguity. While the Supreme Court struck down his emergency powers, the new 15% levy relies on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, an untested statute. Questions remain over timing, exclusions, and applicability by country. Some nations, including the UK and Australia, had lower tariffs under prior rules, while many Asian exporters faced higher duties. The Yale Budget Lab estimates the average effective tariff rate at 13.7% following the announcement, down from 16% pre-ruling, with the 15% rate potentially dropping to 9.1% after 150 days.

“This circular process of tariff announcements, legal challenges, and revisions is creating profound uncertainty for markets,” said Rodrigo Catril, senior FX strategist at NAB.

Market Sentiment and Investor Behavior

The episode reflects broader structural concerns about U.S. trade policy’s unpredictability. Investors are no longer just reacting to tariffs themselves, but to the instability and volatility of policy enforcement. The uncertainty affects supply chains, corporate earnings forecasts, and capital allocation decisions. Nvidia’s upcoming earnings, for example, are being closely watched, given the company’s 8% weighting in the S&P 500, demonstrating how trade policy shocks can amplify market sensitivity to specific corporate results.

Analytical Outlook

Trump’s oscillating trade policy highlights a critical tension between political objectives and market stability. While tariffs are framed as instruments to advance domestic economic priorities, the resulting unpredictability imposes systemic costs: currency swings, equity market volatility, and flight to safe assets. The mixed regional responses Asian equities partially rallying, European markets cautious underscore how interconnected global trade and finance are, and how unevenly shocks are absorbed.

In essence, this episode illustrates a modern economic paradox: protective trade measures intended to strengthen domestic interests can, in practice, destabilize markets worldwide. Investors now must hedge not only against tariffs themselves but also against the policy volatility that accompanies them a scenario likely to persist as long as U.S. trade decisions are made unilaterally and unpredictably.

Trump’s approach has transformed trade from a predictable framework into a high-stakes, reactive arena, forcing global markets to continuously recalibrate. The lesson is clear: in today’s interconnected financial system, the cost of policy uncertainty often outweighs the intended protectionist benefit.

With information from Reuters.

Authors: Ajay Kumar Mishra and Shraddha Rishi*

At the Davos World Economic Forum, Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, shared his thoughts on the hegemonic and subservient world order. When integration turns into a source of subordination, one cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit in the midst of a collapsing global order. The trading communities appear to have a hegemonic and subservient relationship as a result of the dollar’s adoption as the world’s reserve currency. Furthermore, the competing global order between the US and China appears to be caving in to Chinese modus operandi without investigating the reasons for US authoritarian dominance, which could result in the acceptance of Chinese domination. The recognition of the US dollar as the worldwide currency and its dominance over oil, one of the most traded commodities, have put the US in leadership of the world trading regime. Furthermore, it appears that China’s monopoly over rare earth elements (REEs) is giving the Chinese yuan the same reserve currency power. Therefore, the globe might witness a change of control from the US to China, thus jeopardizing the world trading system to the whims and fancies of the country holding the reserve currency.

:

According to this essay, the dollar’s reserve currency status is the true cause of the world order’s disintegration, which equates to allowing the US to take the only seat at the table. It contends that a multipolar currency is essential for a multipolar world order. This understanding is necessary to prevent the rule of any country based on currency supremacy. Diversifying the currency basket for trade transactions is encouraged. To show how the currency dominance of a reserve currency would rise to currency imperialism, this article looks into the petrodollar problem and the duality of reserve currency and trade deficit to delegitimize the necessity of the dollar as a reserve currency. Any currency in question is subject to the same reasoning. Thus, a multi-currency trading framework is advocated in this article.

Geoeconomics of the Petrodollar Crisis’s Spiral

The dollar controls trade, payments, and reserves. About 96 percent of trade in the Americas, 74 percent in the Asia-Pacific area, and 79 percent in the rest of the world is denominated in the currency. About 60 percent of international and foreign currency claims (mainly loans) and liabilities (mostly deposits) are in US dollars. Its proportion of foreign exchange transactions is roughly 90 percent. Approximately 60% of the world’s official foreign reserves are in US dollars. Furthermore, in Q1 2025, the US dollar’s percentage of global foreign exchange reserves dropped to 53.6%. Additionally, the 50-year security agreement with Saudi Arabia to price oil only in dollars and invest surpluses in U.S. Treasury bonds in exchange for military protection expired in 2024. This could result in a shift toward accepting different currencies, albeit it won’t happen right away. Additionally, countries like Russia, China, and Iran are increasingly using non-dollar currencies for energy trade, aiming to reduce reliance on Western financial networks.

To achieve its geoeconomic goals, US authorities have attempted to preserve the dollar’s reserve currency status in several ways, compensating for economic weaknesses such as a lack of competitiveness in particular. The US appears to be addressing the growing trade deficit by maintaining the dollar as the world’s currency and matching China’s hegemony over rare earth elements. The US’s current dominance over the trade regime is largely due to dollar-based trade. The oil trade in dollars gives the US significant influence to shape geopolitics globally, both bilaterally and multilaterally, as oil holds a premier position in the international trading landscape.One commodity (oil) and one currency (the US dollar) have the power to both destabilise and stabilise the global price system. Its “as good as gold” quality can only be maintained in a world where the dominant currency is no longer associated with gold if it is associated with oil, that is, if wealthy people have faith that oil prices won’t continue to rise relative to the US dollar. The US gains influence over the oil trade by controlling the petro-dollar trade.

The globe is essentially on an “oil-dollar standard” during the post-Bretton Woods system, when currencies are meant to be “floating.” The US is under pressure to control oil sources, which it does through coercion or persuasion, to maintain wealth-holders’ faith in the value of the dollar, without which the global economy will experience severe financial turmoil, particularly given the ongoing US current account deficit. In a nutshell, war is a result of today’s necessity to preserve US financial stability. It does, however, produce a spiral effect. To control a significant oil source for financial stability, the US attacked oil-rich Iraq and, more recently, Venezuela. However, as a result of the opposition this strike provoked, oil prices skyrocketed, increasing the threat to financial stability and the temptation to wage war on other oil-rich nations like Iran. Additionally, the US would experience the same spiral consequences in a much more severe form if it decided to go to war with Iran.

The Reserve Currency and Trade Deficit “Trade-off”

Trade deficit and reserve currency operate in a trade-off scenario wherein a nation whose currency serves as the world’s reserve currency must maintain a trade deficit. It is based on two fundamental ideas. The first is the ‘policy trilemma’ or ‘impossible trinity’ thesis of economists Robert Mundell and Marcus Fleming. It contends that an economy cannot sustain unrestricted capital flow, a fixed exchange rate, and an autonomous monetary policy at the same time. The second paradox bears the name of Robert Triffin, an economist. This states that where their money works as the global reserve currency, a nation must run huge trade deficits to meet the demand for reserves. Any candidate for a new global reserve currency position must run significant current account deficits and risk an intolerable loss of economic control.

However, trade imbalances are thought to be self-correcting. A nation’s currency is predicted to lose value when it has a trade imbalance. Exports will then rise, while imports will fall, resulting in a reduction in the trade deficit. However, as the dollar is the world’s reserve currency, this idea does not apply to the US economy. A large portion of a country’s foreign exchange reserves is invested in US government securities. As a result, the dollar is overpriced. A chronic trade deficit results from higher imports and lower exports due to an overpriced dollar. Therefore, the US has a trade deficit not because it imports more goods, but rather because it supplies the world’s reserve currency.

In the face of “unfair” trade and an overpriced currency, how can the US bring manufacturing back and lower the country’s trade deficit? Enter duties on imports. Tariffs will decrease imports and increase their cost, lowering the trade imbalance. By shielding American manufacturers from import competition, they will promote domestic production. However, the US’s return to a more protectionist policy through tariffs has led to increased bilateral commerce in non-dollar currency. For instance, India-Russia oil trade and China’s increasing use of bilateral currency swaps with its trading partners have caused major concern for the US reserve currency supremacy. Moreover, it caused a spiral effect. For example, the reserve currency of the central banks has become less dollarized as a result of the recent US policy of reciprocal tariffs to safeguard trade transactions in dollars. It promotes asking about options for a reserve currency basket and the possibility of de-dollarization. Trump has made no secret about retaining the US dollar’s global supremacy, even threatening the BRICS nations with 100% additional tax should they move forward with a unified currency to “degenerate” and “destroy” the dollar. After all, de-dollarization has the potential to tip the scales against the United States and reduce its capacity to influence international financial markets and the global economy. Furthermore, to protect dollar dominance from the assault of renewable energy, the US withdrawal from India’s solar alliance must be considered.

Economists fear that tariffs go against the concept of economic efficiency. Tariffs, they warn, will imply greater expenses for American consumers, an increase in the inflation rate, and an inefficient manufacturing sector. Moreover, tariffs will encourage nations to undermine the dollar’s standing as a reserve currency by making imports more expensive. It will portend the trading of multiple currencies. Even when Trump managed the inevitability of a trade deficit because of having a reserve currency, the US was still faced with two additional problems: the increasing bilateral trade in member countries’ currencies and China’s control over modern-era gold, ‘rare earth minerals’ critical for key industries. China’s hegemony over REEs and chip production challenges the US dollar’s hegemony.

Conclusion

It reflects that the actual geo-economic strength of the US lies in the acceptability of its currency as a global reserve and its hold over one of the most traded commodities, oil. The rise of China and the evolving structure of international trade are changing the dynamics of this area, even though the US dollar continues to be the most important reserve currency. However, there wouldn’t be any surpluses to invest or deficits to finance if trade were more bilaterally balanced over time, which would lessen the demand for a reserve currency like dollars. The world looks to be headed towards a multi-currency structure for harmonious commercial ties. By encouraging alternate payment methods among trading nations and choosing the currency used for the IMF’s reserve holdings, for instance, it is necessary to end the US monopoly on currency arrangements. The structure can be extended to incorporate trading blocs, where imbalances net out amongst members when aggregated. It suggests a world with several reserve and trade currencies.

This bilateral or multilateral currency autarky might unleash the potential to trade freely as well as to obtain investment capital for emerging economies. Moreover, this strategy is embedded in the evolving industrial structure driven by economic sovereignty. Meanwhile, the US’s capacity to finance its ongoing budget and trade deficits would be impacted by the dollar’s declining value. Dollar interest rates may have to climb, and the currency may depreciate. The role of its capital markets and financial institutions would shrink. It would give more space for the formation of a multipolar currency regime.

*Shraddha Rishi teaches Political Science at Magadh University, Bodhgaya. She has obtained her PhD from the Centre for South Asian Studies, JNU, New Delhi.

China adopts a stance rejecting the US militarization of the Middle East, viewing the increasing American bases and military buildup in the region as a strategy of containment and undermining Chinese influence. Beijing seeks to achieve regional balance through counter-diplomacy, both economic and security, and sees the American escalation as a threat to global stability, prompting it to strengthen its partnerships to protect its interests in the region. The Chinese perspective on the militarization of the region is that the American strategy in the Middle East is an extension of the policy of deterrence and containment, which extends from the Pacific to broader spheres of influence. China views American bases, such as Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, and other US military bases in Kuwait and the UAE, as an indirect tool to undermine Chinese economic and geopolitical stability. China considers the American military bases in the Middle East as instruments of hegemony and an attempt to contain and diminish its influence. Therefore, Beijing seeks to strengthen its military, diplomatic, and economic presence in the region as a strategic alternative, expanding its influence through its Belt and Road Initiative.

China adopts an approach that opposes the American military presence in the Middle East, prioritizing economic stability to serve its interests. This opposition manifests itself in several ways: supporting parallel security partnerships with Iran and Saudi Arabia, pressuring host countries like the UAE to prevent American expansion, and pursuing civil-military integration in strategic ports. The Egyptian researcher will attempt to identify and present specific examples of China’s rejection of the American military presence in the Middle East, such as China’s obstruction of the UAE’s F-35 deals. Beijing exerted pressure and raised security concerns that led to the stalling of negotiations for the UAE to acquire American F-35 fighter jets, due to Washington’s apprehension about the growing Chinese presence at the UAE’s Khalifa Port. Another example is China’s intensification of joint military exercises with Washington’s and Israel’s adversaries: China has increased its naval and air military exercises with Iran, a direct rival of the American presence in the region, thus posing a strategic challenge to American hegemony. China has also tried to secure oil routes away from Washington’s protection: China seeks to secure its oil interests through independent partnerships in the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf ports, reducing the Arab states’ need for American security protection and reinforcing Beijing’s vision of rejecting American “hegemony.” With (China’s criticism of the US “offensive strategy”): Chinese diplomacy criticizes the excessive US presence and instead calls for diplomatic solutions and “civil-military integration” through infrastructure investment, thus undermining traditional US bases. Here, China uses “soft power” and economic investments in ports, such as those in Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Iran, as tools to diminish the strategic importance of US military bases.

The Chinese perspective is that US bases are used to restrict its movement in vital maritime routes and are viewed as tools of deterrence within the context of great power competition. Therefore, China seeks to secure its economic interests by ensuring its oil and gas import routes and protecting its projects, which has led it to strengthen its military presence, including its base in Djibouti, to match its economic influence. With China offering a “developmental and security alternative”: By enhancing its influence through massive investments and security and technology partnerships, such as developing Huawei’s 5G digital infrastructure and China’s defense partnerships with Egypt, Iran, and the Gulf states, to serve as an alternative to direct military presence. Here, China seeks to achieve “absolute security” by protecting its supply chains and projects without directly engaging in managing regional crises in the American manner, preferring instead to project geoeconomic influence.

Here, China adopts a stance rejecting the US militarization of the Middle East, deeming it an “adventure” that threatens stability and pushes the region toward the brink. Beijing instead seeks to enhance its influence through diplomacy and economics, with Chinese efforts aimed at undermining the American military presence and supporting regional stability through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative. The most prominent features of China’s rejection of the US militarization of the Middle East are China’s opposition to the “militarization” of the region and China believes that US strategies based on military bases and deterrence, particularly against Iran, increase instability. (China’s focus on finding a diplomatic and economic alternative): China focuses on comprehensive economic partnerships, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, and prioritizes diplomacy to resolve conflicts, making it appear as a strategic alternative to the US “gunboat diplomacy.” The US “gunboat diplomacy” is a declared strategy of President Trump to counter Beijing’s influence in the Western Hemisphere. To counter this, China is focusing on partnerships and economic interests. From the Chinese perspective, regional stability ensures secure energy supplies and massive infrastructure investments in the region.

This coincides with China’s exploitation of the American retreat in the region. China seeks to capitalize on the relative decline in American strategic interest to act as a balancing power, without direct involvement in crisis management, but with an increasing role in maintaining regional equilibrium. Conversely, China fears that American policies will lead to its encirclement and the curtailment of its economic influence, prompting it to strengthen its military ties with certain regional actors as a form of indirect response.

Therefore, China rejects the principle of American militarization of the Middle East. China seeks to find alternatives to American hegemony by strengthening its diplomatic and economic presence, especially given the recent escalation of American military activity. Chinese military analyses indicate that the recent American military buildup, including aircraft carriers and air forces in the region, increases the likelihood of widespread regional conflicts. To that end, China promotes the concept of “common security,” directly rejecting American military involvement that puts pressure on China’s traditional allies in the region, such as Iran.

Concerned circles in Beijing view the American militarization of the Middle East as a perpetuation of a “Cold War mentality.” This is evident in China’s rejection of the ongoing military alliances established by Washington, which Beijing considers attempts to contain its rising influence and force regional states into alignment, a situation Beijing describes as “American hypocrisy.” The Chinese alternative to American militarization in the region is centered on its strategy of “development over militarization.” China seeks to market itself as a “peaceful partner” focused on development and infrastructure, capitalizing on the partial American retreat to expand its diplomatic and economic influence. Beijing adopts a policy of “cautious neutrality,” committing to “non-interference” in regional conflicts and avoiding replacing the American role as the region’s policeman militarily, preferring instead to focus on its strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific. While fully aware that the militarization of the region impacts China’s energy security, China prefers to address this through diplomacy and economic partnerships rather than direct military presence. China aims to protect its interests by deepening its economic engagement, thereby prompting a gradual US withdrawal, especially as China continues to present itself as a “responsible power” in the Global South.

China reacted angrily to the CIA’s public campaign, launched in February 2026, to recruit spies from within the ranks of the Chinese military, vowing to take “all necessary measures” to protect its national security. The Chinese response to the “recruitment video” included an official warning: Foreign Ministry spokesperson “Lin Jian” stated that the attempts by forces hostile to China “will not succeed,” emphasizing that Beijing would resolutely counter foreign infiltration and sabotage operations. In addition to Beijing’s accusation that the United States engaged in blatant political provocation, the Chinese Embassy in Washington described the American recruitment video targeting Chinese military personnel as a “blatant political provocation” and an explicit admission by the United States of its attempts to steal other countries’ secrets. This was especially true given the nature of the video, released by the CIA, which featured Mandarin Chinese and targeted “disillusioned” Chinese military officers, exploiting corruption within the Chinese army and recent purges within the Chinese military leadership. While other foreign intelligence agencies typically maintain contact with sources and agents within both friendly and hostile militaries, observers noted that the 95-second CIA video was “unusually explicit,” as described by Newsweek magazine. This angered China, prompting it to lodge a formal protest through the Chinese Embassy in Washington.

To counter this American intelligence campaign, official Chinese measures to contain Western and American intelligence intensified. Beijing pursued a multi-pronged strategy to tighten the noose on espionage activities, including expanding the Anti-Espionage Law: China amended its laws to broaden the definition of “espionage” to include any data or documents that threaten national security, granting authorities greater powers to search and access electronic devices. (Increasing Public Awareness and “Reporting Hotlines”): The Chinese Ministry of State Security, which acts as China’s intelligence agency, encouraged citizens to report suspicious activities through substantial financial rewards and released educational videos on how to detect “foreign spies” who might be disguised as researchers or diplomats. (Chinese Technological Counter-Response): China used artificial intelligence and simulation tools to mock American recruitment videos, releasing videos that mimicked the same style to highlight “Wall Street corruption” and internal American crises. With (China’s purge of sensitive leaders): Beijing launched a widespread purge within the People’s Liberation Army, targeting high-ranking generals such as “Zhang Youxia” on charges of corruption and leaking sensitive information. With China’s expansion in drafting and enacting counter-sanctions laws: In March 2025, China activated new regulations for its Foreign Counter-Sanctions Law, allowing it to freeze assets and impose visa bans on any foreign individuals or entities that interfere in its internal affairs or threaten its security interests.

This confrontation comes at a time when reports indicate that the CIA is seeking to rebuild its human network in China after most of it was dismantled between 2010 and 2012. China has begun intensifying its internal security measures to counter Western espionage, particularly American espionage, by updating its anti-espionage laws, strengthening cybersecurity, and raising public awareness, targeting the activities of the CIA and Mossad. These efforts include strict data controls, protecting sensitive technology, dismantling spy recruitment networks, and considering Western espionage a direct security threat. Among the most prominent Chinese measures to contain Western and American intelligence activities are the following (updating anti-espionage laws): China has broadened the definition of espionage in its laws to include any documents, data, or materials related to national security, granting authorities wider powers to search and investigate suspects. (Strengthening cybersecurity): Beijing is conducting intensive campaigns to secure sensitive networks and data and is working to protect its digital infrastructure from infiltration, especially after reports indicating widespread cyber operations by Western actors. This is in addition to (Chinese security awareness campaigns): The Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) is urging citizens to report any suspicious activities, considering counter-espionage a societal responsibility. It has also published warnings about methods used to recruit spies. Along with Chinese authorities tightening control over foreigners and foreign companies in China, control has been intensified over foreign consultancies and companies that could be used as cover for intelligence activities, with a focus on uncovering foreign spies, whether affiliated with the CIA or any other foreign agency. Along with China’s emphasis on protecting technology and scientific research: Here, Beijing is taking strict measures to protect its technological and industrial secrets from theft, especially in the fields of artificial intelligence and computing, to prevent their exploitation to advance the interests of foreign countries.

This Chinese escalation comes at a time when US intelligence reports have described China as the “greatest overall military and security threat” to the interests of the United States and its allies, further intensifying the intelligence conflict between the two sides. Therefore, China began taking strict and decisive measures to contain Western and American intelligence activities within the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). These measures include strengthening information security through the Information Support Force, enforcing anti-espionage laws, and increasing internal oversight to ensure the protection of national security and development interests from infiltration and sabotage. The most prominent measures include tightening digital surveillance by enhancing capabilities in electronic espionage, signals intelligence, and cybersecurity to counter any breaches; strengthening internal security by tightening security measures around personnel and sensitive data to prevent recruitment or leaks; and activating the role of the Ministry of State Security domestically. The Chinese intelligence ministry, “MSS,” has become highly effective in combating foreign espionage, particularly American espionage, and in maintaining political security within military and civilian institutions. The Chinese authorities also established the Information Support Force: this force was created to promote the development and implementation of secure network information systems, thereby enhancing the army’s ability to repel infiltrations. With China’s keenness to modernize its anti-espionage laws, it has taken strict measures against infiltration and sabotage activities, pledging to protect China’s national security.

Based on the preceding analysis, we understand that these Chinese security measures are a response to intensive US intelligence efforts to recruit informants within the Chinese military, which has provoked Beijing’s ire and resentment. This is especially true given the sensitive timing for the Chinese military establishment, coming just weeks after another senior officer was implicated in President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption campaign within the army. The video released by the CIA showing the recruitment and targeting of Chinese military personnel represents the latest episode in a US intelligence campaign targeting Chinese military personnel on social media. This campaign, which openly targets China, has been described by CIA Director “John Ratcliffe” as the agency’s top intelligence priority amidst what he called a generational competition with Beijing.

Sunday’s live TV and streaming broadcasts for the Milan-Cortina Olympics unless noted (subject to change). All events stream live on Peacock or NBCOlympics.com with a streaming or cable login. All times Pacific. 🏅 — medal event for live broadcasts.

CLOSING CEREMONY
11:30 a.m. — NBC

MULTIPLE SPORTS
2 p.m. — Best of the 2026 Milan-Cortina Olympic Games | NBC
9 p.m. — “Primetime in Milan” (delay): Closing ceremony, bobsled, cross-country skiing, curling, hockey. | NBC

BOBSLED
1 a.m. — Four-man bobsled, Run 3 | Peacock
3:15 a.m. — 🏅Four-man bobsled, final run | Peacock
3:35 a.m. — 🏅Four-man bobsled, final run (in progress) | USA
4:15 a.m. — Four-man bobsled, final run (delay) | NBC
8 a.m. — Four-man bobsled, runs 3-4 (re-air) | NBC

CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING
1 a.m. — 🏅Women’s 50-kilometer mass start classic | USA
4 a.m. — Women’s 50-kilometer mass start classic (re-air) | USA
8:45 a.m. — Women’s 50-kilometer mass start classic (re-air) | NBC

CURLING
🏅Women’s gold-medal match
2:05 a.m. — Switzerland vs. Sweden | Peacock
4 a.m. — Switzerland vs. Sweden (delay) | USA, NBC
10:30 a.m. — Switzerland vs. Sweden (re-air) | USA

HOCKEY
🏅Men’s gold-medal match
5:10 a.m. — United States vs. Canada | NBC
1:30 p.m. — United States vs. Canada (re-air) | USA

US President Trump’s announcement of the creation of the so-called “Peace Council,” involving several countries, including Morocco, sparks a deep debate that goes beyond the diplomatic event itself. It addresses the core of the international order established after World War II. The issue isn’t only about establishing a new international body but also raises an implicit question: Is the United Nations still capable of managing global peace and security, or are we entering a phase in which alternatives are being sought?

From this perspective, the Peace Council becomes a political project par excellence, reflecting shifts in the American vision of the role of international institutions and revealing a structural crisis within the United Nations system.

First: The Peace Council… Read for the idea, not the structure.

Internationally and institutionally, the Peace Council cannot be considered a direct alternative to the United Nations. The latter is grounded in an international charter, legal legitimacy, and semi-inclusive membership, whereas the Peace Council remains a selective framework, initially limited in membership, and its legitimacy is based, in particular, on the political will of the countries involved, foremost among them the United States. However, attention to this formal aspect may overlook the substance of the matter. The true value of the Peace Council lies not in its organizational and administrative structure, but in the political message it carries: explicitly questioning the United Nations’ ability to perform its historical function, offering an alternative grounded in effectiveness rather than consensus, and prioritizing alliance over inclusiveness. In other words, we are facing a shift in how international peace is managed, not just a new institutional addition.

Second: Why does the US administration believe that the United Nations has failed? Washington’s view is rooted in the strong belief that the United Nations has faced significant challenges: it has become hostage to the veto powers within the Security Council; it struggles to enforce its strategic decisions in major international conflicts; and it has shifted from being a mechanism for resolution to more of a platform for political battles. This perspective is not merely popular opinion; it is shared by many international relations scholars, who argue that the UN has not evolved sufficiently to address emerging global and regional issues, including unconventional conflicts, the rise of non-state actors, shifting global power dynamics, and a waning collective commitment to international law. In this context, the Peace Council is regarded by the United States as a tool to address what it perceives as a long-standing institutional paralysis.

Third: The Peace Council… Is it truly an alternative or just a parallel path?

When we look at international relations realistically, we usually consider three levels: 1. Legal level: The Peace Council can’t replace the United Nations when it comes to legitimacy grounded in international law. 2. Practical level: The Council aims to fill a real gap in conflict management, especially in cases where the United Nations has struggled to resolve or contain issues. 3. Symbolic and expressive level: This is where the concern grows, as the Council challenges the UN’s exclusive claim to legitimacy in the “peace industry.” In the end, it’s not just about being an alternative or a supporting body. It’s more like a parallel system that could, over time, become a real competitor if it gains more influence and members.

Fourth: The American Dimension… Redefining International Leadership.

The creation of the Peace Council aligns with Trump’s broader perspective on international relations, emphasizing three key points: reducing dependence on multilateral organizations, strengthening alliances, and shifting decision-making authority to major global powers. From this standpoint, the Council is less about promoting peace and more about reshaping America’s influence and alliances, especially in a world where Washington is reluctant to bear the costs of a global order it cannot fully control. This reflects a shift away from seeking international legitimacy toward a focus on “realistic legitimacy,” in which institutions are judged more by their results than by strict adherence to rules.

Fifth: Morocco and the Peace Council… a strategically chosen location

The Kingdom of Morocco’s decision to join the Peace Council should not be seen as a departure from the United Nations, but rather as a strategic move in its diplomatic efforts to diversify its international partnerships. Morocco maintains strong institutional ties with the UN, actively participates in peacekeeping missions, and is also eager to expand its presence in new global initiatives. By joining the Peace Council, Morocco positions itself favorably in discussions on security and stability, gaining an influential role in shaping international approaches to conflict management. This move also helps to reinforce Morocco’s image as a responsible actor that avoids relying solely on a single framework for its diplomatic and security strategies.

Sixth: Is the time of the United Nations over?

The prediction that the United Nations mission is coming to an end may be premature, but it still carries weight. The key point is that the UN is facing a crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness, not one of existence. It continues to exist, but it can no longer handle alone a world marked by multiple power centers, rising complex conflicts, and waning trust in collective action. So, the Peace Council isn’t signaling its demise but rather highlighting the deepening challenges facing the traditional international system.

In the end, the Peace Council put together by the Trump administration isn’t officially replacing the United Nations yet, but it definitely marks a shift—signaling that we’re moving from one phase to another. We’re entering a time when peace and security are handled through selective alliances and initiatives driven by major powers, rather than through large umbrella organizations. The big question is, will this new approach bring about more effective peace, or will it make the world less legitimate and more fragile? The answer won’t be found just in the data but in how this new model actually plays out on the ground.

Almost fifty years after the revolution in 1979 that changed the political landscape of Iran, Iran is at the crossroads of its history, which is defined by economic pressures, social pressure, and the changing geopolitical environment. The Islamic Republic was constructed as a combination of revolutionary ideology, anti-Western response, and promise of social justice. In the present day, although the ideological framework is still maintained, the sustainability of that framework is being strained increasingly by the structural economic pressures of the day, generational shifts, and changing regional hegemony.

On the economic front, Iran is continually constrained by global sanctions and inefficiency in its structure. Withdrawal by the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the reimposition of massive sanctions in 2018 have cut off much of the oil exports of Iranian oil, banking, and foreign investment flows. The country works well under its economic potential despite the fact that Tehran has been able to sustain limited oil sales, especially through discounted sales to China and through surrogate routes. The inflation rate has been above 40 percent during the recent years, the Iranian rial is falling drastically, and unemployment among the youth is also a burning issue. It is the middle and lower classes that are directly impacted by these economic pressures and that pose a legitimacy challenge that cannot be solved only through rhetorical means of revolution.

The internal landscape is a manifestation of long-term frustration. Frequent demonstrations regarding fuel prices, the state of the economy, and social liberation indicate the growing disparity between state discourses of resistance and the realities that the citizens encounter. The newer generation born after the revolution has lost any connection with the revolutionary memory of 1979 and perceives governance less as ideologically symbolic and more based on economic performance and individual opportunity. The policy employed by the state has been based on the repressed handling of dissent, which consists of the limitation of the mobilization of protests and the prevention of the collapse of the system. Although this is a way of maintaining short-term stability, it does not deal with structural issues like brain drain, capital flight, falling purchasing power, and diminished faith in long-term economic potential.

The main political quandary is consequently a legitimacy transformation quandary. In the past, the Islamic Republic gained legitimacy through revolutionary mobilization, religious control, and confrontation with the external hostilities, especially the United States and Israel. Nevertheless, the contemporary politics demands more and more performance-based legitimacy—providing economic growth, stability, and material changes in the quality of life. The conflict between ideological stability and realistic adjustment is the characteristic of the contemporary crossroads of Iran.

Iran is geopolitically a country that exists in the complex web of pressures. The United States is still the main external agent, which affects the Tehran strategic calculations. The policy of Washington is alternating between the engagement of diplomacy and coercion, yet the ultimate goal is the same as it is: avoiding the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons competence and reducing its impact in the region. In Tehran, it will need negotiations that will help soften sanctions and stabilize the economy, but any deal will not collapse under the perception of submission over matters of sovereignty, ballistic missile potential, and relations with the region.

Meanwhile, the nuclear and missile programs in Iran are considered to be existential threats to Israel. The shadow struggle that has been there for a long time, including cyber attacks, precision attacks, espionage, and proxy wars, has heightened strategic mistrust. The intensity of this rivalry is shown by the fact that Israel has been carrying out its operations within Iran and against Iran-related targets in Syria. Any intensification would attract Gulf states and disrupt world energy supply, especially through the Strait of Hormuz, which is a choke point in the oil markets of the world. Even minor confrontations will have a global economic impact, as Iran is strategically placed in the important maritime paths.

The regional policy of Iran has focused on the establishment of strategic depth by alliance and coalition with non-state actors and supportive governments within Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. This system becomes a deterrence and leverage factor, making it difficult to engage in a direct military strike on the territory of Iran. Geostrategically, this doctrine of forward defense has enhanced the bargaining power of Iran. But it is likewise causing tension with the other Arab countries and creating the impression of destabilization in the region. The recent diplomatic thaw between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which was facilitated by China, shows that both sides noticed that continued confrontation is expensive in terms of both economics and strategy.

Iran is geographically at one of the most strategic points of Eurasia. It connects the Persian Gulf with Central Asia, the Caucasus, and South Asia. The International North-South Transport Corridor is one of the major trade routes that can make Iran a major transit route between India and Russia and Europe. This geo-economic location, in theory, has colossal prospects of being rolled into new multipolar trade systems. Sanctions and political isolation in reality prevent full access to the global markets. The latter can be said to be strategic convergence, as Iran was brought closer to Russia, especially after the war in Ukraine, as a result of Western pressure. But such convergence also subjects Tehran to secondary sanctions and makes it less flexible in its East-West balancing.

Iran—Concerns about the nuclear problem continue to be the major pivot of the external affairs. Tehran maintains that its nuclear program is nonviolent and has indicated that it is free for verification. But the Western governments require more guarantees and wider negotiations, which can feature missile capabilities and regional operations. It is possible that a strictly limited nuclear deal will minimize the risks of immediate proliferation and alleviate the economic pressure, which might make the Iranian internal situation more stable. Nonetheless, such a deal may not help solve any underlying rivalries between the region but could simply freeze the situation unless there are larger regional de-escalation mechanisms. On the other hand, the inability to find any solution will lead to the further worsening of the economy and the possible military clash.

In a more geo-strategically global understanding, the balance of power between the Middle East and the rest of the world will be influenced by the course of Iran. In case Tehran manages to negotiate the lifting of sanctions and turns in the direction of economic integration with the Gulf states, it will be able to shift from the resistance-focused model to the development-oriented state step by step. This would strengthen the stability of the region, safeguard the energy security, and minimize the motivation to intervene. It would also make the regional rivalry be based more on economic rivalry rather than military rivalry, especially in terms of infrastructure rivalry, trade corridor rivalry, and energy market rivalry.

Nevertheless, should the negotiations fail and the confrontation escalate, Iran might apply the asymmetric deterrence further, increasing the range of its missiles and extending proxy bases. That way would strengthen the preemptive stance of Israel and increase the presence of the US military in the Gulf. The escalation would disorient shipping routes, exert more volatility on oil prices, and disintegrate the security infrastructure in the region. To the surrounding Arab nations, which require diversifying and changing their economies, new warfare would destroy investment conditions and long-term strategies.

On the domestic front, economic resilience is what will sustain the strategic position of Iran. The political principle of endurance can only be stretched so far as inflation undermines the wages and the depreciation of currency undermines savings. This needs structural changes: enhancing transparency, welcoming foreign investment, and a non-hydrocarbon economy, and empowering the business sector. Foreign policy victories cannot entirely offset its dissatisfaction at home without economic change.

After all, the crossroads of Iran is not only ideological but also structural. The state has to strike a compromise between sovereignty and economic need, deterrence and diplomacy, and ideological identity and practical governance. Its strategic location means that its decisions will have a far-reaching impact, not only across its frontiers, but also on the energy markets of the world, the great-power politics, and the new security order of the Middle East. The future of Iran becoming a development-oriented regional power with full membership in multipolar networks or being a sanction-bound resistance state under continuous pressure will not only dictate the internal stability of the country but also the geopolitical orientation of a long-time conflict-ridden and strategically divided region.

USA meanwhile have stars of their own, but don’t have the attacking gifts of the Canadians.

“The Tkachuk brothers [Brady and Matthew], and Jack Eichel, that attacking line has worked well together,” Bennett said.

“What they have not had is much scoring from captain Auston Matthews, he has not yet taken any of the games by the horns. They are OK, but not more than that.”

However, the Americans have the best defenceman at the Games in Quinn Hughes, who scored the crucial winner against Sweden.

“He might be the best three-on-three player in the world,” said Bennett. “He loves to keep possession, and is always looking to make an exciting play.”

It sets up a mouth-watering finale of an Olympic ice hockey competition which has benefitted hugely from the return of National Hockey League (NHL) players for the first time since 2014.

The attendance of players from the top North American league was in doubt for a time over concerns about the ice quality at the unfinished Milano Santagiulia Ice Hockey Arena, but they have been a major boon for the Games.

“This is the highest level of hockey we have ever seen at an Olympics,” said Bennett. “The NHL players have made it a different world.

“At the last two Olympics, games have been good but have missed the quality in the final third, the big moments. Players didn’t have the skillset to break a game, so saw a lot of tight, dull games

“Some of what the players have been doing here has been mind-blowing. One of the goals scored for Canada, McDavid saucered this pass from the back door [behind the goal], it lands as McKinnon is shooting, on the half-volley. That’s when you recognise it.

“I have been getting phone calls from people in the hockey world, all they have been saying is, this is so good. There have been periods where Kent [Simpson, BBC co-commentator] and I have just been sat watching, smiling, laughing.”

Canada have won gold in three of the five Olympics when NHL players have featured and will fancy their chances in a game on Sunday which could be as fascinating in the stands as it is on the ice.

It is highly likely that Canadian prime minister Mark Carney will be in Milan for the game.

Not only is Canada as a country hockey-mad, but so is Carney – when working as governor of the Bank of England, he would play for a recreational team in Haringey, north London.

The big question is whether his American counterpart will also be in Italy.

Saturday’s live TV and streaming broadcasts for the Milan-Cortina Olympics unless noted (subject to change). All events stream live on Peacock or NBCOlympics.com with a streaming or cable login. All times Pacific. 🏅 — medal event for live broadcasts.

MULTIPLE SPORTS
8 p.m. — “Primetime in Milan” (delay): Cross-country skiing, bobsled, figure skating, freestyle skiing and more. | NBC

BIATHLON
5:15 a.m. — 🏅Women’s 12.5-kilometer mass start | USA
10:30 a.m. — 🏅Women’s 12.5-kilometer mass start (re-air) | USA

BOBSLED
1 a.m. — Four-man bobsled, Run 1 | Peacock
2:55 a.m. — Four-man bobsled, Run 2 | Peacock
8 a.m. — Four-man bobsled, runs 1-2 | USA
10 a.m. — Two-woman bobsled, Run 3 | NBC
12:05 p.m. — 🏅Two-woman bobsled, final run | Peacock
12:15 p.m. — 🏅Two-woman bobsled, final run (in progress) | NBC
2:15 p.m. — Two-woman bobsled, runs 3-4 (delay) | NBC

CROSS-COUNTRY SKIING
2 a.m. — 🏅Men’s 50-kilometer mass start classic | Peacock
3:10 a.m. — 🏅Men’s 50-kilometer mass start classic (in progress) | USA
8:30 a.m. — Men’s 50-kilometer mass start classic (delay) | NBC

CURLING
🏅Women’s bronze-medal match
5:05 a.m. — Teams TBD | Peacock
7:20 a.m. — Teams TBD (delay) | USA
🏅Men’s gold-medal match
10:05 a.m. — Teams TBD | CNBC
Women’s bronze-medal match
1 p.m. — Teams TBD (re-air) | CNBC

FIGURE SKATING
11 a.m. — Exhibition gala | Peacock
11:55 a.m. — Exhibition gala (in progress) | NBC
12:50 p.m. — Exhibition gala (in progress) | NBC

FREESTYLE SKIING
1 a.m. — Men’s skicross, qualifying | Peacock
1:45 a.m. — 🏅Mixed team aerials, final | USA
2:55 a.m. — 🏅Men’s skicross, finals | Peacock
8:45 a.m. — Men’s skicross, finals (delay) | USA
9:15 a.m. — Mixed team aerials, final (re-air) | USA
10:30 a.m. — 🏅Women’s freeski halfpipe, final | NBC
1:30 p.m. — Mixed team aerials, final (re-air) | NBC

HOCKEY
🏅Men’s bronze-medal game
11:40 a.m. — Teams TBD | USA

SKI MOUNTAINEERING
4:30 a.m. — 🏅Mixed team relay | Peacock

SPEEDSKATING
6 a.m. — 🏅Men’s and women’s mass start, semifinals and finals | Peacock
7 a.m. — 🏅Men’s and women’s mass start, semifinals and finals (in progress) | NBC

Friday’s live TV and streaming broadcasts for the Milan-Cortina Olympics unless noted (subject to change). All events stream live on Peacock or NBCOlympics.com with a streaming or cable login. All times Pacific. 🏅 — medal event for live broadcasts.

MULTIPLE SPORTS
8 p.m. — “Primetime in Milan” (delay): Bobsled, speedskating, curling, hockey and more. | NBC

BIATHLON
5:15 a.m. — 🏅Men’s 15-kilometer mass start | USA
9:15 a.m. — 🏅Men’s 15-kilometer mass start (re-air) | NBC

BOBSLED
9 a.m. — Two-woman bobsled, Run 1 | NBC, Peacock
10:50 a.m. — Two-woman bobsled, Run 2 | Peacock
1:15 p.m. — Two-woman bobsled, runs 1-2 | USA

CURLING
Women semifinals
5:05 a.m. — Teams TBD | Peacock
5:05 a.m. — Teams TBD | Peacock
6 a.m. — Teams TBD (in progress) | USA
🏅Men’s bronze medal match
10:05 a.m. — Teams TBD | Peacock

FREESTYLE SKIING
1 a.m. — Women’s skicross, qualifying | USA
3 a.m. — 🏅Women’s skicross, finals | USA
10 a.m. — Women’s skicross, finals (re-air) | USA
10:30 a.m. — 🏅Men’s freeski halfpipe, finals | NBC

HOCKEY
Men’s semifinals
7:40 a.m. — Canada vs. Finland | Peacock
8:50 a.m. — Canada vs. Finland (in progress) | USA
12:10 p.m. — U.S. vs. Slovakia | NBC

SHORT TRACK SPEEDSKATING
11:15 a.m. — 🏅Women’s 1,500 meters; men’s 5,000-meter relay finals | USA

SPEEDSKATING
7:30 a.m. — 🏅Women’s 1,500 meters | USA

Forgetting this vital add-on for your getaway could leave travellers thousands out of pocket

Thousands of holidaymakers will be heading across the Atlantic this year, many driven by the 2026 FIFA World Cup, but they could be risking £20,000 on average if they don’t arrange vital protection before jetting abroad. While most are trying to sort flights, accommodation and match tickets, experts have urged people to double check their travel insurance too.

Dr Asimah Hanif, an NHS GP working with travel insurance provider Staysure, explained that medical care abroad can often leave travellers out of pocket. However, in the United States this can be an even bigger problem as there is no universal healthcare and medical costs are known to run into the thousands for standard hospital treatment.

She said: “Many people assume they will only need medical care abroad in the event of a serious emergency. However, this overlooks more common health issues such as heat exhaustion or infectious illnesses like flu, which can easily spread in crowded, hot environments.

“For older travellers, or those with pre-existing medical conditions, these seemingly minor issues can quickly lead to the need for medical treatment and result in significant costs, particularly in the United States.”

The FIFA World Cup will be taking place across Mexico, Canada and the United States this summer, with ticket demand breaking records and thousands planning to attend. For many, this will be a once-in-a-lifetime experience.

However, common football ailments like slips and trips can spell financial disaster for some. The summer heat and long journey is also expected to increase the likelihood of injuries and illness among the crowds.

Staysure data from 2025 showed biggest claims in these countries were for hospital treatment, emergency care and medical repatriation. The average claim had a cost of close to £20,000 with some extreme cases even exceeding £1million.

Dr Asimah added: “These are not unusual scenarios, things like chest pain, dehydration, infections or a fall can mean scans, overnight hospital stays or specialist treatment. In North America, those costs escalate very quickly.”

She warned that one of the biggest mistakes travellers and football fans can make this year is leaving their travel insurance for the last minute or assuming they won’t need it at all.

She added: “Travel insurance is not just about lost luggage or delays. It is about making sure you are protected financially and medically if something unexpected happens. With the right cover, you can focus on enjoying the experience rather than worrying about worst case scenarios.”

The doctor encouraged people to try arrange medical travel insurance as soon as their trip is booked.

Several Big Tech companies have reported earnings in recent weeks and provided estimates for their spending in 2026, along with leading analysts’ projections.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The data point that seems to have caught Wall Street’s attention the most is the estimated capital expenditure (CapEx) for this year, which collectively represents an investment of over $700bn (€590bn) in AI infrastructure.

That is more than the entire nominal GDP of Sweden for 2025, one of Europe’s largest economies, as per IMF estimates.

Global chip sales are also projected to reach $1tn (€842bn) for the first time this year, according to the US Semiconductor Industry Association.

In addition, major banks and consulting firms, such as JPMorgan Chase and McKinsey, project that total AI CapEx will surpass $5tn (€4.2tn) by 2030, driven by “astronomical demand” for compute.

CapEx refers to funds a company spends to build, improve or maintain long-term assets like property, equipment and technology. These investments are meant to boost the firm’s capacity and efficiency over several years.

The expenditure is also not fully deducted in the same year. CapEx costs are capitalised on the balance sheet and gradually expensed through depreciation, representing a key indicator of how a company is investing in its future growth and operational strength.

The leap this year confirms a definitive pivot that began in 2025, when Big Tech is estimated to have spent around $400bn (€337bn) on AI CapEx.

As Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang has repeatedly stated, including at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, we are witnessing “the largest infrastructure build-out in human history”.

Hyperscalers bet the house

At the top of the spending hierarchy for 2026 sits Amazon, which alone is guiding to invest a mammoth $200bn (€170bn).

To put the number into perspective, the company’s individual AI CapEx guidance for this year surpasses the combined nominal GDP of the three Baltic countries in 2025, according to IMF projections.

Alphabet, Google’s parent company, follows with $185bn (€155bn), while Microsoft and Meta are set to deploy $145bn (€122bn) and $135bn (€113bn) respectively.

Oracle also raised its 2026 CapEx to $50bn (€42.1bn), nearly $15bn (€12.6bn) above earlier estimates.

Additionally, Tesla projects double the spending with almost $20bn (€16.8bn), primarily to scale its robotaxi fleet and advance the development of the Optimus humanoid robot.

Another of Elon Musk’s companies, xAI, will also spend at least $30bn (€25.2bn) in 2026.

A new $20bn (€16.8bn) data centre named MACROHARDRR will be built in Mississippi, which Governor Tate Reeves stated is “the largest private sector investment in the state’s history”.

xAI will also expand the so-called Colossus, a cluster of data centres in Tennessee that has been described by Musk as the world’s largest AI supercomputer.

Furthermore, the company was acquired by SpaceX in an all-stock transaction at the start of this month.

The merger valued SpaceX at $1tn (€842bn) and xAI at $250bn (€210bn), creating an entity worth $1.25tn (€1.05tn), reputedly the largest private company by valuation in history.

There are also reports that SpaceX intends to IPO sometime this year, with Morgan Stanley allegedly in talks to manage the offering that now includes exposure to xAI.

Elon Musk stated that the goal is to build an “integrated innovation engine” combining AI, rockets and satellite internet, with long-term plans that include space-based data centres powered by solar energy.

Conversely, Apple continues to lag in spending with “only” a projected $13bn (€10.9bn).

However, the company announced a multi-year partnership with Google last month to integrate Gemini AI models into the next generation of Apple Intelligence.

Specifically, the collaboration will focus on overhauling Siri and enhancing on-device AI features. Therefore, one could say that Apple is outsourcing a lot of the investment it needs to be competitive on AI development.

As for Nvidia, it will report earnings and release projections on 25 February.

The company is primarily in the business of selling AI chips, and is expected to get the lion’s share of the Big Tech’s spending. Particularly, for the build-out of data centres.

In last August’s earnings call, CEO Jensen Huang estimated a cost per gigawatt of data centre capacity between $50bn (€42.1bn) and $60bn (€50.5bn), with about $35bn (€29.5bn) of each investment going towards Nvidia hardware.

The great capital rotation

Wall Street has had mixed feelings about the enormous spending Big Tech companies have planned for 2026.

On the one hand, investors understand the necessity and urgency of developing a competitive edge in the artificial intelligence age.

On the other, the sheer scale of the spending has also spooked some shareholders. The market’s tolerance hinges on demonstrable ROI from this year onwards, as the investments are also increasingly financed with massive debt raises.

Morgan Stanley estimates that hyperscalers will borrow around $400bn (€337bn) in 2026, more than double the $165bn (€139bn) that was loaned out in 2025.

This surge could push the total issuance of high-grade US corporate bonds to a record $2.25tn (€1.9tn) this year.

Currently, projected AI revenue for 2026 is nowhere near matching the spending, and there are valid concerns. For instance, the possibility of hardware rapidly depreciating due to innovation, and other high operational costs such as energy usage.

It can be confidently stated that the numbers have a heavy reliance on future success.

As Google CEO Sundar Pichai acknowledged this month, there are “elements of irrationality in the current spending pace”.

Back in November, Alex Haissl, an analyst at Rothschild & Co, became a dissenting voice as he downgraded ratings for Amazon and Microsoft.

In a note to clients, the analyst wrote “investors are valuing Amazon and Microsoft’s CapEx plans as if cloud-1.0 economics still applied”, referring to the low-cost structure of cloud-based services that allowed Big Tech firms to scale in the last two decades.

However, the analyst added “there are a few problems that suggest the AI boom likely won’t play out in the same way, and it is probably far more costly than investors realise”.

This view is also shared by Michael Burry, who is best known for being among the first investors to predict and profit from the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008. Burry has argued that the current AI boom is a potential bubble pointing to unsustainable CapEx.

Big Tech’s AI race is funded by a tremendous amount of leverage. Whether this strategy will pay off, and which companies will be the winners and the losers, only time will tell.

At the moment, Nvidia certainly seems to be a great beneficiary. Moreover, Apple has a distinct approach by increasing third party reliance, through a partnership with Google, instead of massively scaling their spending. It is a different trade-off.

Europe’s industrial deficit

Amid all this spending, urgent questions have also been raised about Europe’s ability to compete in a race that has become a battle of balance sheets.

For the European Union, the transatlantic contrast is sobering. While American firms are mobilising nearly €600bn in a single year, the EU’s coordinated efforts do not even match the financial firepower of the lowest spender among the US tech titans.

Brussels has attempted to rally with the AI Factories initiative, and the AI Continent Action Plan launched last April, which aim to mobilise public-private investments.

However, the numbers tell a stark story. Total European spending on sovereign cloud data infrastructure is forecast to reach just €10.6bn in 2026.

While this is a respectable 83% increase year-on-year, it remains a rounding error compared to the US AI build-out.

Last year, at the time when the initiatives mentioned were being discussed, the CEO of the French unicorn Mistral AI, Arthur Mensch, stated that “US companies are building the equivalent of a new Apollo program every year”.

Mensch also added that “Europe is building excellent regulation with the AI Act, but you cannot regulate your way to computing supremacy”.

Mistral represents one of the only flickers of European resistance in the AI race. The French company is employing the same strategy as most of Big Tech and aggressively expanding its physical footprint.

In September 2025, Mistral AI raised a €1.7bn Series C at a valuation of almost €12bn, with the Dutch semiconductor giant ASML leading the round by singly investing €1.3bn.

During the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Mistral’s CEO confirmed a €1bn CapEx plan for 2026.

Just last week, the company also announced a major €1.2bn investment to build a data centre in Borlänge, Sweden.

In a partnership with the Swedish operator, EcoDataCenter, the facility will be designed to offer “sovereign compute” compliant with the EU’s strict data standards, and leveraging Sweden’s abundant green energy.

Set to open in 2027, this data centre will provide the high-performance computing required to train and deploy Mistral’s next-generation AI models.

This is an important move for the company, as it is the first infrastructure project outside France, and it is also a core venture for European data sovereignty.

Meanwhile, US tech titans are attempting to placate European regulators by offering “sovereign-light” solutions. Several Big Tech projects have been rolled out for “localised cloud zones”, for example in Germany and Portugal, promising data residency.

However, critics argue these remain technically dependent on US parent companies, leaving the European industry vulnerable to the whims of the American economy and foreign policy.

As 2026 unfolds, the stakes are clear. The US is betting the house, and its credit rating, on AI dominance.

Europe, cautious and capital-constrained, is hoping that targeted investments and regulation will be enough to carve out a sovereign niche in a world increasingly run on American technology.

Monday’s live TV and streaming broadcasts for the Milan-Cortina Olympics unless noted (subject to change). All events stream live on Peacock or NBCOlympics.com with a streaming or cable login. All times Pacific. 🏅 — medal event for live broadcasts.

MULTIPLE SPORTS

8 p.m. — “Primetime in Milan” (delay): Figure skating, skiing, bobsled, short track speedskating and more. | NBC

ALPINE SKIING
1 a.m. — Men’s slalom, Run 1 | USA
4:20 a.m. — 🏅Men’s slalom, Run 2 | Peacock
4:30 a.m. — 🏅Men’s slalom, Run 2 (in progress) | USA
11:45 a.m. — Men’s slalom (re-air) | NBC

BOBSLED
1 a.m. — Two-man bobsled, Run 1 | Peacock
2:55 a.m. — Two-man bobsled, Run 2 | Peacock
4 a.m. — Two-man bobsled, runs 1 and 2 (delay) | USA
10 a.m. — Women’s monobob, Run 3 | NBC
12:05 p.m. — 🏅Women’s monobob, final run | Peacock
12:30 p.m. — 🏅Women’s monobob, final run (in progress) | NBC

CURLING
Women (round robin)
12:05 a.m. — China vs. Canada | Peacock
12:05 a.m. — Denmark vs. Britain | Peacock
12:05 a.m. — Sweden vs. Switzerland | Peacock
Men (round robin)
5:05 a.m. — Czechia vs. Canada | Peacock
5:05 a.m. — Britain vs. Norway | Peacock
5:05 a.m. — Italy vs. China | Peacock
5:05 a.m. — Sweden vs. Germany | Peacock
Women (round robin)
7:15 a.m. — China vs. Canada (delay) | USA
Men (round robin)
8:30 a.m. — Britain vs. Norway (delay) | USA
Women round robin
10:05 a.m. — U.S. vs. Italy | Peacock
10:05 a.m. — Japan vs. Canada | Peacock
10:05 a.m. — South Korea vs. China | Peacock
10:05 a.m. — Switzerland vs. Britain | Peacock

FIGURE SKATING
8:30 a.m. — Pairs free skate, warmup | Peacock
10:45 a.m. — Pairs free skate, Part 1 | USA
12:55 p.m. — 🏅Pairs free skate, Part 2 | NBC

FREESTYLE SKIING
10:30 a.m. — 🏅Women’s big air, final | NBC

HOCKEY
Women’s semifinals
7:40 a.m. — U.S. vs. Sweden | NBC
12:10 p.m. — Canada vs. Switzerland | Peacock
1:15 p.m. — Canada vs. Switzerland (in progress) | USA

SHORT TRACK SPEEDSKATING
2 a.m. — 🏅Women’s 1,000 meters final and more | Peacock
3:55 a.m. — Women’s 1,000 meters, final (delay) | USA
9:45 a.m. — Women’s 1,000 meters final and more (delay) | USA

SKI JUMPING
9 a.m. — 🏅Men’s super team, large hill | Peacock

SNOWBOARDING
1:30 a.m. — Women’s slopestyle, qualifying | Peacock
1:50 a.m. — Women’s slopestyle, qualifying (in progress) | USA
5 a.m. — Men’s slopestyle, qualifying | Peacock
5:30 a.m. — Men’s slopestyle, qualifying (in progress) | USA
7 a.m. — Women’s slopestyle, qualifying (delay) | NBC

After their shock defeat at the 2024 T20 World Cup, Pakistan exact revenge on USA with 32-run win at 2026 edition.

Opener Sahibzada Farhan hit a solid half-century while spinner Usman Tariq grabbed three wickets as Pakistan downed the United States by 32 runs in a T20 World Cup Group A game in Colombo.

The 29-year-old hit five sixes and six fours in his 41-ball 73 and was aided by a brilliant 32-ball 46 by Babar Azam (four fours, one six) to guide Pakistan to a strong 190-9 total on Tuesday at the Sinhalese Sports Club ground.

Their spinners then checked the inexperienced USA batting with Tariq taking 3-27 and Shadab Khan 2-26 to restrict their opponents to 158-8 in 20 overs.

The win avenged Pakistan’s shock defeat at the hands of the USA in the T20 World Cup two years ago and handed them a second win in as many games following their close three-wicket win over the Netherlands on Saturday.

For the USA, Shubham Ranjane top-scored with a valiant 30-ball 51, including three sixes and as many fours, before he fell to pace bowler Shaheen Shah Afridi, who was playing his 100th T20 international.

Opener Shayan Jahangir muscled his way to an attractive 34-ball 49 studded with two sixes and five fours while Milind Kumar scored 29 before the United States were derailed from 123-3 to lose the match.

Earlier, Farhan and fellow opener Saim Ayub, who scored a 17-ball 19 with two sixes, put on 54 in five overs.

Pakistan then lost two wickets in the sixth over of their innings, bowled by Shadley van Schalkwyk.

Ayub was caught off a slower one while skipper Salman Agha holed out on the deep square-leg boundary for one.

Farhan and Azam took control with an 81-run third-wicket stand as Pakistan cut loose in the middle overs.

Farhan passed 1,000 T20 international runs in his 41st match before he was caught in the covers off spinner Harmeet Singh in the 16th over.

Shadab Khan launched an assault to score 30 off 12 balls before Pakistan lost five wickets for just 13 runs in the last two overs.

Schalkwyk was the best USA bowler with 4-25, following his four-wicket haul against India in the 29-run defeat on Saturday.

Friday’s live TV and streaming broadcasts unless noted (subject to change). All events stream live on Peacock or NBCOlympics.com with a streaming or cable login. All times Pacific.

OPENING CEREMONY: 11 a.m.| NBC, Peacock
(replay at 8 p.m. on NBC)

MULTIPLE SPORTS
7 p.m. — “Primetime in Milan” (delay): Figure skating, curling, hockey, skiing and more.| NBC

ALPINE SKIING
2:30 a.m. — Men’s downhill, training | Peacock
2:30 a.m. — Women’s downhill, training | Peacock

CURLING
Mixed doubles (round robin)
1:05 a.m. — U.S. vs. Canada | Peacock
1:05 a.m. — Italy vs. Switzerland | Peacock
1:05 a.m. — Sweden vs. Britain | Peacock
5:35 a.m. — Czechia vs. U.S. | Peacock
5:35 a.m. — Estonia vs. Italy | Peacock
5:35 a.m. — South Korea vs. Britain | Peacock
5:35 a.m. — Sweden vs. Norway | Peacock
5:55 a.m. — Czechia vs. U.S. (in progress) | USA

FIGURE SKATING
Team competition
1 a.m. — Rhythm dance | USA
2:35 a.m. — Pairs, short program | USA
4:35 a.m. — Women, short program | USA

HOCKEY
Women (group play)
3:10 a.m. — France vs. Japan | Peacock
5:40 a.m. — Czechia vs. Switzerland | Peacock

As the Trump administration ploughs forward with its incendiary policies, European trust in the US government is fading.

Amid tariff threats and pledges to conquer Greenland, citizens and politicians in Europe are unsettled — questioning a long-standing alliance.

Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP), chair of the Defence Committee in the EU Parliament, claims to have an answer that is “worth its weight in gold”. In this case, the expression is more literal than figurative.

Around 1,236 tonnes of German gold, worth more than €100bn, are sitting in vaults in the US. Strack-Zimmermann has now announced that, in view of Trump’s recent political manoeuvres, it’s no longer justifiable to leave them be. This has reignited a fierce debate: to retrieve or not to retrieve?

The demand to bring gold back to Germany has been around for a long time, with some surveys suggesting that many citizens are in favour of the move. Similar debates are happening in Italy, which has the third-largest gold reserves in the world after the US and Germany.

Why does Germany hold gold in the US?

Germany’s gold reserves amount to around 3,350 tonnes. About 36.6% of this is in the US, a legacy of the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange rates after World War II.

“At the time, all exchange rates were tied to the dollar, and the dollar was tied to gold,” Dr. Demary, senior economist for Monetary Policy and Financial Markets at the German Economic Institute (IW), told Euronews.

“Germany had large export surpluses with the US, so we accumulated a lot of dollars. To keep exchange rates stable, we exchanged those dollars for gold. That’s how these reserves were built up.”

During the Cold War, it was also practical to store gold abroad, as the US was considered a safe place in case of conflict with the Soviet Union. Over the years, some gold has been repatriated. By 2017, 300 tonnes were brought back from New York, 380 tonnes from Paris, and 900 tonnes from London.

This was part of a Bundesbank plan, unveiled in 2013, to store half of Germany’s gold reserves in Germany from 2020 onwards.

Bringing in the gold treasure: What are the risks?

Strack-Zimmermann and other politicians and economists cite Trump’s unpredictable trade and foreign policy as the reason for moving the gold out of the US.

“Of course, there is always some risk when you keep assets abroad,” said Demary. For example, there is a storage risk if a break-in occurs. But this risk exists whether the gold is stored abroad or in Germany.

“Another possible scenario is that the US government, due to tight currency reserves, could prevent the gold from being transferred,” he explained.

To ensure the safety of gold holdings, the Bundesbank has had to make frequent trips to New York in the past to take an inventory.

“It makes sense to leave this gold in the US in case we have a banking crisis here and need to obtain dollars,” said Demary.

Retrieving the gold could not only be logistically complex, but also risky.

“The gold would have to be transported in armoured vehicles onto a ship, which would also need to be guarded, and then brought back to Frankfurt under security,” added Demary. “There could be robberies, the ship could sink, or the cargo could be seized.”

Is Strack-Zimmermann’s demand pure populism?

Is Strack-Zimmermann’s demand pure symbolic politics? “I think so,” said the economist. “Perhaps it was a political move in response to the tariff threats, saying, ‘We’re bringing our gold back now.’”

According to the economist, it is also possible that Strack-Zimmermann estimated the magnitude of this gold value to be somewhat greater than it really is. In any case, the gold is currently safe in New York, even if Trump wanted to use it to exert pressure on Germany.

“The Federal Reserve is actually independent in its monetary policy. The US government cannot simply intervene. They would have to change laws first,” explained Dr Demary.

Even in the absolute worst case, if the US refused to release the gold, there would still be the option to go to court and enforce its return or receive compensation in dollars, said Demary.

“You have to weigh up the pros and cons and I would say the advantages of leaving the gold in the US outweigh the disadvantages,” he told Euronews.

Scotland booked their place at the Women’s T20 World Cup with a comfortable 41-run win over the United States in the final Super Six qualification game in Nepal.

With the top four going through, the Scots finished third to join Bangladesh, Ireland and the Netherlands at the tournament which is being held in England from 12 June.

Opener Darcey Carter hit 52 as Scotland posted a 178-8 total, with Ailsa Lister adding 43 and Priyanaz Chatterji making 39.

Tara Norris took three wickets for the US, including a rare golden duck for Kathyrn Bryce.

The Scottish skipper shook off the disappointment by removing opener Disha Dhingra in the first over of the Americans’ reply.

Bryce later bowled out Isani Vaghela, with Chloe Abel also taking two wickets as Chatterji wrapped up the contest with a brace in the 19th over.

Jan. 26 (UPI) — Critical minerals startup USA Rare Earth announced Monday that the Department of Commerce will give the company a $1.3 billion loan and $277 million in federal funding.

USA Rare Earth will issue Commerce 16.1 million shares of common stock and 17.6 million in warrants. The federal government will have an 8% to 16% stake in the company, depending on whether it uses the warrants, a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission said.

USA Rare Earth shares rose more than 20% Monday after the announcement, CNBC reported.

The injection of funds will help the company build a magnet manufacturing plant in Stillwater, Okla., and a mine at the Round Top mineral deposit in Sierra Blanca, Texas.

CEO Barbara Humpton said the government deal will turn USA Rare Earth into an industry leader.

“This is a watershed moment in our work to secure and grow a resilient and independent rare earth value chain based in this country,” CNBC reported that Humpton told analysts Monday.

“We have long said that meeting the urgent call to reassure the rare earth and critical minerals industry will require a multiplayer solution, and this establishes our company as one of the leaders,” she said.

Commerce will allocate the funding from 2026 through 2028 based on milestones in USA Rare Earth’s business plan, Chief Financial Officer Rob Steele told analysts.

The company needs about $4.1 billion for its plan, he said. It still needs to raise about $600 million more capital.

“We believe we can raise the remaining capital from attractive sources, and you should assume that’s equity capital but that can come from strategic investments as well as institutional investors,” Steele said.

China dominates the global supply chain of rare earth materials. During trade disputes with President Donald Trump, Beijing tried to cut off rare earth exports.

“USA Rare Earth’s heavy critical minerals project is essential to restoring U.S. critical mineral independence,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said in a statement. “This investment ensures our supply chains are resilient and no longer reliant on foreign nations.”

“The Department of Energy is ending America’s reliance on foreign nations for the critical materials essential to our economy and national security,” said U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright in a statement. “The DOE is partnering with USAR to rebuild the critical minerals supply chain. By expanding domestic mining, processing and manufacturing capabilities, we are creating good-paying American jobs and safeguarding our national security.”

“Accelerating the onshoring of rare earth minerals, metals, and magnets is paramount to national and economic security,” U.S. Investment Accelerator Executive Director Michael Grimes said in a statement. “With the Department of Commerce’s funding for USA Rare Earth’s vertically integrated mine-to-magnet operations, we will significantly increase the domestic supply of crucial components for semiconductors, defense and numerous other industries strategic to the United States.”