US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Washington remained willing to negotiate an end to the Iran conflict, but accused Tehran of showing no serious commitment to diplomacy as attacks and threats disrupted shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb.

Speaking during a visit to Manila on Wednesday, Rubio said the United States was prepared to pursue a negotiated settlement if Iran demonstrated that it was ready to honour its commitments. He argued that Tehran’s military actions, restrictions on commercial navigation and support for armed groups across the region contradicted its stated interest in talks.

The diplomatic opening came as the conflict placed two of the world’s most important energy corridors under mounting pressure. Commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has fallen sharply after Iranian forces intensified operations around the waterway, through which roughly a fifth of global oil consumption normally passes.

Disruption also spread to the southern entrance of the Red Sea after Yemen’s Houthis threatened to impose a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia. The group claimed missile and drone attacks on two Saudi oil tankers, identifying them as the Encelia and the Layla.

The Encelia transmitted a distress call after reporting that it had been struck near the Saudi port of Jizan. The vessel was hit about 70 nautical miles south-west of Al Shuqaiq, although details surrounding the projectile and the extent of the damage remained under assessment. The claimed attack on the Layla had not been independently confirmed.

Several tankers altered course or turned back rather than pass through Bab el-Mandeb, the narrow strait connecting the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Five vessels changed direction on Wednesday, while three tankers carrying Saudi crude for customers in China and India reversed course a day earlier.

The movements highlighted the risk of simultaneous disruption at Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb. Saudi Arabia has redirected millions of barrels of oil towards its western export terminal at Yanbu to reduce dependence on the Gulf route. Ships leaving Yanbu must travel south through the Red Sea or north through the Suez Canal.

A closure or prolonged security threat at Bab el-Mandeb would leave vessels facing longer and more expensive alternatives. Tankers could sail north through Suez before continuing around Europe, or avoid the Red Sea entirely by travelling around the Cape of Good Hope. Both options increase fuel costs, insurance premiums and delivery times.

Vessel traffic through Hormuz fell to nine crossings on Tuesday, while Bab el-Mandeb recorded 29 crossings, down from 44 two days earlier. Before attacks linked to the Gaza conflict began affecting Red Sea shipping, the southern strait commonly handled between 65 and 72 vessel movements a day.

Oil markets responded to the worsening security outlook. Brent crude rose above $94 a barrel after briefly approaching $95, while US crude gained nearly 4 per cent. Traders also factored in higher insurance charges, limited tanker availability and the possibility that regional producers could struggle to maintain export volumes.

Rubio blamed Iran for encouraging actions that threatened global energy supplies. Tehran has long provided political, financial and military support to the Houthis, although the group retains its own command structure and has demonstrated an ability to act according to its domestic and regional priorities.

Pakistan, which has been involved in efforts to mediate between Washington and Tehran, condemned threats against commercial shipping and Saudi Arabia. Islamabad said interference with navigation violated international law and warned that any threat to its maritime interests would be treated as a serious national security matter.

The United States also condemned the Houthi announcement, warning that a blockade could broaden the conflict and place additional demands on American forces already engaged against Iran. The campaign has stretched US air defence, naval and strike capabilities while military planners continue to protect bases, shipping lanes and partner countries across the Gulf.

President Donald Trump threatened retaliatory attacks on Iranian infrastructure for every strike against a ship in Hormuz. Iran’s joint military command responded by warning that attacks on its bridges, electricity facilities or other civilian infrastructure would prompt strikes against energy and economic assets across the region.

Washington has tied any settlement to limits on Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, guarantees for freedom of navigation and an end to attacks on US forces and regional partners. Tehran has demanded an end to American strikes and sanctions relief, while insisting that its nuclear activities remain within its sovereign rights.

Goldman Sachs has retained its forecast for Brent crude to average $80 a barrel in the fourth quarter of 2026, arguing that constrained Middle East supply should support prices if hostilities between the United States and Iran ease before the end of the year.

The investment bank’s baseline projection assumes that geopolitical tensions will gradually subside and oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz will recover. It expects Brent to average $75 a barrel in 2027 as supply expands outside the Middle East and demand growth remains subdued.

The outlook contrasts with Brent’s move above $95 this week as escalating military action and attacks on vessels intensified concerns over two of the world’s most important energy transit routes. Prices reached their highest level in about six weeks as traders assessed disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and threats to shipping through the Bab el-Mandeb strait.

Goldman said risks surrounding its central projection were tilted sharply to the upside. A prolonged interruption to Gulf exports could push Brent above $120 a barrel during the fourth quarter, while the annual average could reach about $100 in 2027 if shipping constraints persist.

Oil flows from the Persian Gulf have fallen below half their pre-conflict level, tightening physical supplies and increasing freight, insurance and security costs. The Strait of Hormuz normally carries about a fifth of global petroleum consumption, making even a partial closure capable of creating shortages across Asia and Europe.

The bank’s forecast depends heavily on whether producers can restore exports without further attacks on tankers, terminals or pipelines. Gulf suppliers have substantial production capacity, but replacing lost volumes requires safe maritime passage and access to loading facilities. Alternative pipelines can bypass part of the strait, although their capacity is insufficient to replace all seaborne exports.

Renewed hostilities have changed the balance of the oil market for 2026. Analysts now expect a global supply deficit of about 1.5 million barrels a day, twice the level projected earlier, after disruptions reduced crude availability from the Gulf. Global output increased by 4.1 million barrels a day in June but remained 9.4 million barrels below pre-war levels.

Goldman’s $80 forecast also reflects expectations that weaker consumption will limit the duration of any price surge. High fuel costs have already affected transport demand, industrial activity and refining margins in several markets. Earlier supply disruptions were estimated to have destroyed between 4 million and 5 million barrels a day of global demand during April.

China remains a central factor in the longer-term outlook. The expansion of electric vehicles, improvements in fuel efficiency and slower growth in petrochemical consumption have weakened the relationship between economic expansion and oil use. Goldman expects part of the demand slowdown to persist as alternatives gain a larger share of the transport market.

Supply growth outside the Gulf could also weigh on prices once shipping conditions stabilise. Production is increasing in the United States, Brazil, Guyana, Venezuela and the UAE, while additional barrels could enter the market as OPEC+ members unwind restrictions. That combination has raised expectations of a substantial global surplus in 2027, even after the deficit anticipated this year.

Other banks have adopted lower base-case estimates. Citi has projected Brent at $70 a barrel during the fourth quarter, while Morgan Stanley lowered its forecast for the period to $75. UBS expects prices to average about $80 after cutting its projection on assumptions that flows through Hormuz will improve.

The range of forecasts reflects uncertainty over diplomacy, military operations and the speed at which damaged energy infrastructure can return to service. Prices could fall towards $60 by the end of the year if exports recover faster than expected and demand remains weak. Continued attacks, however, would increase the likelihood of shortages and place Goldman’s $120 risk scenario within reach.

Higher oil prices are already adding to inflation concerns and complicating monetary policy. Rising crude and refined-product costs feed into transport, manufacturing and food prices, limiting the scope for central banks to reduce interest rates. Import-dependent economies face additional pressure through wider trade deficits and weaker currencies.

DP World has agreed to develop and operate two new terminals in Fujairah under a 50-year concession, expanding the UAE’s cargo-handling capacity and creating a deep-water gateway with direct access to the Gulf of Oman.

The agreement in principle with Fujairah Ports Authority covers the Al Rugaylat container and multi-purpose terminal and the Dibba General Cargo terminal. The projects will be developed in phases, with construction expected to take between 24 and 30 months after work begins.

Al Rugaylat will be designed to handle as many as 2.5 million twenty-foot equivalent units, or TEUs, a year. It will also have annual capacity for 1.7 million tonnes of general cargo and 190,000 car equivalent units, strengthening facilities for roll-on, roll-off vehicle shipments.

The Dibba terminal will add up to 3.6 million tonnes of general cargo capacity annually. Together, the facilities will broaden Fujairah’s ability to serve container ships, vehicle carriers, bulk cargo customers and companies moving industrial and project-related goods.

The terminals will be capable of accommodating the latest generation of ultra-large container vessels. Their location on the UAE’s eastern coastline will give shipping lines access to a major logistics hub without requiring vessels to enter the Arabian Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz.

DP World said the development would increase its container-handling capacity in the UAE from 19.4 million TEUs to almost 22 million TEUs. It will also substantially expand the company’s general cargo and vehicle-handling operations.

Financial details of the planned investment were not disclosed. The preliminary agreement will require the parties to complete commercial, technical and regulatory arrangements before full construction and operating commitments take effect.

The signing was attended by Sheikh Mohammed bin Hamad bin Mohammed Al Sharqi, Crown Prince of Fujairah. Essa Kazim, chairman of DP World’s board of directors, signed the agreement with Mousa Murad, director of Fujairah Port.

Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, group chairman and chief executive of DP World, said the development would build on the strength of Jebel Ali and deepen the company’s commitment to the UAE. He said the terminals would reinforce the country’s strategic role in global trade.

Murad said Fujairah’s location and DP World’s operating expertise would be combined to create efficient terminals capable of supporting regional cargo flows and meeting international operating standards.

The new facilities will be connected to Jebel Ali Port and the Jebel Ali Free Zone through DP World’s inland logistics network. The arrangement is intended to allow cargo owners to use Fujairah as an eastern maritime gateway while retaining access to the warehousing, manufacturing, customs and distribution infrastructure centred on Dubai.

Jebel Ali handled 15.6 million TEUs last year, representing a large share of DP World’s consolidated global throughput of 56.1 million TEUs. The port remains the company’s flagship hub, but its position inside the Arabian Gulf requires vessels arriving from Asia, Africa and Europe to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.

Fujairah offers a geographically distinct alternative. Its coastline faces the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, placing its ports close to shipping routes linking South Asia, East Africa, the Red Sea and European markets.

The emirate is already a major centre for marine fuel supply, oil storage and ship services. Expanding container and general cargo facilities could attract a wider range of manufacturers, commodity traders, vehicle distributors and logistics companies.

The project also reflects a broader shift among port operators towards networks of interconnected gateways rather than dependence on a single large hub. Shipping disruptions, regional security risks and congestion at maritime chokepoints have encouraged cargo owners to seek alternative routes, additional storage and more flexible distribution arrangements.

DP World has increasingly combined ports with freight forwarding, warehousing, free-zone services and inland transport. Connecting Al Rugaylat and Dibba to the Jebel Ali ecosystem will allow the company to offer customers an integrated route from ship discharge on the east coast to industrial and consumer markets across the UAE.

The planned vehicle capacity at Al Rugaylat is particularly significant for automotive supply chains. Roll-on, roll-off terminals require specialised berths, storage yards and inspection facilities, while reliable inland connections are essential for distributing imported vehicles to dealerships and export markets.

ExxonMobil has signed on as a Gold Sponsor of Angola Oil & Gas 2026, strengthening its position in the country as Luanda seeks billions of dollars in investment to sustain crude production and revive exploration.

The conference will be held in Luanda on 9 and 10 September, bringing together energy companies, investors, financiers, service providers and policymakers. Angola is promoting an upstream investment programme valued at more than $70 billion as it works to slow output declines from ageing offshore fields and open new areas for development.

ExxonMobil’s participation gives the company a prominent role at a gathering expected to focus on exploration, brownfield redevelopment, project finance, local content and production efficiency. The US energy major has operated in Angola for more than three decades and remains one of the country’s most important offshore investors.

Its main operated asset is Block 15, where it holds a 36% interest through Esso Exploration Angola. The remaining stakes are held by Azule Energy entities, Equinor and Sonangol Exploration and Production. The block covers 1,044 square kilometres offshore and has yielded 19 discoveries containing about three billion barrels of recoverable oil.

Production began in 2003 from the Xikomba development. It was followed by Kizomba A, Kizomba B, Marimba North, Mondo, Saxi-Batuque and two satellite development phases. Block 15 has produced more than 2.7 billion barrels since operations started, making it one of Angola’s most productive offshore concessions.

The company also has interests in producing Blocks 17 and 32. Together, its three producing deepwater holdings cover almost three million gross acres and contain an estimated nine billion barrels of oil-equivalent recoverable resources. ExxonMobil’s net production from Angola averaged about 100,000 barrels a day in 2024.

The sponsorship follows a series of agreements aimed at extending the commercial life of Block 15. ExxonMobil and its partners approved investment in November 2025 to keep the Mondo and Saxi-Batuque facilities operating until 2032. The plan is designed to preserve production from mature fields while applying updated safety, environmental and operational standards.

Attention has now shifted to a proposed extension for the Kizomba A and Kizomba B installations. The authorities expect an investment decision during 2026 that could permit the facilities to operate until 2037. The wider production-sharing agreement for Block 15 has already been amended to support longer-term activity.

Additional exploration is also being pursued to identify commercially viable resources and reduce the pace of decline. The strategy combines new drilling with improved recovery from existing reservoirs, allowing operators to use infrastructure already installed in the deepwater basin.

Angola produced an average of about 1.07 million barrels a day in October 2025. Maintaining output near that level has become a central policy objective as older fields mature and natural reservoir pressure weakens. Petroleum exports remain a major source of government revenue and foreign currency, leaving the economy exposed to production disruptions and oil-price swings.

The government has responded with revised fiscal terms, permanent licensing opportunities and contractual changes intended to improve the economics of marginal and mature assets. It is also seeking investment in frontier basins, natural gas projects, refining capacity and domestic fuel infrastructure.

ExxonMobil’s role at the September conference will place it alongside other major operators, including Chevron, TotalEnergies and Azule Energy. Sonangol, service companies, financial institutions and seismic specialists are also supporting the event as Angola attempts to connect exploration plans with capital and technical expertise.

The programme is expected to examine how operators can lower development costs, deploy subsea technology and strengthen the participation of Angolan suppliers. Local-content rules require contractors to demonstrate registration and certification, creating opportunities for domestic companies in engineering, maintenance, logistics, fabrication and offshore support services.

For ExxonMobil, the sponsorship supports a dual-track strategy. The company is extending the life of established producing assets while searching for new resources that can be developed through existing offshore systems. That approach could reduce project lead times and limit the capital required to bring smaller discoveries into production.

Yemen’s Houthi movement has declared a maritime blockade against Saudi Arabia, adding another unofficial customs authority to one of the world’s busiest and most heavily armed stretches of water.

Military spokesperson Yahya Saree announced on Monday that the measure would take effect immediately, apparently concluding that international shipping had enjoyed far too much clarity about which sea lane might be attacked next. The group said vessels carrying Saudi exports through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait could be targeted under an “eye for an eye” policy, now adapted for tankers, bulk carriers and insurance underwriters.

No operational details accompanied the announcement. Shipping companies were therefore invited to determine for themselves whether the blockade was a military campaign, a warning, a negotiating position or a strongly worded maritime out-of-office message.

The threat places Saudi crude shipments from the Red Sea port of Yanbu at risk while pressure is already building around the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh has relied on its East-West Pipeline to move oil from fields near the Gulf to the Red Sea, allowing exports to bypass disruption around Hormuz. The Houthis have now proposed closing the emergency exit while the main entrance remains surrounded by missiles.

Up to 3 million barrels a day could require alternative routes if the threat is enforced. Tankers may be forced around the Cape of Good Hope, adding weeks to voyages and large sums to freight and insurance costs. Oil traders responded in their traditional manner by carefully examining the danger before immediately converting it into a price chart.

The blockade announcement followed renewed fighting between the Houthis and Saudi Arabia after a four-year period of relative calm. Houthi missiles were fired towards the kingdom after the group accused Saudi forces of striking Sanaa International Airport to prevent an aircraft carrying Houthi officials from landing.

Saudi-led forces said the airport action was intended to stop an Iranian flight. The Houthis described it as part of a long blockade imposed on Yemen and presented their maritime measure as retaliation. Regional diplomacy, having spent years encouraging both sides to avoid escalation, was informed that its subscription had expired.

Houthi leader Abdul Malik al-Houthi had already warned that Saudi oil installations, airports and other strategic facilities could be targeted if Riyadh deepened its involvement in Yemen. The movement possesses missiles and drones capable of reaching key sites inside the kingdom, although years of war and international interception efforts have placed pressure on its weapons stocks.

The threat nonetheless carries weight because the Houthis have demonstrated an ability to disrupt commercial shipping with comparatively inexpensive weapons. Since late 2023, their attacks in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden have forced major operators to reroute vessels around southern Africa, turning global logistics into a prolonged demonstration of how a low-cost drone can generate a high-cost invoice.

The Bab el-Mandeb links the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden and serves as a gateway to the Suez Canal. Roughly 12 per cent of global trade normally passes through the broader route. Its strategic importance has encouraged a diverse collection of navies, militias and governments to protect freedom of navigation by placing enough weaponry nearby to make navigation visibly less free.

Saudi Arabia has warned that it will respond firmly to any attempt to enforce the blockade. The kingdom has spent several years trying to reduce direct confrontation with the Houthis while supporting Yemen’s internationally recognised government. Riyadh has also sought to prevent wider regional conflicts from undermining its economic diversification plans, tourism ambitions and carefully cultivated image as a place where investors can enjoy stability between missile alerts.

The Houthis, meanwhile, remain aligned with Iran and form part of Tehran’s network of armed regional partners. Their declaration came as confrontation involving Iran and the United States placed additional strain on oil supply routes. Tehran had warned that attacks on its infrastructure could lead to disruption at other strategic waterways, raising the prospect of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb becoming unavailable at the same time.

Energy analysts have warned that a sustained interruption could push oil prices sharply higher. Estimates under severe disruption scenarios have placed crude at between $115 and $120 a barrel, figures welcomed by nobody except producers, traders and economists who had already prepared television interviews explaining why consumers should remain calm.

Commercial shipowners are now assessing vessel ownership, cargo origin, destination, chartering arrangements and any corporate relationship that might attract Houthi attention. This process requires companies to study a targeting policy that remains undefined, changeable and apparently administered through televised statements.

The UAE economy has withstood disruption from the Middle East conflict, supported by strong financial reserves, rapid policy intervention and continued strength across banking, trade and logistics, the International Monetary Fund has said.

An IMF staff team completed a visit to Abu Dhabi and Dubai from July 7 to 16, holding discussions on economic conditions, financial-sector performance and policy priorities. The meetings also prepared the ground for the UAE’s 2026 Article IV consultation, the fund’s broader assessment of the country’s economy.

The mission found that sound economic fundamentals, ample policy buffers and advanced institutional preparedness had contained the overall impact of the geopolitical shock. Measures introduced by the authorities helped preserve financial stability, protect essential supply chains and provide targeted assistance to affected businesses and households.

Khaled Mohamed Balama, Governor of the Central Bank of the UAE and Governor for the UAE at the IMF, said the consultations had strengthened communication and enabled officials to exchange views on economic and financial developments.

“These consultations provide an important platform for strengthening our existing cooperation with the IMF and exchanging views on the latest developments and future priorities,” Balama said.

He added that the authorities remained committed to monetary and financial stability while improving the financial system’s ability to respond to regional and global changes. The discussions involved 35 federal and local entities coordinated by the central bank.

The assessment comes as intermittent restrictions around the Strait of Hormuz weigh on shipping, trade and energy exports. Uncertainty surrounding the duration and intensity of the conflict remains high, creating risks for tourism, aviation, transport, property and other non-oil sectors.

Overall economic output is expected to be slightly lower in 2026 after strong expansion during 2025. Non-hydrocarbon growth has slowed as uncertainty affects travel, commerce, transport and real estate activity.

Economic momentum could improve during the second half of the year if tensions between the United States and Iran ease gradually. Oil exports are expected to recover, while higher production could support hydrocarbon growth and offset part of the disruption caused by regional instability.

The IMF expects a stronger rebound in 2027 as oil production expands and non-oil activity strengthens. Tourism and trade flows are also expected to normalise, though the outlook remains highly dependent on security conditions and the restoration of dependable shipping routes.

Inflation is forecast to rise during 2026 as higher global energy and food prices pass through to businesses and consumers. Price pressures are expected to ease over the medium term, helped by domestic supply arrangements, subsidies and the dirham’s peg to the US dollar.

The country’s fiscal balance is expected to remain in surplus, supported by higher oil revenue, conservative budgeting and measures to improve spending efficiency. Low government debt gives policymakers room to provide further assistance if the conflict becomes more severe or prolonged.

Public and government-related companies entered the disruption with strong balance sheets, helping preserve confidence and reduce pressure on the wider economy. International reserves also remain at levels considered sufficient to provide comfortable import coverage.

The external balance is likely to remain in surplus, although it may narrow during 2026 because of weaker non-oil trade and disrupted energy shipments. A recovery is expected as trade routes stabilise and crude exports increase.

Banks remain well capitalised and liquid, with capital buffers above regulatory requirements. Deposits and lending have continued to expand, although private-sector credit growth may moderate alongside softer non-oil activity.

The central bank’s Proactive Financial Institution Resilience Package, introduced in mid-March, has helped financial institutions maintain operations and deliver services during the disruption. The programme was designed to strengthen preparedness, support liquidity and safeguard the continuity of the financial system.

Property activity moderated during the first half of 2026 after several years of rapid expansion. Performance has varied by location and market segment, while prices have generally remained at or above their 2025 levels. Banks’ exposure to real estate remains contained, but changing market conditions require continued supervision.

Iran has claimed that ballistic missiles and drones destroyed several US military aircraft stationed in Jordan, widening a fast-escalating exchange of attacks across the Middle East.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said the operation targeted US fighter jets and aerial refuelling aircraft at military facilities in Jordan. It claimed several aircraft were destroyed and others seriously damaged, but offered no independently verifiable evidence.

Neither the US military nor Jordan confirmed that any aircraft had been hit. Jordan’s armed forces said its air-defence systems intercepted and destroyed three Iranian missiles that entered the kingdom’s airspace on Friday morning. No casualties or material damage were reported.

The Iranian attack followed another night of US strikes across the Islamic republic. Tehran said the bombardment killed at least eight people and wounded about 20. Bridges, transport facilities and sites in southern and coastal provinces were among the locations reported hit.

US Central Command said its forces had completed a seventh consecutive night of operations against Iran. Washington maintains that its campaign is directed at military infrastructure, logistics networks, radar systems, missile sites and facilities linked to attacks on commercial shipping.

Tehran disputes that account, accusing the US of striking civilian infrastructure and using bases across the region to conduct attacks. The Revolutionary Guard said the Jordan operation was retaliation for raids launched from facilities in the kingdom against targets in southern Iran.

Jordan hosts US military personnel and has become a repeated target during the renewed fighting. Amman has stressed that it will defend its territory and airspace, while rejecting attempts to turn the kingdom into a battlefield for wider regional conflicts.

Jordanian forces have intercepted Iranian missiles on several consecutive days. Eight missiles were shot down on Thursday, while three ballistic missiles were intercepted on Wednesday. Four were destroyed on Monday. Three other missiles landed at separate locations on Sunday, causing minor property damage but no casualties.

The volume and frequency of the attacks have placed Jordan’s air-defence network under sustained pressure. Falling fragments from intercepted weapons also pose risks to populated areas even when incoming missiles fail to reach their intended targets.

Iran has expanded its retaliation beyond Jordan, launching missiles and drones towards facilities associated with US forces in Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar. Gulf governments have reported repeated interceptions, infrastructure disruption and limited casualties as the fighting spreads across national borders.

The attacks mark the sharpest collapse of the ceasefire reached last month. That agreement had temporarily reduced direct hostilities after months of conflict, but it unravelled following renewed confrontations around the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on commercial vessels.

Washington reinstated a naval blockade of Iranian ports after accusing Tehran of threatening international shipping. US forces have since attacked coastal surveillance systems, missile and drone installations, air-defence positions and logistics facilities around Bandar Abbas, Jask, Chabahar and other strategic locations.

Iran says it controls access through the Strait of Hormuz and has threatened stronger action if attacks on its territory continue. The waterway carries a substantial share of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies, making any prolonged disruption a threat to energy markets and shipping schedules.

Commercial traffic through the strait has fallen sharply as shipping companies avoid the conflict zone or wait for clearer security guarantees. Insurance costs have risen, while oil prices have climbed amid concern that military action could restrict exports from Gulf producers.

The confrontation has also extended towards Syria. Iran said it targeted a US command centre near al-Tanf, although a Syrian military source said the projectile landed near the area without hitting the base or causing damage. US forces had withdrawn from al-Tanf earlier this year.

Tehran has warned that attacks will continue until Washington halts its campaign against Iranian coastal and military facilities. Revolutionary Guard aerospace commander Majid Mousavi said strikes would remain “effective and targeted”, signalling that bases hosting US assets could face further missile and drone launches.

Iran launched missile and drone attacks on US military facilities across the Gulf on Friday after American forces completed a sixth consecutive night of strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, deepening a cycle of retaliation that has disrupted regional shipping and unsettled energy markets.

Tehran said its forces targeted US facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait during the early hours of Friday. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards also claimed an attack on an American special operations command centre at Al-Tanf in Syria, saying the operation answered the killing of Iranian personnel in southeastern Iran.

Explosions were heard in Doha, where Qatar’s Interior Ministry said a child was injured by falling shrapnel. Iran has also directed attacks at US military positions in Jordan during the week, widening the geographical scope of the confrontation beyond the immediate waters of the Gulf.

The US military said fighter aircraft, drones and warships used precision weapons against dozens of targets on Qeshm Island and around Bandar Abbas. The targets included coastal surveillance systems, air-defence sites, logistical facilities and maritime capabilities used by Iran’s navy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Bandar Abbas contains Iran’s largest commercial port and major naval installations overlooking the Strait of Hormuz. Qeshm Island, positioned close to the shipping channel, hosts military infrastructure linked to Iran’s missile, surveillance and coastal-defence network.

Iranian authorities reported strikes on five bridges, Bandar Khamir railway station and Iranshahr Airport in Sistan-Baluchestan province. Seven people were reported killed when bridges were hit in Bandar Khamir, a southern port west of Bandar Abbas. Independent confirmation of the casualties and the damage was not immediately available.

Washington’s campaign has increasingly focused on infrastructure that allows Iran to monitor and threaten traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Earlier attacks hit command centres, cruise-missile sites and coastal defences on Greater Tunb Island, one of several strategically located islands used by Iran to project military power across the waterway.

The latest exchanges followed the collapse of a truce agreed last month after months of fighting. That arrangement included negotiations over shipping rules in Hormuz, but disagreements over Iran’s authority to regulate vessels and collect passage fees have remained unresolved.

Iran wants commercial ships to use a channel close to its coast and has proposed charging transit fees after a 60-day negotiating period. The United States has encouraged vessels to follow a route nearer Oman, rejecting Tehran’s claim to exercise control over an international waterway.

Traffic through the strait has again slowed sharply. The channel normally carries about one-fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas shipments, making any disruption a direct threat to fuel supplies, freight costs and inflation.

Iran has attacked vessels using a designated transit corridor, while the United States has restored its blockade of Iranian ports. American forces have redirected ships approaching Iran and disabled at least one tanker after it allegedly ignored warnings.

Tehran has also signalled that Yemen’s Houthi movement could be urged to disrupt the Bab al-Mandeb Strait if Washington attacks Iran’s electricity network or other civilian infrastructure. Closure of that route would threaten shipping between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden while complicating alternative export arrangements for regional energy producers.

US President Donald Trump has threatened further attacks on power facilities and bridges unless Iran returns to negotiations. He has not ruled out deploying ground forces, including a possible operation involving Kharg Island, the centre of Iran’s crude oil export system.

The White House has maintained that diplomacy remains possible even as military operations expand. Trump has said Tehran wants an agreement, while Iran insists that talks cannot resume unless Washington complies with the June memorandum and accepts what Iranian officials describe as national regulations governing Hormuz.

Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf has described the confrontation as an existential war with the United States. Military officials have argued that destroying coastal positions would not remove Iran’s ability to strike the strait because missiles and drones could be launched from deeper inside the country.

Iran has threatened to disrupt energy exports across the Middle East as renewed US military action and a naval blockade deepen the struggle for control of the Strait of Hormuz.

The warning raised the prospect of attacks extending towards the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, the southern entrance to the Red Sea and a vital route for oil, liquefied natural gas and container traffic. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps declared that regional oil and gas exports would either remain available to all countries or be denied to everyone.

Tehran’s position followed Washington’s decision to restore a blockade covering vessels travelling to and from Iranian ports. The measure took effect on Tuesday evening after attacks on commercial shipping and the collapse of arrangements that had allowed limited vessel movements through Hormuz under an interim peace framework.

US forces expanded air strikes across Iran on Wednesday and Thursday, hitting coastal defence installations, missile positions, military barracks and sites around Tehran and Semnan province. Iran responded with missiles and drones aimed at Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait, which host American military personnel and facilities.

The confrontation has sharply reduced traffic through Hormuz. Only seven vessels crossed the strait on Wednesday, compared with 13 a day earlier. Four empty ships entered the Gulf, including three small oil tankers and a grain carrier, while three outbound vessels carried liquefied petroleum gas, coal and fuel oil.

No very large crude carriers or liquefied natural gas tankers used the waterway during the day. A Suezmax tanker carrying about one million barrels of Saudi crude passed through on Tuesday with its tracking equipment switched off, reflecting growing concern among shipowners and crews.

Before the war, Hormuz handled about one-fifth of global oil and gas shipments. Its closure has forced energy traders, refiners and governments to reassess supply routes, storage levels and emergency reserves. Brent crude traded above $85 a barrel on Thursday, more than 15 per cent higher than its pre-war level, although below the conflict peak of nearly $120.

Iran’s reference to other export corridors was widely interpreted as a warning involving Bab el-Mandeb. The narrow passage between Yemen and Djibouti connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden. Disruption there would threaten shipments using the Suez Canal and complicate Saudi Arabia’s ability to bypass Hormuz through its east-west pipeline and Red Sea terminals.

The US military also disabled the Curaçao-flagged tanker Belma as it sailed towards Kharg Island, Iran’s main oil export terminal. American forces said the vessel ignored repeated warnings before an aircraft fired a missile into its smokestack. The attack marked a direct enforcement of the restored blockade.

More than 20 US Navy warships and hundreds of military aircraft are operating across the region. Washington says the deployment is intended to protect navigation and weaken Iran’s capacity to attack commercial vessels. Tehran regards the blockade as economic warfare and an attempt to strip it of leverage in negotiations.

The fragile truce agreed in June had created an Omani shipping route overseen by US forces and opened space for talks on a permanent settlement. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi said the renewed blockade had effectively dismantled the Islamabad memorandum underpinning those arrangements.

Iranian officials said US strikes during the latest exchange had killed more than 35 people and wounded over 300. Seven soldiers were reported killed when missiles struck the barracks of the 388th Mechanised Infantry Brigade in Sistan and Balochistan province. Tehran also said civilian casualties occurred during attacks in southern Iran.

The United States said Iran had attacked seven commercial ships during the preceding week, leaving almost a dozen crew members killed, missing or injured. Two UAE tankers were hit in Hormuz, killing one crew member and wounding eight others.

President Donald Trump has threatened further attacks on Iranian power stations, bridges and an underground facility linked to Tehran’s nuclear programme unless Iran returns to negotiations. Strikes on infrastructure essential to civilians would face scrutiny under international humanitarian law, which requires military operations to distinguish between civilian and military targets.

The war began on February 28 with joint US and Israeli strikes against Iran. Tehran retaliated against Israel and US bases across the Gulf, drawing several neighbouring countries into the conflict despite their efforts to avoid direct participation.

Iranian cruise missiles struck two UAE tankers in the Strait of Hormuz on Tuesday, killing one crew member and injuring eight others as maritime tensions intensified across the Gulf.

The Mombasa and Al Bahiyah were hit while travelling through the southern shipping lane within Omani territorial waters, the UAE Ministry of Defence said. Fires broke out on both vessels and caused material damage before emergency teams brought the blazes under control.

The crew member killed aboard the Mombasa was a national of India. Six other nationals of India and two Ukrainians were injured, with four reported to be in a serious condition. Authorities did not immediately disclose the identities of the casualties or provide details about where the injured were receiving treatment.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the strikes as a deliberate attack on civilian commercial vessels and a grave breach of international law. It said the UAE reserved the right to take measures needed to protect its security, sovereignty and economic interests.

Tehran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps claimed responsibility for targeting the vessels. It alleged that the tankers had switched off their navigation systems, ignored repeated warnings and attempted to travel through a restricted or mined route.

The UAE did not confirm those claims. Its account placed both vessels in the designated southern shipping lane and inside Oman’s territorial waters when the missiles struck. No statement from Muscat had clarified whether Omani authorities had tracked the tankers or received warnings before the attack.

The conflicting versions are likely to increase scrutiny of vessel-tracking records, radio communications and Automatic Identification System data. Maritime investigators will also examine the missiles’ trajectories and the position of each tanker at the moment of impact.

The attack marked a sharp escalation in Iran’s campaign against commercial shipping following renewed fighting with the United States. Several merchant vessels have been struck or threatened in and around Hormuz during the conflict, forcing operators to delay voyages, reconsider routes and impose additional security measures.

The International Maritime Organization has condemned attacks on commercial ships and warned that seafarers should not be placed at risk because of geopolitical disputes. Its council has urged restraint and called for the protection of civilian navigation through the waterway.

Hormuz remains the world’s most important energy transit chokepoint. More than a quarter of global seaborne oil trade and about one-fifth of worldwide oil and petroleum product consumption passed through the strait during 2024 and the first quarter of 2025. Roughly one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas trade also used the route, largely through exports from Qatar.

The tanker strikes therefore carry implications well beyond the immediate military confrontation. Shipping companies face higher insurance premiums, crew-safety concerns and potential restrictions from flag states. Longer diversions are difficult because most Gulf oil exports lack sufficient alternative pipeline capacity.

Oil markets reacted to the widening conflict, with Brent crude trading near $85 a barrel after rising as fears of supply disruption returned. Prices have become highly sensitive to shipping movements, military warnings and statements concerning control of the strait.

The attack also presents a diplomatic challenge for the UAE, which has sought to protect trade routes while avoiding direct involvement in hostilities between Washington and Tehran. Abu Dhabi has maintained that civilian infrastructure and commercial shipping must remain outside the conflict.

The location of the strikes inside Omani waters adds another layer of concern. Oman has traditionally acted as a mediator between Iran, Gulf governments and Western powers. Military action within its territorial waters risks complicating those efforts and undermining Muscat’s ability to preserve channels for de-escalation.

Iranian forces have argued that they are enforcing maritime security measures and responding to hostile military operations. Gulf governments and international shipping bodies reject the targeting of merchant vessels, saying navigation disputes cannot justify attacks that endanger civilian crews.

SBI Funds Management raised ₹26.63 billion from anchor investors, including major sovereign wealth funds, before opening one of the country’s largest public offerings of 2026 to wider subscription on Tuesday.

The asset manager allocated 46.4 million shares to 129 anchor investors at ₹574 each, the upper end of its ₹545-₹574 price band. Strong institutional demand helped the anchor book attract prominent global investors from Singapore, Abu Dhabi, Norway, Canada and the United States.

The Government of Singapore received 2.7 million shares, representing 5.72% of the anchor allocation. The Monetary Authority of Singapore secured about 1.04% of the book. Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, Norway’s Government Pension Fund Global and investment vehicles managed by BlackRock were each allotted roughly 1.6 million shares.

Life Insurance Corporation of India and Capital Group Global Equity Fund were among the biggest individual participants. Each received about 3.1 million shares, equivalent to 6.76% of the anchor book. Goldman Sachs funds and several other international institutions also participated.

Domestic mutual funds accounted for 37.2% of the anchor allocation, investing approximately ₹9.91 billion. Funds operated by HDFC Asset Management, ICICI Prudential Asset Management, Axis Asset Management and other prominent institutions received shares across multiple schemes.

The breadth of the anchor book indicates strong institutional interest in the country’s expanding asset-management industry. Mutual funds have benefited from rising household participation in financial markets, growing systematic investment plan contributions and a gradual shift from physical savings such as property and gold towards regulated financial products.

SBI Funds Management’s initial public offering is seeking to raise about ₹98.13 billion after its size was reduced following a pre-offer placement. The issue is entirely an offer for sale by State Bank of India and France-based Amundi India Holding, meaning the asset manager will not receive proceeds from the transaction.

State Bank of India is selling up to about 128.3 million shares, while Amundi India Holding is offering approximately 75.6 million shares. The joint venture partners had initially planned to sell a combined 203.7 million shares, representing 10% of the asset manager’s equity capital.

A pre-offer placement completed before the public issue raised ₹16.55 billion through the sale of a 1.42% stake to 30 investors. That transaction reduced the number of shares available through the main offering and lowered the IPO from its original size of about ₹116.93 billion.

At the upper end of the price band, SBI Funds Management is seeking a valuation of approximately ₹1.17 trillion. This would place it among the most highly valued listed asset managers, alongside HDFC Asset Management, Nippon Life India Asset Management and UTI Asset Management.

The offer opened on July 14 and will close on July 16. Investors can apply in lots of 26 shares, requiring a minimum investment of ₹14,924 at the top of the price band. The shares are expected to begin trading on the BSE and National Stock Exchange on July 21.

Up to half of the net offer has been reserved for qualified institutional buyers, while at least 15% is available for non-institutional investors. Retail investors have been allocated at least 35%. A separate portion is reserved for eligible State Bank of India shareholders, allowing them to apply under both the shareholder and applicable general categories.

SBI Funds Management is the country’s largest asset manager by average assets under management. Its scale is supported by State Bank of India’s extensive branch network, digital platforms and access to customers across cities, towns and rural markets.

The business manages equity, debt, hybrid, exchange-traded and passive investment products. Its distribution reach has helped it capture a substantial share of systematic investment plan accounts, which provide asset managers with a relatively stable stream of recurring investments.

The listing comes as the wider IPO market attempts to sustain investor demand amid volatile energy prices, geopolitical tensions and uneven foreign portfolio flows. Large offerings are being watched closely as a test of whether domestic institutions and retail investors can continue absorbing sizeable share sales.

The United States and Iran exchanged fresh strikes overnight into Monday, deepening a military confrontation that has sharply reduced commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and unsettled global energy markets.

US Central Command said American forces completed another round of attacks intended to weaken Iran’s ability to threaten civilian mariners and commercial vessels using the strategic waterway. Dozens of targets were struck, including air-defence systems, coastal radar installations and missile and drone capabilities positioned near southern Iran.

Explosions were reported around Bandar Abbas, Jask and Sirik, as well as Qeshm Island, a strategically important location overlooking shipping lanes through the strait. Tehran condemned the attacks and responded with missile and drone operations against US-linked military facilities across the Gulf region.

Iranian forces targeted sites in Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan, extending a pattern of retaliatory attacks that has also placed bases and infrastructure in Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates under heightened alert. Regional air-defence systems intercepted several incoming weapons, though officials were assessing damage and casualties.

The confrontation has become increasingly centred on control of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a substantial share of the world’s internationally traded oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes. Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have declared the passage closed until further notice, while Washington insists it remains open to lawful commercial shipping.

US President Donald Trump rejected Tehran’s closure claim and said American forces were ensuring freedom of navigation. The opposing declarations have created a distinction between whether the strait is legally open and whether shipping companies consider it safe enough to enter.

Vessel movements fell to a five-week low on Sunday, with only six ships detected transiting the waterway. The limited traffic included a very large crude carrier transporting about two million barrels of Iranian oil and another tanker carrying roughly 500,000 barrels of Kuwaiti petroleum products.

Three empty tankers sailed into the Gulf to collect cargo, but no liquefied natural gas carriers were detected during the weekend. Some vessels were believed to be operating with automatic identification systems switched off, making the full scale of traffic difficult to establish.

The Revolutionary Guards said they had stopped two vessels by disabling their systems after the ships allegedly failed to comply with instructions. Tehran provided few details about the vessels, their ownership or the circumstances of the interceptions.

Shipping companies have increasingly delayed voyages, altered routes or instructed vessels to wait outside the danger zone. War-risk insurance costs have risen, while crews face growing hazards from missiles, drones, electronic interference and possible misidentification by opposing forces.

The latest American operation followed an attack on a Cyprus-flagged container ship in the strait. The incident triggered rescue operations and strengthened Washington’s claim that Iranian military activity was directly endangering international commerce.

Tehran maintains that foreign military operations and restrictions imposed on its vessels have destabilised the area. Iranian officials have argued that ships must follow routes and procedures approved by their forces, a position rejected by Washington as an attempt to control an international passage.

Oil prices climbed sharply as traders assessed the possibility of a sustained disruption. Brent crude rose by more than 4 per cent to around $79 a barrel, while US crude advanced towards $75. Equity markets across Asia weakened as investors considered the risk of higher energy costs, renewed inflation and slower economic growth.

The escalation has further weakened diplomatic efforts that had focused on preventing attacks against commercial shipping and securing dependable access through Hormuz. Qatar, Egypt and Pakistan have been involved in mediation, but the continuing strikes have narrowed the space for negotiations.

A June understanding had been intended to limit hostilities and create conditions for broader talks. Repeated attacks on vessels, followed by American strikes and Iranian retaliation, have exposed the fragility of that arrangement.

The UAE activated its air defence network early on Sunday to intercept ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones launched from Iran, as a fresh exchange of attacks widened the Gulf conflict and triggered emergency alerts across several countries.

The Ministry of Defence said loud sounds heard in scattered parts of the country were caused by interception operations. Fighter aircraft and ground-based systems were responding to aerial threats approaching UAE territory, it said.

Residents were urged to remain indoors, avoid windows and follow official safety instructions. Mobile alerts warned people not to photograph or approach falling debris, which can remain dangerous after missiles or drones are destroyed in the air.

No immediate figures were released for the number of incoming weapons or the locations they appeared to target. There was also no initial confirmation of casualties or significant damage in the UAE.

The renewed attack marked a sharp reversal after the country had avoided direct Iranian strikes for several weeks. The UAE was heavily targeted during earlier stages of the conflict, forcing authorities to activate layered missile defences and temporarily adjust aviation operations.

Sunday’s interceptions came as Iran launched attacks across the Gulf following another large wave of US strikes on its military infrastructure. Air raid sirens sounded in Bahrain, while security alerts were issued in Qatar and explosions were heard around Doha. Kuwait and Jordan also raised their defence readiness.

The United States said its operation struck about 140 sites connected to Iran’s missile, drone, radar and maritime capabilities. The attacks followed an Iranian assault on a Cyprus-flagged container ship near the Strait of Hormuz, where Tehran has sought to impose restrictions on commercial traffic.

The vessel, GFS Galaxy, was severely damaged after being struck and its crew abandoned ship. One crew member was reported missing. Iran said the ship had switched off tracking equipment, ignored warnings and entered a prohibited navigation route.

Washington rejected that justification and described the attack as an assault on civilian shipping. US forces said the strikes were intended to reduce Iran’s capacity to threaten vessels travelling through one of the world’s most important energy corridors.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps declared the Strait of Hormuz closed and warned shipping companies against entering without authorisation. Tehran has said the waterway will remain restricted until US military intervention in the region ends.

The strait links Gulf producers with the Arabian Sea and carries roughly a fifth of the world’s petroleum liquids. Any sustained disruption can affect oil prices, shipping insurance, freight costs and the supply of liquefied natural gas to international markets.

The latest confrontation has placed the UAE and other Gulf countries in an increasingly difficult security position. Their territory hosts military facilities used by the United States, while their economies depend on stable trade, aviation, energy exports and investment flows.

Abu Dhabi has repeatedly stated that it does not want its territory used for offensive operations against neighbouring states. It has also pressed for diplomacy, freedom of navigation and protection of civilian infrastructure throughout the conflict.

Iran has nevertheless accused Gulf governments of assisting US military operations. Gulf states have rejected the accusation and condemned attacks that place civilian communities, airports, ports and energy installations at risk.

The UAE has invested heavily in a layered air defence structure designed to counter weapons travelling at different speeds and altitudes. Its network includes Patriot and Terminal High Altitude Area Defence systems, fighter aircraft, surveillance radars and command centres that coordinate responses to simultaneous threats.

Defending against mixed attacks remains demanding because drones, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles follow different flight paths. Large barrages can also be designed to overwhelm radar coverage and force defenders to expend costly interceptors.

Commercial aviation faced renewed uncertainty as airlines monitored airspace restrictions and possible route changes. The UAE’s airports are among the world’s busiest international transit hubs, making any security disruption significant for passengers and global cargo networks.

The United States launched a third round of strikes on Iran this week after Tehran declared the Strait of Hormuz closed and Iranian forces attacked a Cyprus-flagged container ship attempting to cross the strategic waterway.

US Central Command said President Donald Trump ordered the operation after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps attacked the M/V GFS Galaxy, leaving one civilian crew member missing. The vessel suffered a fire and extensive engine-room damage that prevented it from continuing its voyage.

The strikes were aimed at reducing Iran’s capacity to threaten commercial vessels, including missile systems, drone facilities, surveillance equipment and other military infrastructure associated with maritime attacks. Washington said its actions were intended to protect freedom of navigation through a channel vital to international energy supplies and trade.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards navy announced that the strait would remain closed “until further notice” and until what it described as an end to US intervention in the region. Tehran said the GFS Galaxy had disabled or improperly operated its tracking equipment, ignored warnings and attempted to travel through an unauthorised route.

US Central Command rejected Iran’s justification, describing the vessel as a civilian commercial ship operating in international waters. It also disputed Tehran’s assertion that the waterway had been completely shut, saying merchant vessels continued to make passages despite severe disruption and heightened security risks.

The confrontation marked another sharp escalation in a conflict that has repeatedly spilled into shipping lanes and the airspace of Gulf states. Missile and drone threats prompted defensive action in several countries hosting US military installations, while shipping companies assessed whether to suspend voyages or reroute vessels away from the Gulf.

Iran warned that any retaliation for the ship incident would draw a severe response. The United States, meanwhile, indicated that further attacks on commercial traffic could trigger additional military action, raising the possibility of a prolonged contest over control of the strait.

The Strait of Hormuz connects the Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Before the conflict disrupted maritime movements, roughly one-fifth of the world’s traded oil and liquefied natural gas passed through the narrow channel. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Iraq and Qatar depend heavily on the route for energy exports, although some supplies can be diverted through pipelines.

Traffic through the waterway had already fallen sharply before Iran’s declaration. Ship-tracking data showed that only a small number of vessels were making the passage during several monitoring periods, compared with normal flows of nearly 20 ships over comparable stretches. Some tankers switched off tracking devices, delayed departures or remained at anchor while operators evaluated security warnings.

The latest disruption added pressure to oil markets and global supply chains. A sustained interruption could increase insurance premiums, freight rates and fuel costs even without a complete physical blockade. War-risk charges for vessels operating in the Gulf have risen as companies face the possibility of missile attacks, seizures, mines and damage to port infrastructure.

The confrontation has also weakened diplomatic attempts to stabilise the region. Qatar, Oman and Pakistan have maintained contacts with the parties, seeking arrangements that would protect commercial navigation and prevent military exchanges from widening. Proposals discussed during earlier negotiations included separate transit channels and stronger monitoring of shipping movements.

Those efforts have struggled against competing interpretations of navigation rules. Iran insists it has the authority to regulate passages close to its territorial waters and accuses some vessels of violating safety procedures. Washington maintains that the international shipping route must remain open and that Tehran cannot impose unilateral restrictions on commercial traffic.

The strikes followed earlier US operations against Iranian targets linked to attacks on merchant shipping. Trump has said the ceasefire framework established after the broader conflict is no longer functioning, although his administration has continued to support negotiations aimed at limiting further escalation.

Tehran’s announcement does not by itself establish an internationally recognised closure of the strait. Enforcing a blockade would require Iran to stop or deter vessels across both shipping lanes while facing US naval and air power deployed in the region. Even limited attacks, however, can discourage operators from entering the area and produce many of the commercial effects of a formal shutdown.

Abu Dhabi-based technology group e& has agreed to sell its entire 16.21% holding in Vodafone Group to an investment vehicle controlled by French telecommunications entrepreneur Xavier Niel’s family for about AED21.8 billion.

The transaction covers 3,944,743,685 Vodafone ordinary shares, representing 17.13% of the company’s voting rights. Vega, the Niel family’s acquisition vehicle, will pay about 110.5 pence in cash for each share. E& will also receive Vodafone’s final dividend for the 2026 financial year, lifting the total value to approximately 112.5 pence per share.

The 2.02-pence dividend component is due to be paid on July 30. The agreed valuation represented a double-digit premium to Vodafone’s closing market price before the transaction was disclosed, prompting a sharp rise in shares of both Vodafone and e&.

The shares will initially be transferred through simultaneous off-market block trades to three financial institutions. Those institutions will hold the stock until Vega completes the regulatory approvals required for the purchase. Completion is expected before the end of 2026.

E& expects the sale to produce a net cash return of about AED4.7 billion, equivalent to nearly $1.3 billion. The group said the disposal followed a strategic review of its international investment portfolio and would release capital for its core telecommunications, digital services and technology businesses.

The agreement ends e&’s four-year investment in Vodafone. The group acquired an initial 9.8% stake in May 2022 for about $4.4 billion and gradually increased its holding, becoming Vodafone’s largest shareholder. Its investment was initially described as supportive and strategic rather than a step towards a takeover.

A formal relationship agreement signed in May 2023 gave e& representation on Vodafone’s board and established areas for commercial cooperation. These included enterprise services, procurement, roaming, technology development and access to digital infrastructure across Europe, the Middle East and Africa.

That agreement has now been terminated. E& chief executive Hatem Dowidar, who served as the group’s nominee non-executive director at Vodafone, resigned from the British company’s board with immediate effect following the sale announcement.

Vega will become Vodafone’s biggest shareholder once the transaction clears the necessary approvals. Niel, the founder and controlling shareholder of French telecoms group Iliad, has built an extensive portfolio of communications investments across Europe and Latin America.

His businesses have operations or substantial interests in France, Italy, Poland, Ireland, Sweden and several Latin American markets. Niel previously acquired a 2.5% holding in Vodafone through Atlas Investissement in 2022 before disposing of that position.

The purchase marks his return as a major investor at a point when Vodafone is emerging from a prolonged restructuring programme led by chief executive Margherita Della Valle. The company has sold its businesses in Spain and Italy, reduced its exposure to smaller markets and concentrated resources on Britain, Germany and Africa.

Vodafone has also combined its UK operations with Three, creating the country’s largest mobile network by customer numbers. The merger was approved subject to investment commitments intended to expand 5G coverage and strengthen competition in the British communications market.

Niel said Vodafone offered quality assets, established brands and leading positions across a broad geographic footprint. He described the group as a simpler and more focused business capable of delivering growth and unlocking value from its European and African operations.

Vega has said it does not intend to make an offer for the whole of Vodafone. The investment vehicle has not secured special governance rights or board representation as part of the transaction, although its position is expected to give the Niel family considerable influence over future strategic discussions.

The change in ownership could increase investor pressure on Vodafone to accelerate cost reductions, improve performance in Germany and strengthen cash generation. Germany remains the group’s largest market but has struggled with customer losses, network challenges and operational weaknesses.

Oil prices edged lower on Friday but remained on course for strong weekly gains as renewed fighting between the United States and Iran kept the risk of Middle East supply disruption firmly embedded in the market.

Brent crude futures slipped 6 cents, or 0.08%, to $76.24 a barrel by 0125 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate crude fell 4 cents, or 0.06%, to $72.04. Brent was set to rise about 6% over the week, while WTI was heading for a gain of roughly 5%.

The modest retreat followed volatile trading driven by fresh US strikes against Iran and Iranian retaliation targeting American-linked infrastructure in the Gulf. The exchanges have strained attempts to contain the conflict and revived concern that energy production, export terminals or shipping routes could become direct targets.

Attention remains focused on the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway connecting Gulf producers with international markets. Passage through the strait remains restricted, leaving traders alert to any decline in tanker movements or escalation involving commercial vessels.

A prolonged disruption could affect exports from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and other major producers. Alternative pipelines can carry only part of the region’s output, making uninterrupted maritime access essential to global supply.

Oil prices jumped earlier in the week after Washington resumed military operations and Tehran responded with further attacks. Brent climbed above $78 a barrel during the rally, while WTI reached its highest level in more than two weeks before both benchmarks surrendered part of their gains.

The pullback reflected expectations among some traders that neither Washington nor Tehran wants a conflict extensive enough to damage oil installations or bring shipping across the Gulf to a halt. US President Donald Trump has played down the prospect of a prolonged military campaign, offering limited reassurance to markets.

Energy infrastructure has so far avoided the scale of damage that could remove millions of barrels from daily supply. That distinction has prevented crude prices from returning to the extreme levels recorded during the sharpest phase of the conflict earlier this year.

The market nevertheless continues to price in a geopolitical premium. Low speculative positioning before the latest attacks amplified the initial advance as investors who had expected falling prices rushed to close bearish positions.

Inflation concerns are now limiting the rally. Higher fuel and transport costs could reinforce price pressures across major economies, weaken household spending and discourage industrial activity. Persistent inflation could also delay interest-rate reductions, increasing borrowing costs and reducing energy demand.

China’s producer prices have accelerated, adding to concern about rising costs for manufacturers in the world’s largest crude-importing economy. Any slowdown in factory output, construction or exports would weaken expectations for oil consumption during the second half of the year.

Economic signals from the United States have been more resilient. Applications for unemployment benefits have fallen, suggesting that the labour market remains stable despite uncertainty created by the conflict and higher energy costs. Strong employment can support fuel consumption, although it may also give the Federal Reserve less reason to lower interest rates quickly.

Supply expectations outside the immediate conflict are also restraining prices. OPEC+ has approved another increase in production quotas for August, adding 188,000 barrels per day to planned output. The group has been gradually reversing earlier cuts as it seeks to reclaim market share while avoiding a sharp decline in prices.

Actual production increases may be smaller than the announced quotas because several members have limited spare capacity or face operational disruptions. Gulf shipping restrictions have also complicated efforts to restore exports after the severe interruption earlier in the year.

Production from countries outside OPEC+, particularly the United States, Brazil, Canada and Guyana, continues to provide the market with additional supply. Growth from those producers has reduced the ability of geopolitical shocks to create an immediate physical shortage.

Demand projections remain vulnerable to inflation, trade frictions and slower manufacturing activity. Refiners are also assessing whether higher crude costs can be passed on to consumers without weakening purchases of petrol, diesel and aviation fuel.

US forces hit about 90 targets along Iran’s coast on Wednesday, extending military action for a second straight day and deepening doubts over efforts to turn a fragile truce into a permanent peace deal.

US Central Command said the operation was designed to weaken Tehran’s ability to attack commercial shipping and civilian mariners in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which roughly a fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption and a major share of liquefied natural gas trade move. The targets included air defence systems, coastal surveillance assets, missile and drone storage sites, naval capabilities and military logistics infrastructure.

The strikes followed earlier US attacks on Iranian positions and came after Washington accused Tehran of targeting commercial vessels near the strait. Iran denied responsibility for some attacks blamed on its forces and said the US had violated understandings reached under an interim arrangement intended to halt the conflict and reopen political space for negotiations.

The latest exchange has pushed the Gulf into its most dangerous phase since the mid-June ceasefire framework, which had created a 60-day window for indirect talks. That framework is now close to collapse after President Donald Trump declared the arrangement “over” and warned that further action would follow if Iran threatened shipping or US personnel.

Explosions were reported near strategic coastal areas including Bandar Abbas, Jask and Chabahar, all linked to Iran’s maritime and military posture around the Gulf of Oman and Strait of Hormuz. Iranian officials said casualties had been recorded over two days of strikes, while military authorities in Tehran vowed a response against US-linked assets in the region.

Iranian missile and drone attacks were reported near facilities used by US forces in Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar, forcing Gulf governments to tighten air defence readiness and issue safety alerts. No large-scale disruption to civilian aviation was immediately confirmed, but airlines and shipping companies began reassessing routes through one of the world’s most sensitive transport corridors.

The Strait of Hormuz is central to the dispute because Iran views control of the passage as a strategic lever, while Washington says it will not allow Tehran to threaten freedom of navigation. The waterway connects Gulf producers with Asian, European and global markets, leaving energy importers exposed to any sustained shutdown, insurance spike or tanker diversion.

Oil prices rose as traders priced in the risk of disrupted exports from the Gulf. Tanker tracking data showed slower movement near the strait, with some vessels delaying entry, switching off transponders or waiting outside higher-risk zones. Even without a formal closure, war-risk premiums can quickly raise freight costs and affect refiners dependent on Gulf crude.

The confrontation has also complicated diplomatic channels involving Qatar, Oman and Pakistan, which had helped shape earlier contacts between Washington and Tehran. Negotiators had been working on a package covering maritime security, sanctions relief, nuclear limits and Iran’s oil exports, but the renewed strikes have narrowed the space for compromise.

Washington argues that military pressure is necessary to stop attacks on merchant vessels and deter further escalation. Tehran says the US is using maritime security as a pretext to weaken Iran’s defence network and impose terms that would limit its sovereignty. Both positions leave little room for quick de-escalation unless intermediaries can secure reciprocal restraint.

The strikes targeted systems that underpin Iran’s layered coastal defence strategy. Coastal radar, missile batteries, drone depots and logistics hubs allow Iran to monitor and threaten shipping across the strait and nearby approaches. Disabling those assets may reduce near-term attack capacity, but it could also push Tehran towards asymmetric responses through drones, mines, fast boats or allied militias.

Gulf states are watching the escalation with caution. Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar host or support US military operations, while the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia depend on Gulf shipping lanes for energy exports and trade. Any widening of the conflict could put ports, desalination plants, airports and energy infrastructure within range of missiles and drones.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said they fired missiles and drones at US military facilities in Bahrain and Kuwait on Wednesday, widening a confrontation that has put a fragile ceasefire under severe strain after US strikes on Iranian targets near the Strait of Hormuz.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said the operation hit sites linked to the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain and Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait. It also claimed to have shot down a US MQ-9 drone that it said had attempted to disrupt the attack. The extent of damage and casualties, if any, could not be independently verified, while Gulf authorities activated air-defence systems and warned residents to follow official safety instructions.

The exchange followed a wave of US strikes on Iranian coastal and military positions in Hormuzgan province, including areas around Sirik, Qeshm and Bandar Abbas. Washington said the action was a response to attacks on commercial vessels near the Strait of Hormuz, including tankers and a Qatari LNG carrier. Tehran denied responsibility for the shipping attacks and accused the US of breaching the ceasefire framework reached last month.

The strikes mark one of the most serious tests of the truce since the June 17 understanding that paused weeks of direct conflict. That arrangement was designed to reopen diplomatic channels over Iran’s nuclear programme, shipping access through Hormuz and limited relief on oil-related sanctions. The new military actions have revived concerns that both sides are moving back towards sustained confrontation rather than controlled deterrence.

Bahrain hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, a key command for operations across the Gulf, Red Sea and parts of the Arabian Sea. Kuwait’s Ali Al Salem Air Base has long supported US and coalition air operations. Both locations are central to Washington’s regional military posture, making them high-value targets for Iran’s retaliation while also raising the risk of further US response.

Iran framed its action as a direct answer to US strikes on its territory. The Revolutionary Guards said the attacks were aimed at “military installations” used to support operations against Iran. The wording suggested Tehran was trying to present the operation as controlled and retaliatory, rather than an open-ended escalation. Still, the choice of targets in two Gulf states broadens the crisis beyond Iranian and US territory and increases pressure on regional governments.

US forces in the Gulf had been on heightened alert after the tanker incidents. The Strait of Hormuz remains the world’s most sensitive energy chokepoint, with roughly a fifth of global petroleum liquids and a major share of LNG trade historically passing through the waterway. Even limited attacks around the strait can drive up shipping insurance, delay cargoes and raise fuel costs for import-dependent economies.

Oil markets responded sharply to the renewed exchange. Brent crude moved above $76 a barrel and US West Texas Intermediate traded above $72, reflecting a fresh geopolitical risk premium after prices had eased when the ceasefire appeared to be holding. Shipping companies were reviewing routes and risk exposure, while energy traders watched whether Gulf export terminals, tanker traffic and naval escorts would be affected.

The military escalation also complicates diplomacy led through regional intermediaries. Oman and Pakistan had played roles in efforts to keep communication channels open, while Gulf governments had pushed for de-escalation to protect trade and energy flows. Those efforts now face a tougher environment as Washington and Tehran accuse each other of violating the terms and spirit of the pause in fighting.

The tanker attacks that triggered the US response involved commercial vessels operating near one of the busiest maritime corridors in the world. The incidents prompted warnings from maritime security agencies and insurers, while several shipowners reassessed transits through Hormuz. Qatar’s energy exports are particularly sensitive to disruption because LNG cargoes from Ras Laffan rely heavily on Gulf shipping lanes.

The latest phase of fighting comes at a politically charged moment in Iran, where the leadership is under pressure to show resolve after heavy losses earlier in the conflict. The Revolutionary Guards remain a central actor in Iran’s military response, with control over missile, drone and naval capabilities that can threaten US forces and commercial shipping across the Gulf.

ADNOC Distribution has agreed to buy Shell Downstream South Africa from Shell South Africa Holdings in a transaction that values the business at about $1 billion, giving the Abu Dhabi-listed fuel retailer a large platform in one of Africa’s most developed downstream markets.

The definitive agreement covers 100% of SDSA’s share capital, before adjustments for net debt and working capital. Completion is expected in 2027, subject to regulatory approvals and other closing conditions. After the deal closes, ADNOC Distribution expects to sell a 28% stake in the business to a local empowerment partner and an employee stock option plan, aligning the transaction with South Africa’s Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment framework.

SDSA operates 580 company-owned and dealer-owned mobility and convenience sites across South Africa. The business also includes lubricants, commercial fuels, aviation and marine operations, giving ADNOC Distribution exposure beyond retail forecourts. The network sold about 3.5 billion litres of fuel in 2025 and operated 360 convenience stores, making it a sizeable addition to ADNOC Distribution’s international portfolio.

ADNOC Distribution plans to retain the Shell brand for service stations and lubricants through a long-term licensing agreement after completion. That structure allows the acquirer to preserve customer recognition while taking operational control of the business. For motorists, fleet operators and commercial customers, the company has signalled continuity rather than an abrupt rebranding.

The acquisition marks one of ADNOC Distribution’s most significant moves outside its home market and deepens its exposure to Africa. South Africa would become the fourth country in which the company operates, following its domestic base, its 2018 entry into Saudi Arabia and its 2023 acquisition of a 50% stake in TotalEnergies Marketing Egypt. As of March 31, 2026, ADNOC Distribution operated 1,032 service stations, including 568 in the UAE, 219 in Saudi Arabia and 245 in Egypt, while selling lubricants through distributors in 53 countries.

Chief executive Bader Saeed Al Lamki described the transaction as a milestone in the company’s international growth strategy, saying SDSA was a “respected and financially strong business with deep roots in the local economy”. He said the acquisition would help ADNOC Distribution diversify its platform and create long-term value for shareholders, partners and customers.

The deal also comes as major global energy companies continue to reshape their downstream portfolios. Shell has been reviewing parts of its mature retail and refining operations while focusing capital on higher-return businesses. Its South African downstream presence stretches back more than a century, making the sale a major shift in the country’s fuel-retail landscape.

For ADNOC Distribution, the attraction lies in regulated margins, established demand and a large road transport base. South Africa’s fuel-retail sector benefits from a transparent pricing framework that offers some insulation against inflation and currency volatility. The country’s transport infrastructure and large driving-age population also support steady fuel consumption, even as electric mobility and cleaner fuels gradually reshape long-term demand.

The company expects the acquisition to increase earnings per share by 6% in the first full year after completion. It also expects returns above its hurdle rate for fuel and convenience retail. BofA Securities acted as sole financial adviser to ADNOC Distribution, while A&O Shearman and ENS provided legal counsel.

Regulatory scrutiny is likely to focus on competition, supply security, employment, local ownership and public-interest commitments. South Africa’s authorities have taken a close interest in large fuel-sector transactions, including the merger of Vivo Energy and Engen, where investment, worker ownership and domestic refining supply commitments formed part of the approval framework. That precedent suggests ADNOC Distribution may face detailed engagement with regulators before completion.

Saudi Arabia has slashed the price of its flagship crude for Asian buyers by the widest margin in more than two decades, signalling a tougher fight for market share as rising supply and softer demand reshape the oil trade.

Saudi Aramco cut the August official selling price of Arab Light crude by $11 a barrel, setting it at $1.50 below the Oman-Dubai average, the regional benchmark used for many Middle East crude sales into Asia. The move reverses July’s $9.50 premium and marks the first negative price differential for the grade since the 2020 oil price war.

The cut is larger than many traders had expected and comes as refiners in China, South Korea, Japan and India assess cheaper alternatives from the Gulf, Russia and other suppliers. The price shift underlines how quickly the market has moved from concerns over disruption to anxiety over excess barrels. Brent crude has been trading near $72 a barrel after losing ground from last month’s highs, while West Texas Intermediate has hovered below $70.

Aramco’s pricing decision follows a fresh OPEC+ production increase for August. Seven core members of the group agreed to raise output by 188,000 barrels per day, extending a series of monthly supply additions that began earlier this year. The increase is modest in global terms, but it has reinforced expectations that the market will face heavier Middle East availability during the peak summer trading cycle.

The pressure is most visible in Asia, the main market for Saudi crude. Refiners there have become more selective, helped by improved access to alternative grades and a weaker refining margin environment. Chinese demand has been uneven, with independent refiners cautious about spot purchases. Other large importers are using the wider pool of supply to seek better terms.

Saudi Arabia’s pricing strategy has often been read as a signal for the broader Gulf market. A deep discount by Aramco can prompt competing producers to adjust their own offers, especially when buyers have the option of replacing cargoes without major technical changes at refineries. Arab Light is a medium-sour crude, widely used across Asian refineries, but it competes with similar barrels from Iraq, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi and Iran.

The latest cut does not automatically guarantee stronger Saudi sales. Traders say some rival Gulf grades remain cheaper after freight and quality adjustments. Shipping costs from Gulf loading ports, insurance considerations and the timing of cargo arrivals are also shaping buyer calculations. For refiners, the effective delivered cost matters more than the headline official selling price.

The move nevertheless shows Riyadh is prepared to defend its position in the world’s fastest-growing oil-importing region. Saudi Arabia has spent years balancing two goals: supporting prices through supply management and preserving long-term access to Asian customers. That balance has become harder as non-OPEC supply expands, Russian barrels remain active in Asian trade and Iran-linked flows regain visibility after diplomatic easing reduced some supply risks.

The comparison with 2020 is unavoidable but the market setting is different. Four years ago, Saudi Arabia and Russia entered a confrontation over output strategy just as the pandemic destroyed fuel demand, causing prices to collapse. Today’s cut is not accompanied by an outright production surge of that scale, but it reflects a similar concern: losing customers in a crowded market can be more damaging than accepting lower margins for a period.

For importing economies, cheaper crude offers relief after a volatile stretch marked by geopolitical risk, high freight costs and concerns over supply security. Lower crude costs can ease pressure on fuel retailers, refiners and inflation-sensitive sectors, though the benefit depends on currency movements, tax structures and domestic pricing decisions.

The decision also places other OPEC+ producers under scrutiny. Iraq has been competing aggressively in Asia, Kuwait has defended term sales, and Abu Dhabi grades have drawn strong interest because of quality and logistics. Russia, despite sanctions and payment complications, continues to find buyers willing to take discounted cargoes. These dynamics limit how much any single producer can control pricing, even when it remains one of the world’s largest exporters.

OPEC+ has approved another increase in oil output targets for August, adding 188,000 barrels per day to planned supply as Gulf exports move back through the Strait of Hormuz and crude prices ease from wartime highs.

The decision, taken at a virtual meeting on Sunday, extends a sequence of monthly quota increases that began in April and continued through June and July. Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Kazakhstan, Algeria and Oman agreed to implement the adjustment as part of a gradual return of voluntary cuts introduced in 2023, while retaining the option to pause or reverse the move if market conditions deteriorate.

The increase comes as Brent crude trades near $72 a barrel and US West Texas Intermediate hovers below $69, levels that signal a sharp reduction in the geopolitical premium built into prices during the disruption to Gulf shipping. Oil markets had surged earlier this year after conflict around Iran and the Strait of Hormuz threatened one of the world’s most important energy corridors, through which a significant share of seaborne crude and liquefied natural gas normally passes.

The partial reopening of Hormuz has allowed Gulf exporters to restore some flows, though traffic has not fully returned to pre-crisis levels. Higher insurance costs, security checks, delayed cargoes and caution among shipowners continue to constrain the pace of recovery. Traders are watching whether August loadings match the new targets or whether logistical and political risks limit actual barrels reaching the market.

The OPEC+ move is also a test of demand. Slower refinery intake in China, softer industrial activity in parts of Asia and weaker-than-expected fuel demand in some major economies have weighed on crude prices. At the same time, additional supplies from producers outside the Gulf, including the Americas and Africa, have reduced the urgency that dominated the market when Gulf flows were interrupted.

The August adjustment marks the fifth consecutive monthly increase by the group. Since April, the participating producers have moved to restore a sizeable portion of voluntary cuts that were used to support prices when global demand growth looked uncertain. The latest step brings the bloc closer to unwinding those reductions, although several members still face capacity limits, domestic constraints or compliance questions.

Saudi Arabia remains central to the strategy. Riyadh has sought to balance two pressures: defending market share as rival producers expand output, and preventing a deeper price slide that could strain budgets across producer economies. Russia, also part of the agreement, continues to manage production policy against the backdrop of sanctions, refinery disruptions and shifting export routes.

Iraq and Kazakhstan have been closely watched because both have faced scrutiny over production above agreed levels in past OPEC+ arrangements. Any failure to compensate for earlier overproduction could complicate the group’s attempt to present the August increase as controlled and orderly. Kuwait, Algeria and Oman have generally played stabilising roles within the framework, though their capacity to add large volumes is more limited.

The decision also reflects a changed regional energy map. The United Arab Emirates has left the OPEC and OPEC+ framework, altering the balance inside the producer alliance and raising questions about future coordination among Gulf exporters. Iran’s export outlook remains tied to diplomatic and security developments, while buyers in Asia continue to adjust their procurement strategies to avoid supply interruptions.

For oil-importing economies, lower crude prices offer relief after months of uncertainty. Softer prices reduce pressure on fuel import bills, inflation and transport costs, particularly in countries with high dependence on imported energy. The effect on retail fuel prices, however, may vary depending on tax structures, currency movements, refining margins and government pricing policies.

For consumers, the decision could help contain pump price increases if additional barrels reach the market smoothly. For producers, the risk is that supply growth runs ahead of demand, pushing prices lower and eroding revenue. That tension has shaped OPEC+ policy for several years, with the group shifting between cuts and gradual restorations to influence market expectations.

Oil prices have slipped back as a burst of supply, softer demand signals and easing disruption fears revive concern that the global market may be heading towards another glut.

Brent crude has traded close to $72 a barrel, while US benchmark West Texas Intermediate has hovered below $70, pulling prices towards levels seen before the latest Middle East supply scare. The shift has been sharp enough to change the shape of the Brent futures curve, with prompt cargoes losing value against later-dated barrels. That move into contango is a warning sign for traders: oil for immediate delivery is no longer scarce.

The pressure has built as Gulf exports normalise, stranded cargoes move into the market and buyers show less urgency to secure supplies. Traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the route for a large share of seaborne crude and fuel shipments, has improved after weeks of disruption fears. The rebound has released barrels that had been delayed offshore or held back by uncertainty, adding to a market already facing fragile consumption.

The price retreat marks a rapid reversal from the panic that followed the Iran conflict and threats to regional shipping. Brent had carried a heavy geopolitical premium when traders feared a sustained squeeze in Gulf exports. That premium has faded as tankers move more freely and refiners reassess near-term needs. Some banks now see Brent falling towards $60 by the end of the year if flows remain steady and demand fails to absorb the extra barrels.

The deeper concern is not merely the return of Middle East cargoes. Supply growth from outside OPEC+ remains a structural challenge. Production gains in the Americas, led by the United States, Brazil, Guyana and Canada, have kept non-OPEC+ output resilient even as some shale operators face lower prices and tighter capital discipline. New offshore projects are adding high-quality crude at a time when refiners have fewer reasons to chase prompt barrels.

OPEC+ faces a difficult balance. The group has spent years managing supply to support prices, but members also want to defend market share as rival producers expand. Any further unwinding of output curbs risks deepening the surplus. Holding barrels back for too long, however, allows competitors to capture more demand. The market is now testing whether OPEC+ can manage both price stability and internal pressure from members seeking higher volumes.

Demand is offering little comfort. High fuel prices earlier in the year, trade disruption, weaker industrial activity and slower petrochemical consumption have lowered expectations for 2026. Global oil demand forecasts have been cut sharply since the start of the year, with second-quarter deliveries hit by product shortages and weaker end-user appetite. Aviation and petrochemicals, two sectors expected to drive part of the post-pandemic growth cycle, have shown uneven momentum.

Asia remains the key variable. China’s crude buying has been cautious, with refiners balancing weak margins, domestic inventories and uncertain export quotas. Other large importers are benefiting from lower prices but have not yet generated enough incremental demand to remove the overhang. For economies heavily dependent on imported crude, cheaper oil provides relief on inflation and external balances, but it also reflects a softer global demand backdrop.

The return of contango could encourage storage if the spread between prompt and future barrels widens enough to cover financing, insurance and tank costs. For now, the economics remain limited in several hubs, but the signal matters. Traders often store crude when the market expects today’s surplus to be worth more tomorrow. If floating storage rises or onshore tanks begin filling faster, pressure on prompt prices could intensify.

Refiners are also shaping the outlook. Margins have been volatile as crude prices fall faster than some product prices, but fuel demand has not strengthened evenly across regions. Diesel consumption remains linked to freight and manufacturing activity, both under strain from slower trade. Petrol demand is facing seasonal support in some markets, but efficiency gains and electric vehicle adoption continue to cap longer-term growth in key consuming economies.

The UAE’s non-oil private sector came close to stalling in June as the impact of the Iran conflict, softer tourism activity and cost pressures hit client demand, leaving firms with the weakest improvement in business conditions since February 2021.

The seasonally adjusted S&P Global UAE Purchasing Managers’ Index fell to 50.8 in June from 52.6 in May, staying only slightly above the 50 mark that separates expansion from contraction. The reading marked the weakest June performance in more than five years and signalled a sharp loss of momentum after months of pressure from disrupted shipping, higher transport costs and cautious spending decisions.

The slowdown was broad enough to show up in employment. Staffing levels fell for the first time in more than four years, with the rate of job cuts the sharpest since August 2020. Firms linked the reduction in headcount to softer sales, tighter margins, automation and efforts to improve productivity at a time when cost burdens remained high.

Business activity still expanded, but at its slowest pace in five years. Construction projects, digital services and existing sales pipelines offered support, yet they were not enough to offset the drag from delayed client decisions and a weaker tourism-linked order flow. Competitive pressure also limited firms’ ability to pass higher costs fully to customers, forcing many companies to choose between protecting margins and defending market share.

New business growth improved to a three-month high, but remained subdued by historical standards. Companies reported that customers continued to postpone spending commitments, especially where travel, discretionary services and external trade exposure were involved. Export demand remained vulnerable to uncertainty across regional shipping lanes, though supply-chain strains appeared less severe than in May.

The June figures follow a modest improvement in May, when the headline index rose to 52.6 from 52.1 in April. That gain was supported by stronger demand, project expansion and government-backed activity, but it masked deeper problems in logistics and pricing. Delivery delays in May were the worst since April 2020 as restrictions and risk around maritime routes disrupted input flows and raised transport costs.

June brought some relief on deliveries as shipping movements normalised, but the demand response was slow. Companies rebuilt inventories after a decline in purchasing activity the previous month, suggesting that some firms were preparing for continued uncertainty rather than committing to aggressive expansion. Input cost inflation eased to a four-month low, yet remained elevated because of transport fees, commodity prices and wage pressures in selected segments.

David Owen, principal economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said the decline in employment showed the effect of “soft client demand and rising cost burdens” on firms. He said easing regional tensions should help demand and supply chains recover, but warned that client caution and staff reductions pointed to a gradual rebound rather than a swift recovery.

Dubai’s non-oil private sector also weakened. Its PMI fell to 50.7 in June from 52.0 in May, marking the softest improvement since January 2021. New orders rose only modestly as regional conflict weighed on travel and sales, while firms cut jobs at the fastest pace in about five-and-a-half years. Output, however, grew at the quickest rate since March, helped by work already in hand and efforts to clear backlogs.

The UAE’s economic model remains heavily supported by non-oil activity, even as the latest survey shows a more fragile operating environment. Non-oil GDP grew 6.8% in 2025, outpacing overall real GDP growth of 6.2%, while trade, finance, construction, manufacturing, real estate and transport continued to anchor diversification. The non-oil economy accounts for more than three quarters of total output, making any sustained softening in private-sector activity important for the broader outlook.

Reports that Washington may scale back its troop presence in Saudi Arabia have sharpened scrutiny of a defence relationship that has long underpinned Gulf security, after Riyadh resisted the use of its bases and airspace for operations tied to the Strait of Hormuz during heightened confrontation with Iran.

The episode has exposed a difficult shift in one of the region’s most consequential partnerships. Saudi Arabia remains dependent on U. S. military systems for air defence, missile interception and advanced surveillance, while Washington continues to rely on Gulf access for deterrence, logistics and energy security. Yet the dispute over operations near Hormuz has highlighted Riyadh’s growing reluctance to be drawn directly into military action that could invite retaliation against its territory and energy infrastructure.

The immediate flashpoint was a U. S.-led plan to secure shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which a major share of global seaborne oil trade moves. Riyadh was reported to have withheld permission for the use of Saudi facilities and airspace at the outset, reflecting concern that any visible Saudi role in a U. S. operation against Iran could widen the conflict and undermine fragile diplomatic channels.

The hesitation was not without precedent. Saudi Arabia has repeatedly sought to balance its security partnership with Washington against the risk of becoming a frontline platform in U. S. military campaigns. Prince Sultan Air Base, south of Riyadh, has served as a key hub for U. S. air and missile defence assets, but its role has long been shaped by Saudi sensitivities over foreign forces operating from its soil.

The debate over withdrawal comes at a moment when U. S. forces across the Gulf have faced renewed questions over exposure to Iranian missiles and drones. Prince Sultan Air Base was targeted during the wider Iran conflict, with U. S. personnel wounded and aircraft damaged. The strike reinforced long-standing Pentagon concerns that large fixed bases in the Gulf are vulnerable to precision attacks, particularly those located within range of Iran’s missile arsenal.

U. S. military planners have for years considered dispersing assets across a wider network of facilities, including locations farther from Iran’s coast. A partial redeployment from Saudi Arabia would therefore be consistent with a broader effort to reduce vulnerability, improve survivability and shift more operations to countries seen as more willing to support active missions. Such a move, however, would carry political weight far beyond military logistics.

For Riyadh, the calculation is equally complex. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has pursued a foreign policy that gives Saudi Arabia more room to manoeuvre between Washington, Beijing, Moscow and regional rivals. The kingdom restored diplomatic ties with Iran in 2023 through Chinese mediation, and although the relationship remains fragile, Saudi leaders have tried to avoid steps that could collapse channels of communication with Tehran.

That restraint has become more visible since the war involving Iran, the United States and Israel intensified pressure on Gulf capitals. Saudi Arabia’s energy facilities, export terminals and desalination infrastructure remain vulnerable to drones, missiles and sabotage. A direct association with U. S. military operations in Hormuz could place those assets at greater risk, particularly after years of attacks on Gulf shipping and energy targets.

Washington’s frustration is rooted in a different set of priorities. The United States has treated freedom of navigation through Hormuz as a core security interest for decades. Any threat to tanker traffic can jolt energy markets, raise insurance costs and trigger wider economic disruption. U. S. officials also view access to Gulf bases as essential for rapid response across the region, from Iran deterrence to Red Sea security and counter-drone operations.

The troop presence in Saudi Arabia is smaller than the major deployments seen during the Gulf War and the years after September 11, but it remains symbolically important. More than 2,000 U. S. service members were stationed in the kingdom in the mid-2020s, supporting Patriot and THAAD systems, aircraft operations and regional surveillance. Their presence also signalled the durability of a partnership built around oil security, arms sales and defence coordination.

Washington and Tehran have used a new round of indirect talks in Doha to move from crisis management towards implementation of a preliminary understanding that has lowered fears of a wider Gulf confrontation but left major disputes unresolved.

The discussions, hosted by Qatar with Pakistani mediation, began on Tuesday night and continued on Wednesday in separate sessions involving senior negotiators and technical experts. The agenda focused on how to put into effect a memorandum of understanding reached after weeks of military tension, including the phased release of frozen Iranian funds, procedures for handling alleged breaches, and arrangements linked to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran’s delegation was led by Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, while the US side included senior envoys involved in the Trump administration’s Iran channel. The format remained indirect, with Qatari and Pakistani officials shuttling between the two sides, reflecting Tehran’s refusal to hold direct talks while sanctions and security disputes remain unresolved.

Qatar said the meetings produced positive progress and that both sides had agreed to continue discussions. The next round is expected after the funeral ceremonies for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose death has added a further layer of uncertainty to Tehran’s political calculations. The succession process in Iran is being watched closely by regional governments, energy traders and security officials, as any shift in power could affect the pace and scope of diplomacy.

The frozen funds issue is central to the talks. About $6 billion in Iranian assets held under restricted arrangements has been tied to compliance benchmarks rather than an immediate transfer. The money is expected to be released in stages and used for approved purchases, including humanitarian goods and other essential imports. Tehran wants speedier access, while Washington is insisting on safeguards designed to prevent funds from being diverted to military or regional proxy activities.

The mechanism for addressing violations is another sensitive point. Iran has accused Washington of failing to honour elements of the memorandum, while the US side wants clearer verification of Tehran’s commitments on maritime security and nuclear-related restrictions. The proposed channel would allow complaints to be raised through mediators before either side escalates politically or militarily.

The Doha process follows a period of sharp confrontation in the Gulf, where attacks, shipping disruption and threats around the Strait of Hormuz pushed oil markets higher and prompted warnings from Gulf capitals about the risks to trade. The strait remains one of the world’s most important energy routes, carrying roughly a fifth of global oil flows. Any renewed disruption would affect crude prices, insurance costs and shipping schedules across Asia, Europe and the Middle East.

One of the most difficult issues concerns Tehran’s demand for recognition of its authority over traffic through the strait and its interest in charging fees on commercial shipping. Washington and Gulf states oppose any arrangement that could be seen as legitimising tolls or coercive control over the passage. Maritime traffic has improved from the worst phase of the crisis, but shipping companies remain cautious, with war-risk premiums and route planning still sensitive to political signals.

The talks have also been shaped by the wider regional file. Washington wants assurances that Iran will not use allied armed groups to pressure US partners while negotiations continue. Tehran, in turn, has linked parts of the diplomatic track to the situation in Lebanon and Israel’s military posture. That has widened the talks beyond a narrow funds-for-compliance arrangement and made the process vulnerable to developments outside the negotiating rooms.

The nuclear question remains the core strategic dispute, even though the Doha technical meetings appeared to focus more on implementation than on a full nuclear settlement. The memorandum has created a limited window for broader negotiations, but disagreements persist over uranium enrichment, sanctions relief, inspections and sequencing. Washington wants measurable constraints before major relief is granted. Tehran wants sanctions relief and access to its assets before accepting deeper limits.

Energy markets have responded cautiously. Brent crude eased towards the low $70 range as the talks reduced immediate fears of escalation, though traders remain alert to any breakdown. The price movement reflects relief over diplomacy rather than confidence in a durable settlement. OPEC+ supply plans, US inventories and demand signals are also shaping the market, but the Gulf security premium remains a decisive factor.

US negotiators Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff held what Washington described as positive discussions with regional leaders in Qatar, while technical contacts with Iran moved ahead through mediators as both sides sought to preserve a fragile ceasefire and turn a temporary truce into a wider settlement.

The Doha meetings form part of an indirect negotiating track designed to reduce the risk of renewed fighting after clashes around the Strait of Hormuz unsettled energy markets and exposed the limits of the interim accord signed earlier this month. The arrangement opened a 60-day window for talks on maritime security, nuclear constraints, sanctions relief and regional de-escalation, but the process has already been tested by disputes over shipping access and Iran’s role in managing the waterway.

Kushner and Witkoff met Qatari officials and other regional interlocutors rather than sitting across the table from Iranian envoys. Tehran has maintained that it will not engage in direct talks with Washington at this stage, preferring messages to be exchanged through Qatar and other intermediaries. That format has become central to the diplomacy, allowing both governments to keep negotiations alive while avoiding the domestic political cost of open engagement.

The talks come after an interim agreement that committed the parties to halt hostilities, reopen the Strait of Hormuz for commercial traffic and begin work on a broader understanding. The accord also includes discussions on limits to Iran’s nuclear programme, phased easing of oil-related sanctions and possible access to frozen Iranian funds for humanitarian purposes. Washington has insisted that any financial relief would be conditional and tied to verifiable steps.

The Strait of Hormuz remains the most sensitive element of the negotiations. The narrow passage links the Gulf to global markets and carries a substantial share of seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas. Disruption there quickly affects freight costs, insurance rates and crude prices, especially for Asian economies heavily dependent on Gulf supplies. Maritime traffic has partly resumed, but shipowners remain cautious because of unresolved security guarantees and uncertainty over enforcement arrangements.

Iran has argued that it has sovereign rights in the area and has pushed proposals involving transit charges or navigation fees. Washington and several allies oppose any measure they see as restricting free passage. Oman has also played a role in exploring compromise formulas, including softer arrangements that would avoid formal tolls while addressing Iran’s demand for recognition of its interests in the waterway.

The weekend clashes showed how quickly the ceasefire could come under pressure. Naval movements, accusations over vessel harassment and warnings about foreign de-mining operations fed concern that a technical dispute could escalate into a wider confrontation. The incidents did not collapse the negotiating track, but they hardened positions on both sides and added urgency to the Doha discussions.

The nuclear file remains another major obstacle. Washington wants enforceable limits on uranium enrichment, tighter monitoring and guarantees that Iran’s programme cannot move towards weaponisation. Tehran rejects demands it regards as a surrender of sovereign rights, while signalling that economic relief and security assurances could shape the scope of future concessions. The 60-day period is intended to produce a more detailed framework, but negotiators have not yet bridged differences over sequencing.

The issue of frozen assets is also politically charged. Funds held abroad could offer Tehran some relief from inflation, shortages and public discontent, but Washington is seeking a controlled mechanism that would prevent unrestricted transfers. The preferred model under discussion would route money towards approved humanitarian purchases rather than giving Iran direct access to lump-sum payments.

Qatar’s role has expanded because it maintains working channels with both Washington and Tehran and has experience in delicate hostage, ceasefire and humanitarian negotiations. Doha’s mediation is supported by wider Gulf concerns about another conflict that could threaten energy infrastructure, ports and aviation corridors. Regional governments are pressing for a settlement that restores predictable shipping and lowers the risk of missile or drone attacks.

The political setting in Washington is also shaping the talks. The administration wants to show that diplomacy can contain Iran while avoiding another open-ended conflict in the Middle East. At the same time, it faces pressure from critics who argue that sanctions relief or asset releases could strengthen Tehran without securing durable concessions. The White House has therefore framed the process as conditional, technical and reversible.

Iran has rejected French involvement in clearing mines from the Strait of Hormuz, declaring that Tehran alone will manage security operations in the strategic waterway under its memorandum of understanding with the United States.

The rejection, delivered by Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, followed President Emmanuel Macron’s offer for France to work with Oman and other partners on demining and safe passage through one of the world’s most important energy corridors. Tehran warned Paris against what it called “provocations” and said any mine-clearance work would be carried out only by Iran.

The dispute has sharpened a central weakness in the fragile US-Iran ceasefire: both sides say they support reopening the strait, but they disagree over who controls navigation, how vessels should move through the channel and whether outside powers can take part in securing shipping lanes. The Strait of Hormuz links the Gulf with the Arabian Sea and carries roughly a fifth of global oil consumption, making any disruption a direct risk to energy markets, insurance costs and Gulf export flows.

Gharibabadi’s statement framed demining as a matter of sovereignty rather than technical maritime safety. Tehran’s position is that Article 5 of the US-Iran memorandum gives Iran the lead role in managing the waterway. Washington and several Gulf partners view the strait as an international passage where safe navigation cannot be subject to unilateral control by either littoral state.

The disagreement comes after a series of maritime incidents that raised concern among tanker operators and naval commands. A commercial vessel trying to transit the strait was struck by a projectile last week, prompting US strikes against targets in southern Iran. Tehran did not formally claim responsibility for the vessel incident but has repeatedly warned ships against using routes it considers unsafe or politically unacceptable.

France’s proposal was designed to support a broader diplomatic push to reopen the channel through coordination with Oman, whose coastline forms the southern side of the strait. Oman has sought to position itself as a neutral manager of maritime arrangements, favouring a route that reduces the risk of confrontation while preserving international freedom of navigation. Tehran, however, has objected to any plan that shifts traffic towards the Omani side without its approval.

The latest exchange also exposes a widening contest among Iran, Oman, the US and European powers over the practical meaning of the ceasefire. For Tehran, control over passage through Hormuz remains a bargaining tool after months of conflict with Washington. For the US and its allies, the continued threat to commercial shipping undermines the purpose of the memorandum and keeps pressure on oil markets.

Energy traders have watched the dispute closely because even limited disruptions can raise freight rates and delay cargoes from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq and Qatar. While some Gulf producers have pipelines that bypass Hormuz, most export capacity still depends heavily on the waterway. LNG shipments from Qatar are especially exposed because alternative routes are limited.

Macron’s intervention placed France more openly in the maritime security debate. Paris has maintained a naval presence in the region and has previously coordinated with European partners on Gulf shipping protection. Its willingness to cooperate with Oman reflects concern that the ceasefire could break down if demining and passage rules are left unresolved.

Tehran’s response was uncompromising. Gharibabadi said the situation was “sensitive and complex” and warned that France should not make it more complicated. The wording suggested Iran sees the French move not as technical assistance but as an attempt to dilute its authority under the memorandum.

The US position remains tied to the principle that commercial traffic should move without coercion. Washington has backed efforts to establish safer transit corridors and has warned Iran against attacks on ships or interference with passage. At the same time, US envoys have continued diplomatic contacts through regional mediators to preserve the ceasefire and prevent a return to open conflict.

Qatar and Pakistan have played roles in keeping channels open between Washington and Tehran. Doha has hosted talks, while Islamabad’s earlier mediation helped shape the memorandum that halted the broader confrontation. But the Hormuz dispute shows that the agreement left key operational questions unresolved, particularly over maritime enforcement, mine clearance and the role of third countries.

Oil prices rose on Monday as renewed US-Iran military exchanges unsettled traders and slowed energy traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, reviving concerns that a fragile pause in hostilities may not hold long enough to restore normal crude flows.

Brent crude futures climbed 58 cents, or 0.8 per cent, to $72.57 a barrel at 0207 GMT, while US West Texas Intermediate crude rose 88 cents, or 1.3 per cent, to $70.11. The gains followed several sessions of volatile trading, with investors weighing fresh supply risks against signs that some Gulf shipments were beginning to move again after weeks of severe disruption.

The immediate trigger was a new round of tit-for-tat strikes that exposed the weakness of the interim peace arrangement between Washington and Tehran. The agreement had eased market anxiety earlier by raising hopes that the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important energy corridors, would return steadily to regular operations. Instead, the latest attacks again forced shipowners, insurers and refiners to reassess the risks of moving cargoes through the waterway.

“There’s still plenty of risk facing the oil market. Even so, participants appear to be… focusing on what a continued recovery in oil flows would mean for the global balance,” ING analysts said in a note on Monday.

The strait carries close to a fifth of global oil consumption and is central to exports from major Gulf producers. Any sustained interruption can ripple quickly through crude, refined products, insurance rates and freight markets. Traffic had improved after the interim understanding, with more tankers exiting the Gulf under tighter security arrangements, but the latest strikes slowed the recovery and raised doubts over whether backlogs can be cleared quickly.

Market reaction remained measured compared with the sharp surges seen earlier in the conflict. That reflected expectations that neither side wants a full closure of the waterway, as well as the belief that diplomatic channels remain open. Traders also noted that demand has weakened after months of elevated prices, giving consumers and refiners less room to absorb another sustained spike.

The restraint in prices also points to a shift in market psychology. Earlier fears centred on outright loss of supply. The current concern is more complex: whether the recovery in flows will be uneven, expensive and vulnerable to further military incidents. Tanker availability, war-risk premiums, port delays and route restrictions are now central to pricing decisions, alongside headline production figures.

Global oil balances remain tight despite weaker demand. Supply losses from the Gulf conflict have cut into inventories, while emergency stock releases and higher Atlantic Basin exports have helped soften the blow. A full return to normal flows is unlikely to be immediate because shipping lanes, insurance arrangements and port schedules need to be stabilised before refiners can rely on consistent delivery.

The latest price move also comes as producers and consuming countries face a delicate policy test. Gulf exporters are under pressure to restore volumes without appearing to compromise on security. Import-dependent economies want lower prices but cannot ignore the risk of another supply shock. The US is seeking to prevent the strait from becoming a bargaining chip, while Iran has signalled that control of nearby waters remains central to its regional posture.

For refiners, the uncertainty has complicated purchasing plans. Some Asian buyers have reduced spot exposure or diversified cargoes where possible, while others remain tied to long-term Gulf supply contracts. Higher freight and insurance costs can narrow refining margins even when benchmark crude prices appear contained. That leaves fuel markets exposed to sudden swings if another vessel incident delays shipments.

Financial markets showed a similar mix of caution and relief. Oil-sensitive currencies and equities did not register panic moves, suggesting investors still expect diplomacy to limit the conflict. Yet options markets and physical cargo pricing continued to reflect a premium for Gulf risk. The gap between a temporary disruption and a durable supply crisis remains narrow, especially if another attack hits a vessel or port facility.

Iran and the United States exchanged fresh attacks on military targets across the Gulf, placing fragile ceasefire talks under severe strain and drawing Kuwait and Bahrain deeper into a confrontation already unsettling shipping, energy markets and regional diplomacy.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Sunday that its naval and aerospace units had launched missiles and drones at US-linked facilities, naming Ali Al Salem Air Base in Kuwait and the US Fifth Fleet command site in Bahrain’s Salman Port area among the targets. Tehran described the barrage as retaliation for American strikes on Iranian military infrastructure, while US officials said there were no confirmed American casualties or major damage to its regional facilities.

Kuwait and Bahrain condemned the attacks as violations of sovereignty and airspace. Kuwaiti air defences were reported to have intercepted incoming missiles, while Bahrain said emergency and security services were assessing damage after debris or a projectile affected a residential building near the targeted area. No deaths were reported by either Gulf state.

The attacks mark one of the most serious tests yet for the interim ceasefire and peace framework that has underpinned US-Iran contacts over the past several weeks. The truce was designed to reduce direct military exchanges, support commercial navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and create space for talks on Iran’s nuclear programme, ballistic missile activity, sanctions relief and security guarantees.

Washington’s latest strikes targeted Iranian surveillance, drone, communications and coastal defence infrastructure after attacks on commercial vessels in or near the Strait of Hormuz. US military officials have linked those operations to what they describe as Iranian breaches of ceasefire conditions and threats to merchant shipping. Tehran rejects that account, saying its actions are defensive responses to American aggression and the use of Gulf bases for operations against Iranian territory.

The Gulf attacks have sharpened concerns among regional governments that their territory could become part of a widening cycle of retaliation. Kuwait has long hosted US military personnel and logistics facilities, while Bahrain is home to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, a central command hub for naval operations across the Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea and parts of the Indian Ocean. Both locations carry strategic value far beyond their physical footprint.

Iran’s decision to identify those sites appears intended to signal that bases supporting US operations are not insulated from retaliation. At the same time, Tehran has so far framed the strikes as limited and targeted, leaving open the possibility of further diplomacy. That dual approach reflects Iran’s attempt to apply military pressure without triggering an uncontrollable regional war.

President Donald Trump has warned that further Iranian attacks could prompt a much larger American response. His administration has tied any durable de-escalation to an end to attacks on shipping, restraint by Iran-backed groups and guarantees over nuclear and missile activity. Iranian officials have accused Washington of undermining the ceasefire through military action and by failing to restrain allied operations elsewhere in the region.

The immediate economic risk centres on the Strait of Hormuz, through which a substantial share of global seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas passes. Tanker movements have continued, but shipowners, insurers and energy traders are recalibrating risk after repeated attacks near the waterway. War-risk premiums have risen, and any sustained disruption would place upward pressure on oil prices, freight costs and Gulf export schedules.

Regional diplomacy is moving on several tracks. Gulf capitals are pressing for restraint while also strengthening air defence readiness. Qatar and Oman have remained central channels for messages between the parties, while European and Asian governments are urging both sides to keep negotiations alive. Pakistan’s mediation role has also gained prominence after earlier ceasefire understandings helped prevent a broader breakdown.

The political challenge for mediators is that both Washington and Tehran now claim to be enforcing, rather than violating, the ceasefire. That makes de-escalation harder because each side presents its military action as a response to the other’s breach. The result is a rolling conflict fought through calibrated strikes, public warnings and competing interpretations of the same truce.

UAE authorities confirmed there was no security threat after an emergency missile warning was pushed to mobile phones across the country on Friday evening and withdrawn within minutes, briefly unsettling residents before officials traced the episode to a technical malfunction in the national early warning system.

The first message, sent at about 5.17pm on June 26, warned of “potential missile threats” and instructed people to seek shelter in the nearest secure building, avoid windows, doors and open areas, and await further instructions. A follow-up alert soon stated that the situation was safe, while another notification asked the public to disregard the previous warning.

The National Emergency Crisis and Disaster Management Authority said the incorrect warning messages were caused by a sudden technical fault in the early warning system. It said specialised teams began corrective procedures as soon as the malfunction was detected, working under approved response plans to ensure continuity of service and reduce any possible impact on users.

The authority and relevant government entities apologised for the unintended alert and thanked the public for following official guidance during the incident. Residents were urged not to circulate unverified information and to rely on approved government channels during emergencies, a message that reflected concerns over the speed at which alarmist posts can spread during regional crises.

The Ministry of Interior’s alert reached residents in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and other parts of the country through the public warning system, which is designed to deliver urgent safety instructions directly to mobile phones. The content of the first message mirrored standard civil defence guidance used during missile or drone threats, but officials later made clear that no attack had taken place and no shelter measures were required.

The episode came at a sensitive moment for the Gulf, with heightened anxiety following weeks of confrontation involving Iran, the United States and Israel, and security concerns around the Strait of Hormuz. The waterway remains one of the world’s most important energy corridors, carrying a significant share of seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas exports from the region.

The false alert also followed a diplomatic push by Abu Dhabi to reduce tensions. Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, held a phone call with Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Friday, with the discussion covering regional developments and the importance of security and stability in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Public warning systems across the region have taken on greater importance as missile, drone and maritime threats have become part of the Gulf security environment. The UAE has previously used emergency notifications to guide residents during periods of heightened risk, and the quick correction on Friday underlined both the reach of the system and the reputational pressure on authorities to maintain confidence in it.

Residents reported receiving the warning and the cancellation message within a short interval, reducing the risk of prolonged confusion. Even so, the wording of the initial alert caused concern because it directed people to take immediate protective action. Businesses, families and commuters briefly sought clarification through official channels and local news updates before the all-clear message circulated.

The incident is likely to prompt a technical review of alert protocols, including safeguards that determine when a threat message can be issued, how test or fault conditions are separated from live emergency instructions, and how quickly a correction can override a false warning. Emergency alert systems depend on speed, but they also require strict verification because a single erroneous message can affect millions of people at once.

The UAE’s response emphasised that the malfunction had been addressed and that corrective steps were taken to preserve service reliability. Officials did not indicate any cyberattack, hostile action or operational threat behind the alert, framing it instead as an internal technical failure.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has assured Gulf Arab partners that Washington will not pursue a deal with Tehran at the expense of their security, as the Trump administration tries to build regional support for a preliminary accord aimed at ending months of confrontation with Iran.

Rubio delivered the message in Manama at a meeting with Gulf Cooperation Council foreign ministers and officials, using the final leg of a three-day tour of the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain to address concerns that the proposed settlement may grant Iran economic relief and strategic latitude without sufficiently curbing its military reach.

Bahrain, host to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, provided a pointed setting for the talks. Gulf capitals have watched the negotiations with caution after the war that began on February 28 with US and Israeli strikes on Iran and later drew the region into direct security and energy shocks. Iran’s attacks on Gulf states during the conflict hardened anxieties over missiles, drones, proxy forces and the vulnerability of oil export routes.

Rubio told Gulf officials that Washington wanted an enduring peace with Iran, but not “at any price”. He said no part of the agreement would be allowed to undermine the security, stability or prosperity of long-standing partners in the region. The remarks were designed to counter a perception that the White House, eager to close a deal after the June 17 preliminary understanding, may be prepared to offer Tehran concessions before Gulf security demands are settled.

The accord remains contentious because of several unresolved elements. Gulf officials are pressing for tighter restrictions on Iran’s ballistic missile programme, limits on drone capabilities, guarantees against support for armed groups across the region, and clear enforcement mechanisms. They also want direct consultation at every stage of negotiations, reflecting long-standing unease that major powers can reach arrangements with Tehran while leaving neighbouring states to manage the consequences.

The Strait of Hormuz emerged as a central issue. The waterway carries a large share of global seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas exports, making any disruption a direct threat to Gulf revenues and global energy prices. Rubio ruled out any arrangement that would permit Iran to charge tolls or impose restrictive conditions on commercial passage, saying freedom of navigation through the strait must remain protected.

Gulf governments are also wary of a proposed $300 billion reconstruction and stabilisation package linked to the wider settlement. Their concern is not only the size of the package but the possibility that released funds or new investment could strengthen Iran’s military institutions or affiliated groups unless strict controls are built into the agreement. Rubio has sought to lower those fears by saying Washington is not asking Gulf states to finance such a fund during this tour.

The diplomatic challenge for Washington is sharpened by different priorities within the Gulf itself. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have tended to favour sustained pressure on Iran’s missile and regional networks, while Qatar and Oman have played more active mediation roles and favour a faster route to de-escalation. Kuwait and Bahrain have emphasised maritime security, protection of infrastructure and the need to prevent a fresh cycle of attacks.

The US-GCC discussions produced a public display of unity, with shared language on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, keeping sea lanes open, and supporting regional stability. Yet the careful wording also reflected the distance still to be closed. Gulf officials want the final text to go beyond nuclear limits and address the full range of tools Iran has used to project power, from missiles and drones to militias operating in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Rubio’s tour also came amid debate within Washington over the administration’s handling of Iran. Vice President JD Vance has struck a more optimistic tone about the possibility of a broader reset with Tehran, while Rubio has framed the agreement as a cautious, conditional process that must be tested against Iran’s conduct. The White House has insisted that senior officials remain aligned behind President Donald Trump’s approach.

Energy and commodity prices have retreated after the US-Iran agreement to halt hostilities and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but the International Monetary Fund has warned that Gulf trade and price stability will not return immediately.

IMF spokesperson Julie Kozack said in Washington that the Fund had observed a fall in energy, fertiliser and base metal prices after shipments from Gulf countries began to resume. The easing has reduced some pressure on the world economy after weeks of war-linked disruption, but shipping, insurance, inventory and security constraints are still weighing on the pace of normalisation.

The Fund is preparing to update its World Economic Outlook on July 8, when it will decide whether to retain the three growth scenarios it set out in April to account for different Iran war outcomes. Those scenarios were framed around the duration of conflict, the damage to energy infrastructure, the closure or reopening of Hormuz, and the second-round effects of higher oil and gas prices on inflation and financial conditions.

Kozack said the ceasefire and steps towards reopening the strait were welcome and, if sustained, would support global activity. But she cautioned that prices and flows would take time to settle because the disruption had affected not only crude oil and gas but also fertiliser, shipping schedules, risk premia and confidence across import-dependent economies.

The Strait of Hormuz remains central to the global energy system. Before the conflict, the waterway handled about a fifth of the world’s oil and seaborne liquefied natural gas flows. Its closure and the threat to tankers pushed oil above $100 a barrel at the height of the crisis, forced shippers to revise routes, lifted freight and insurance costs, and placed heavy strain on countries with limited fiscal space.

Brent crude has since fallen back towards the low $70s, close to levels seen before the sharp escalation, as more tankers moved out of the Gulf and traders priced in a lower immediate risk of supply loss. Market data showed a burst of delayed shipments leaving the region, including large volumes of crude that had been stranded or slowed by the security situation.

The price fall, however, does not amount to full recovery. Shipping through Hormuz is still being handled with caution, and some vessels continue to avoid riskier lanes. Insurers are also reassessing war-risk premiums, while refiners and commodity buyers are rebuilding depleted inventories. These factors mean the first wave of supply may create temporary softness in prices without guaranteeing stable flows in the weeks ahead.

The IMF’s April forecast placed global growth at 3.1 per cent in 2026 and 3.2 per cent in 2027 under a limited-conflict assumption, after lowering expectations because of the energy shock and heightened policy uncertainty. The Fund had warned that a longer war or sustained closure of Hormuz would deepen the blow to output and raise inflation, particularly for oil-importing economies in Africa and Asia.

The July update will therefore be closely watched by governments, central banks and commodity markets. A durable ceasefire could allow the IMF to move away from its more adverse assumptions, while renewed disruption would keep pressure on global inflation forecasts and complicate interest-rate decisions in major economies.

The Fund’s assessment comes as financial markets are trying to distinguish between a genuine easing of risk and a short-term adjustment after panic buying. Oil’s move lower has offered relief to consumers and businesses, but the underlying geopolitical risk has not disappeared. Any renewed attack on ships, port infrastructure or Gulf energy facilities could quickly restore the risk premium that lifted prices earlier in the conflict.

The impact remains uneven. Energy exporters face lower spot prices after the retreat, but they benefit from the restoration of export routes. Importers gain from cheaper crude and gas, yet many are still exposed to high freight rates, volatile currencies and food-price risks linked to fertiliser supply. Low-income economies with narrow fiscal buffers remain vulnerable even if benchmark prices continue to fall.

Abu Dhabi has awarded ADNOC and six international partners a major concession to develop and produce gas from the Bab Gas Cap, strengthening the emirate’s drive to expand domestic gas supply and reinforce its position in global energy markets.

The concession was granted by the Supreme Council for Financial and Economic Affairs, with ADNOC taking a 60 per cent participating interest. The remaining 40 per cent will be shared by TotalEnergies EP Holdings UAE with 10 per cent, BP Abu Dhabi with 10 per cent, CNPC International with 8 per cent, JODCO Onshore with 5 per cent, China ZhenHua Oil with 4 per cent and Korea GS E&P with 3 per cent.

The Bab Gas Cap is being described as the world’s largest gas cap development project and is expected to become a significant addition to Abu Dhabi’s upstream portfolio. The project targets production of about 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas per day, adding scale to ADNOC’s wider gas expansion programme as the UAE seeks to meet rising domestic demand, support industrial growth and build export capacity.

The concession covers gas cap resources at the Bab onshore field, one of Abu Dhabi’s most important hydrocarbon assets. ADNOC Onshore is expected to operate the concession, building on the existing onshore production system and long-standing partnerships with global energy companies. The agreement follows earlier development work linked to processing facilities, well tie-ins and integrated infrastructure required to bring the gas resources into production.

The Bab field has long been central to Abu Dhabi’s onshore oil and gas output. Its gas cap development is technically important because such reservoirs require careful pressure management, advanced recovery planning and large-scale processing capacity. Gas cap projects involve extracting gas that sits above oil reservoirs, while maintaining reservoir performance and protecting longer-term oil recovery.

The award also reinforces Abu Dhabi’s strategy of using international partnerships to accelerate complex upstream projects. TotalEnergies, bp, CNPC, JODCO, ZhenHua and GS Energy-linked interests are already part of the emirate’s broader energy ecosystem through upstream concessions, trading relationships or strategic cooperation. Their inclusion gives the project access to technical expertise, capital discipline and market links across Europe and Asia.

For ADNOC, the concession fits into a wider investment cycle focused on gas, low-carbon production systems and international expansion. The company has outlined heavy capital spending through 2030 to sustain output, develop new resources and respond to growing energy demand. Abu Dhabi’s hydrocarbon reserves have also been revised upward, with gas resources forming a central part of the emirate’s long-term energy security plans.

The project comes as gas remains a critical transition fuel for power generation, petrochemicals and heavy industry. Demand growth across Asia and the Middle East has kept producers focused on securing reliable long-term supply, even as governments pursue lower-carbon energy systems. The UAE has moved to expand liquefied natural gas capacity, develop sour gas and unconventional gas resources, and strengthen its role as a supplier to global markets.

ADNOC Gas has already moved on related engineering work for processing facilities at Bab Gas Cap. The facilities are designed to handle additional gas volumes and support the company’s processing network, with earlier project documents pointing to a sizeable increase in capacity. The development is expected to require new wells, tie-ins, pipelines, compression, separation and gas treatment systems, creating work for engineering and construction contractors.

The presence of Asian partners in the concession also reflects the direction of future demand. CNPC, ZhenHua and Korea GS E&P bring links to markets where gas consumption remains central to power generation and industrial policy. JODCO, linked to Japan’s INPEX group, has been a long-standing investor in Abu Dhabi’s upstream sector, while TotalEnergies and bp bring decades of regional technical experience.

The award adds momentum to Abu Dhabi’s effort to deepen value from mature fields while opening fresh gas resources. Unlike standalone exploration projects, Bab Gas Cap benefits from proximity to existing infrastructure and an established operating base. That could help reduce execution risk, although large-scale gas developments remain exposed to cost pressures, equipment availability, reservoir complexity and delivery timelines.

Passenger rail travel in the UAE will enter a new stage on 30 June 2026 when Etihad Rail begins an introductory operational phase between Abu Dhabi and Fujairah, reducing the journey to one hour and 45 minutes and opening the first public route on the country’s national passenger network.

The service will start from Mohamed bin Zayed City Passenger Train Station in Abu Dhabi and Fujairah Passenger Train Station, marking the first step in a phased rollout that will later bring Dubai, Al Dhaid, Al Dhafra and Sharjah into the passenger system. Ticket bookings opened on 23 June through digital channels, with fares for the Abu Dhabi-Fujairah route starting at Dh55 for Comfort Class and Dh120 for Premium Class.

The launch gives Etihad Rail its first scheduled passenger operation after years of construction, testing and freight activity across the national railway network. The passenger fleet comprises 13 trains, each designed to carry up to 400 passengers and operate at speeds of up to 200 kilometres per hour. The trains are equipped with Wi-Fi, power outlets, ergonomic seating and modern interiors aimed at offering an intercity alternative to road travel.

The opening phase places Fujairah, the UAE’s eastern emirate, within a faster transport corridor to Abu Dhabi, with implications for commuting, tourism and domestic travel. The route is expected to ease pressure on long-distance road journeys, particularly for passengers travelling between the capital region and the east coast. Road travel between the two emirates can vary significantly depending on traffic, weather and route conditions.

The passenger service comes after the inauguration of Mohamed bin Zayed City Passenger Train Station by Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Chairman of the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. The station has been positioned as a key hub in the first phase, with facilities designed for peak-hour passenger movement, integrated information systems and connections with other modes of transport.

The broader rollout will follow a staged timetable. Dubai Train Station and Al Dhaid Train Station are scheduled to open with the official launch on 30 September 2026. Stations in Al Dhafra are due to follow on 30 December 2026, while Sharjah Train Station is expected to complete the route on 30 March 2027. Once these stations are operational, the passenger network will link major urban centres and regional communities across the country.

Etihad Rail has said the full passenger network will eventually connect 11 cities and regions, including Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Fujairah, Al Sila, Al Dhannah, Al Mirfa, Madinat Zayed, Mezaira’a, Al Faya and Al Dhaid. The first four passenger stations announced earlier were Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah and Fujairah, with additional stations to be brought into service in phases.

The project is part of a wider shift in the UAE’s transport strategy, which seeks to integrate rail with local mobility systems, logistics corridors and urban development plans. Passenger stations are being designed to connect with taxis, buses, metro systems and other first- and last-mile options, reducing dependence on private vehicles for intercity journeys.

Rail officials have presented the passenger service as a mobility project as well as an economic infrastructure investment. The network is expected to support domestic tourism by making travel between emirates faster and more predictable. Fujairah’s coastline, mountain routes and port-linked economy stand to benefit from stronger access to Abu Dhabi and, later, Dubai and Sharjah.

The passenger system builds on Etihad Rail’s freight operations, which began after completion of the national freight network. Freight services already connect ports, industrial zones and logistics centres, carrying materials across the country and reducing heavy-vehicle pressure on roads. Passenger operations now add a public transport dimension to a network originally developed as a strategic logistics backbone.

The UAE has placed rail at the centre of its long-term mobility and sustainability plans. Etihad Rail has projected annual passenger numbers of 36.5 million by 2030, a target that would require steady public adoption, competitive pricing and reliable integration with urban transport. The passenger trains are also expected to contribute to emissions-reduction goals by shifting part of intercity travel from cars to rail.

The rollout comes as Gulf states accelerate transport infrastructure projects aimed at improving connectivity within and across borders. The UAE-Oman Hafeet Rail project is being developed separately to link Abu Dhabi with Sohar, while regional rail ambitions remain tied to wider Gulf Cooperation Council plans. For the UAE, the domestic passenger network is the immediate priority, with Etihad Rail moving from trial journeys and station openings to fare-paying service.

U. S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio will travel to the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Bahrain from June 23 to 25 as Washington moves to reassure Gulf partners over a preliminary accord with Iran that has stirred unease across the region.

The visit marks the Trump administration’s most direct diplomatic push to explain the terms of the framework to close allies whose security, energy and trade interests are closely tied to the outcome of any settlement with Tehran. Rubio is expected to hold bilateral meetings in Abu Dhabi, Kuwait City and Manama, with discussions centred on regional security, freedom of navigation, Iran’s commitments under the draft arrangement and the future role of Gulf states in stabilising the wider Middle East.

State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott said Rubio would also meet the Gulf Cooperation Council while in Bahrain. The GCC brings together Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group whose members have long relied on Washington’s security umbrella while also maintaining varying channels of communication with Tehran.

The trip comes after President Donald Trump signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran last week, opening a pathway towards a fuller agreement after months of fighting involving the United States, Israel and Iran. Gulf governments have broadly welcomed efforts to halt the conflict, but several officials in the region are concerned that the framework may give Tehran economic relief and political space without adequately constraining its missile programme or regional network of armed partners.

One of the most sensitive issues is a proposed reconstruction fund for Iran, described by people familiar with the discussions as potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars. Gulf officials fear such financing could help rebuild Iran’s military capacity unless strict oversight and sequencing are attached to any disbursement. The absence of explicit curbs on ballistic missiles has also raised questions among governments that have faced missile and drone threats from Iran-aligned groups.

Rubio’s first stop in the United Arab Emirates is expected to focus heavily on maritime security and commercial flows through the Strait of Hormuz. The waterway remains one of the world’s most important energy corridors, carrying a large share of global seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas shipments. Any ambiguity over Tehran’s role in securing or influencing traffic through the strait is being closely examined by Gulf capitals and energy markets.

Kuwait’s position is also central to the tour because of its role as a long-standing security partner and host to U. S. forces. Kuwait has often sought a careful balance between deterrence and regional diplomacy, supporting de-escalation while remaining wary of arrangements that could weaken collective Gulf security. Rubio’s meetings there are expected to cover defence coordination, Iran’s compliance mechanisms and the protection of energy infrastructure.

Bahrain offers the most explicitly strategic setting for Rubio’s GCC engagement. The kingdom hosts the U. S. Fifth Fleet and has faced persistent concern over Iranian influence. Manama is likely to press for clear assurances that any U. S.-Iran understanding will not dilute Washington’s commitments to Gulf defence or leave smaller states more exposed to pressure from Tehran.

The GCC meeting gives Rubio a chance to address concerns collectively rather than through separate bilateral channels. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Oman, though not listed as stops on the tour, are expected to use the Bahrain session to seek clarity on the sequencing of sanctions relief, nuclear monitoring, missile restrictions and guarantees for regional partners. Oman and Qatar have played mediation roles in past diplomacy with Iran, while Saudi Arabia has pursued its own cautious engagement with Tehran alongside efforts to deepen defence cooperation with Washington.

Vice President JD Vance has said talks with Iran have created a strong basis for a final settlement, but the administration still faces domestic and regional scepticism. Rubio, who built much of his political profile as a critic of concessions to Tehran, is now tasked with defending a framework that critics argue could reward Iran before durable enforcement measures are in place.

Abu Dhabi-backed artificial intelligence investor MGX has explored a potential acquisition of Singapore-based data centre operator DayOne, a move that would deepen the emirate’s push into global digital infrastructure as demand for computing capacity accelerates across Asia, Europe and the United States.

The discussions remain preliminary and may not lead to a transaction. DayOne has also been preparing for a possible public listing that could value the business at about $20 billion, creating a gap between market expectations and the price a strategic buyer may be willing to pay. People familiar with the matter said MGX has been working with an investment bank as it assesses the opportunity, though DayOne may still proceed with an initial public offering.

A deal would rank among the most ambitious outbound technology moves by MGX, which was launched in 2024 with backing from Mubadala and G42 to invest in artificial intelligence infrastructure, semiconductors and core AI technologies. The firm has become central to Abu Dhabi’s plan to position itself as a long-term capital provider for the global AI economy, where data centres, power supplies and advanced chips have become strategic assets.

DayOne, headquartered in Singapore, operates hyperscale data centre infrastructure for large cloud and enterprise customers. It emerged from the international business of GDS Holdings and was rebranded as an independent platform at the start of 2025. The company has expanded across markets including Singapore, Johor, Batam, Hong Kong, Japan, Thailand and Finland, giving it a footprint in regions where hyperscale capacity is constrained by land, power and permitting pressures.

The company raised more than $2 billion in Series C financing in January and later expanded that round, drawing capital from investors including Coatue, Indonesia Investment Authority and other institutional backers. Earlier funding rounds brought in investors such as SoftBank Vision Fund, Hillhouse, Boyu Capital, Citadel founder Ken Griffin, Coatue and Baupost. GDS has remained a minority shareholder after its stake was diluted through external fundraising.

DayOne’s planned listing has attracted attention because it could be one of the largest data centre-related offerings from a Singapore-based platform. A dual-track process would allow the company to weigh acquisition interest against equity market conditions. The timing is sensitive, as investors have been rewarding digital infrastructure groups tied to AI workloads while also scrutinising valuations, leverage and long-term power costs.

Data centres have become a priority for sovereign investors, private equity firms and infrastructure funds as artificial intelligence models require larger computing clusters and more reliable energy supplies. Global demand has shifted from conventional cloud capacity to high-density facilities capable of supporting graphics processing units, liquid cooling systems and advanced networking. That change has increased the strategic value of operators with land banks, grid access and established relationships with hyperscale customers.

MGX’s interest reflects a broader Gulf strategy to move beyond passive technology stakes and acquire assets embedded in the AI supply chain. Abu Dhabi has backed major AI partnerships involving G42, Microsoft, OpenAI and global infrastructure investors. The Stargate UAE project, announced as a large AI data centre cluster in Abu Dhabi, includes a first phase expected to bring 200 megawatts online in 2026, while wider plans envisage a one-gigawatt facility.

Buying DayOne would give MGX exposure to Asia-Pacific growth markets where data centre demand is rising but new supply faces physical and regulatory limits. Singapore has tightened controls on data centre expansion because of energy and land constraints, pushing operators to develop regional clusters in neighbouring Malaysia and Indonesia. DayOne’s SIJORI strategy, spanning Singapore, Johor and Batam, is built around that regional capacity model.

The possible transaction also carries execution risks. DayOne’s valuation ambitions are high, and a $20 billion benchmark would require confidence in future contracted demand, financing conditions and power availability. Cross-border scrutiny could also be a factor because DayOne originated from a China-linked platform, even though it is now Singapore-headquartered and separately funded by international investors.

For MGX, any move would have to fit its mandate to build large-scale exposure to AI infrastructure rather than simply chase data centre multiples. The firm’s backers have the financial capacity to pursue multibillion-dollar deals, but the sector is becoming crowded, with global infrastructure funds, pension funds and strategic technology investors competing for the same assets.

Iran’s Strait of Hormuz regulator has suspended planned transit charges for 60 days, easing immediate pressure on shipowners as Tehran and Washington enter a negotiation window under a memorandum of understanding signed this week.

The Persian Gulf Strait Authority said on Friday that vessels seeking passage through the waterway must submit transit requests at least 48 hours before arrival while the interim arrangement remains in force. The waiver covers proposed charges linked to security, safety, environmental services and related insurance, but it does not remove the new requirement for ships to coordinate routes and transit times before entering the strait.

The decision marks a tactical retreat by Tehran after weeks of concern among energy traders, tanker operators and insurers over whether Iran would seek to formalise a fee regime in one of the world’s most sensitive maritime corridors. The Strait of Hormuz links the Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, carrying a large share of seaborne crude, condensate and liquefied natural gas exports from the region.

Shipping executives are expected to welcome the fee suspension, but the 48-hour notice requirement is likely to keep legal and operational questions alive. Commercial vessels have traditionally relied on established rights of transit through international straits, and any new clearance system could raise concerns among shipowners, flag states and maritime lawyers if it is seen as creating a precedent for unilateral control.

The PGSA notice said advance coordination was needed because of navigational risks and the need to maintain safe passage. Maritime traffic through the strait has begun to recover after a period of disruption, with tracking data showing a rise in commercial crossings this week. The pace remains sensitive to security alerts, insurance terms and whether naval forces maintain safe corridors for tankers and container vessels.

The interim arrangement follows the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States aimed at reducing tensions and opening a 60-day period for technical negotiations. The wider framework is expected to cover maritime access, sanctions relief, nuclear issues and regional security guarantees, although several elements still require detailed agreement.

For energy markets, the waiver reduces one immediate cost risk but does not end uncertainty. Brent crude and regional shipping premiums have remained exposed to developments in the strait, where even limited disruption can alter freight rates, delivery schedules and refinery planning. Gulf exporters rely heavily on uninterrupted access, while Asian buyers remain particularly vulnerable to delays in crude and LNG shipments.

The legal position remains contested. Iran has long argued that it has security interests in waters close to its coast, while Western governments and major maritime states maintain that commercial vessels should not face arbitrary restrictions in an international passage. The new PGSA process is therefore being watched closely for how it is applied in practice, particularly whether requests are treated as routine notifications or as permits that can be delayed or refused.

The fee waiver also appears designed to ease diplomatic friction before talks move into more difficult territory. Tehran’s original plan to impose charges for passage had drawn criticism from shipping groups and insurers, who warned that a payment mechanism could complicate charter contracts, raise war-risk premiums and trigger disputes over who should bear additional costs.

The PGSA has said vessels must provide route plans and timing details before arrival. Operators are likely to seek clarity on documentation, response times, appeal mechanisms and whether military escorts or designated corridors will be mandatory. Any inconsistency in approvals could slow traffic and encourage some ships to wait outside the zone rather than risk detention or rerouting.

The Strait of Hormuz has been a recurring flashpoint during periods of confrontation involving Iran, the United States and regional powers. Tanker seizures, drone incidents, mine threats and naval deployments have repeatedly pushed up shipping costs. The latest agreement has reduced the prospect of an immediate escalation, but the 60-day clock leaves companies exposed to policy shifts if negotiations fail.

Oil producers in the Gulf are expected to continue ramping up scheduled exports as traffic stabilises, while insurers assess whether the fee waiver materially lowers risk. War-risk underwriters are unlikely to remove surcharges quickly, as vessel movements still depend on the durability of the political understanding and the security environment around the waterway.

MENA mergers and acquisitions are expected to recover only gradually after war-driven volatility hit confidence, even as bankers say the region’s strategic deal pipeline remains alive.

Bank of America expects activity lost during the first half of the year to take months, rather than days or weeks, to return, with transactions delayed by the conflict involving Iran, the US and Israel. The bank’s view reflects a cautious mood among advisers after a sharp fall in regional deal value during the opening quarter, despite a stronger global market for large transactions.

LSEG data showed M&A activity with any MENA involvement fell 74 per cent year on year in the first quarter to $18.8 billion, down from $66.4 billion. Deals involving a MENA target dropped 90 per cent to $4.6 billion, the lowest first-quarter total in a decade. The contraction marked a striking divergence from global M&A, where major technology, energy and cross-border deals helped push transaction values higher.

Eamon Brabazon, co-head of global M&A at Bank of America, said confidence usually returns after periods of acute geopolitical stress, but not instantly. His assessment points to a market where boardrooms are still discussing transactions, but signing timelines, valuation assumptions and financing structures are being reassessed.

The slowdown has not been evenly spread. Gulf sovereign-backed platforms and large strategic buyers remain active, particularly in sectors tied to national transformation plans, supply-chain resilience and energy security. Deals linked to artificial intelligence, data centres, energy transition and infrastructure are expected to attract stronger interest as investors look for assets with long-term policy support and cash-flow visibility.

Bankers say the setback is more about timing than abandonment. Some transactions have moved ahead, while others have been pushed into the second half as buyers seek clearer visibility on oil prices, inflation, financing costs and regional security risks. Higher crude prices can support fiscal strength across parts of the Gulf, but sudden spikes also complicate assumptions on global growth, logistics and imported inflation.

The first quarter still produced several notable transactions, underscoring that capital deployment has not stopped. Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund-backed Savvy Games Group agreed to buy Shanghai Moonton Technology from ByteDance in a transaction valued at about $6 billion. Bahrain’s Alba moved to acquire Aluminium Dunkerque in a deal tied to industrial expansion, while Qatar-listed Lesha Bank was linked to a cash transaction involving aircraft-leasing assets.

These deals highlight a broader shift in MENA M&A. Activity is increasingly led by strategic acquirers, sovereign funds and state-linked companies rather than purely financial buyers. Their mandates are often tied to industrial policy, domestic capacity-building and global expansion, giving them longer investment horizons than conventional private equity funds.

Outbound acquisitions remain a key feature of the market. Regional buyers continue to look beyond the Gulf for assets in technology, logistics, gaming, manufacturing, energy and financial services. That approach reflects an effort to diversify income streams, secure supply chains and deepen exposure to high-growth sectors outside hydrocarbons.

The caution is sharper for inbound and domestic target deals. Foreign buyers weighing MENA assets are likely to demand stronger protection against volatility, including revised material adverse change clauses, delayed completion triggers and more conservative valuation mechanisms. Sellers, especially in high-growth sectors, may resist price cuts, creating a gap that slows negotiations.

Global conditions provide some support. Bank of America estimates first-half global M&A volume at about $2.1 trillion, with the year tracking towards what could become one of the strongest annual markets on record. EMEA dealmaking has also shown strong growth, helped by large transactions and rising confidence among corporate buyers with cash-rich balance sheets.

Saudi Aramco is considering the sale of a stake in its sulphur business as the state-controlled energy group expands a wider drive to unlock cash from infrastructure assets and support Saudi Arabia’s investment-heavy economic transformation.

The potential transaction, known internally as Project Yellowstone, could raise as much as $7 billion and would cover assets linked to sulphur storage and export terminals. Aramco invited banks last month to pitch for advisory roles on the deal, three people familiar with the matter said, though deliberations remain at an early stage and no final decision has been taken.

The plan marks another step in Aramco’s shift towards monetising parts of its vast asset base while retaining operational control over core oil and gas activities. The company is examining a broader package of possible disposals that could raise about $50 billion, including oil export terminals, real estate, water infrastructure and power assets. The strategy reflects pressure on the kingdom’s finances as Riyadh pursues large-scale projects under Vision 2030 while managing fluctuating oil revenue and heavy spending commitments.

Sulphur is produced as a by-product of oil refining and natural gas processing. It is used mainly in the production of sulphuric acid, a key input for fertilisers, metals processing, chemicals and industrial applications. Aramco’s large upstream, refining and gas-processing network gives it a significant position in the regional sulphur market, where Middle East producers play an important role in seaborne supply.

The timing is notable because sulphur markets have tightened sharply over the past two years. Demand from fertiliser producers and metals processors has expanded, while logistics disruption and geopolitical risk across the Gulf have increased the strategic value of storage and export facilities. Prices in several import markets have risen steeply, with demand from nickel processing in Indonesia and fertiliser production in Asia adding pressure to supply chains.

Aramco’s sulphur business is not a standalone consumer brand but a logistics-heavy operation tied closely to production, processing and export infrastructure. That makes it attractive to infrastructure funds seeking long-duration assets with predictable cash flows. The model would likely mirror previous Aramco transactions in which investors acquired economic interests in infrastructure while the company continued to operate the underlying assets.

Aramco has already used that approach in major pipeline and gas deals. A consortium led by Global Infrastructure Partners, now part of BlackRock, agreed last year to invest $11 billion in infrastructure linked to the Jafurah gas development. Earlier transactions involving oil and gas pipeline networks brought in tens of billions of dollars from global investors, while leaving Aramco in charge of operations.

The company’s latest asset-sale push comes as Saudi Arabia balances ambitious spending with a more cautious fiscal backdrop. The 2026 budget projects expenditure of about 1.31 trillion riyals and revenue of about 1.15 trillion riyals, implying a deficit of 165 billion riyals, or roughly $44 billion. Riyadh has signalled that deficits may continue for several years as it prioritises projects in logistics, tourism, technology, industry and energy transition-linked sectors.

Aramco remains central to those plans. The government is the dominant shareholder and relies heavily on dividends, taxes and royalties from the company. Aramco declared a first-quarter base dividend of $21.9 billion for 2026, up 3.5 per cent year on year, while capital expenditure reached $12.1 billion as the company continued to fund upstream, gas and downstream expansion.

The company is also managing a changing oil-market environment. Crude prices have been supported by geopolitical risk, but long-term forecasts point to rising non-Opec supply, uncertain demand growth and pressure from the global energy transition. Asset monetisation allows Aramco to raise capital without issuing large amounts of new equity or cutting deeply into operational spending.

The sulphur transaction could test investor appetite for assets linked to a commodity that is both industrially important and exposed to cyclical demand. Fertiliser consumption, mining activity and refinery output all influence sulphur flows. A stake sale may therefore require careful structuring, with buyers seeking clarity on long-term volumes, tariff arrangements, export access and regulatory treatment.

Potential bidders are expected to include infrastructure funds, sovereign-backed investors and specialist energy-infrastructure vehicles already active in the Gulf. The kingdom has sought to draw deeper foreign capital into strategic sectors while giving investors access to assets connected to one of the world’s largest energy systems.

A proposed $300 billion private investment fund has become the most sensitive economic element in the US-Iran framework agreement, with more than half of the target committed as Washington and Tehran prepare for a formal signing ceremony on Friday.

The vehicle, described by a person with direct knowledge as the Reconstruction and Development Fund, is intended to create a commercial incentive for both sides to move from a preliminary memorandum of understanding to a final settlement after nearly four months of conflict. Commitments exceed $150 billion and are expected from private-sector groups across the US, Gulf Arab states, Asia, South America and Africa.

The plan is not designed as a government reparations package or a grant programme, a distinction being stressed by Washington as critics question whether the framework rewards Tehran before the hardest disputes are resolved. The fund would not include public money and would not become operational until a final deal is concluded. During the 60-day negotiating window, administrators are expected to work with Iranian counterparts and investors to define projects, governance rules and financing structures.

The fund is separate from parallel discussions on sanctions relief and access to Iranian sovereign assets frozen abroad. Those tracks carry different timelines and conditions, with US officials linking any financial benefits to Iranian cooperation on nuclear restrictions, inspections and regional security commitments. Vice-President JD Vance has argued that Tehran would gain access to economic opportunities only if it honours its obligations, including limits on nuclear activity and acceptance of a stringent verification regime.

The framework follows weeks of negotiations aimed at halting a conflict that began with US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28 and subsequently disrupted energy markets, shipping routes and regional security calculations. Senior US officials said a memorandum had been signed by President Donald Trump, Vance and Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf, with a public ceremony scheduled in Switzerland on June 19. The pact is meant to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and restore shipping through one of the world’s most important oil and gas corridors.

Iran had initially sought $400 billion in compensation for war damage, a demand Washington rejected. The private investment mechanism emerged as an alternative that could channel capital into infrastructure and industrial recovery without direct US government funding. Potential areas include energy, logistics, manufacturing, transport, refineries, airports and damaged industrial sites such as the Mobarakeh Steel complex.

The proposal also reflects Iran’s difficulty in attracting foreign capital. Despite having the world’s second-largest proven natural gas reserves and fourth-largest proven oil reserves, the country has been largely cut off from global capital markets by sanctions. Its population of more than 92 million, industrial base and opportunities in mining, petrochemicals, tourism and agriculture make it commercially attractive, but legal risk and political uncertainty have kept major banks and multinationals away.

That caution is likely to persist. International lenders remain wary of sanctions penalties, and companies considering projects in Iran will want clarity on currency convertibility, dispute resolution, insurance, procurement rules and the durability of any US waiver. A policy reversal in Washington or Tehran could leave investors exposed to stranded assets or blocked payments.

Gulf involvement is another delicate element. Regional states have an interest in easing tensions, restoring Hormuz traffic and preventing another shock to oil and gas flows, but several capitals are also concerned about Iran’s regional networks and missile capabilities. Qatar has avoided confirming participation in the fund, while other Gulf governments have been cautious about any role that could be portrayed as underwriting Tehran’s recovery without firm guarantees.

Donald Trump’s pledge that the Strait of Hormuz will be “completely opened” by Friday has left European partners pressing for details before committing naval assets to clear mines and escort commercial vessels through the world’s most sensitive energy chokepoint.

The US president arrived at the Group of Seven summit in Évian-les-Bains saying a preliminary US-Iran accord had settled the immediate question of shipping access after months of disruption across the Gulf. “Ships are starting to go out now,” he said, adding that crews were “hunting for a couple of mines” and that traffic would return fully once the agreement is formally signed in Switzerland on June 19.

European leaders, while welcoming any easing of hostilities, have treated the timetable with caution. Their concern is not only whether Tehran has accepted unrestricted passage, but whether navies, insurers and shipowners can verify a safe corridor through waters where even a single mine could close lanes again. France, Britain and Germany have signalled readiness to help secure the route, but officials want the text of the memorandum, the chain of command, and clarity on Oman’s role before dispatching forces into a contested waterway.

The Strait of Hormuz links the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Before the war, it carried roughly one fifth of global oil and petroleum product consumption and about one fifth of liquefied natural gas trade, much of it from Qatar and other Gulf producers to Asia. Its disruption has pushed up energy costs, forced tankers to wait in anchorage, tightened LNG supply, and added pressure to inflation-sensitive economies facing freight and insurance surcharges.

The preliminary accord, described by officials as short and still incomplete, extends a ceasefire framework and opens the way for broader talks on Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief, missile activity and regional militias. Washington says the opening of the strait is central to the arrangement. Tehran has said commercial vessels can move once the document is signed, but it has also pushed for recognition of a role in managing transit and floated fees for passage, a demand European capitals view as incompatible with freedom of navigation.

That ambiguity explains the gap between Trump’s public confidence and the slower response from shipowners. Major operators have not rushed to resume normal schedules, and tanker executives say they need more than political assurances. War-risk premiums, crew safety rules and charter-party liabilities will not reset until mine surveys, naval notices and port guidance show that the channel is usable. Shipping associations have told members to wait for confirmed security instructions rather than summit statements.

Mine clearance is the hardest practical test. Maritime security specialists say a credible sweep could take weeks if mines are dispersed across approaches, anchorages or narrow traffic separation lanes. Modern mine-hunting depends on sonar, unmanned vehicles, divers and specialised ships, and the process must be repeated if fresh intelligence suggests new hazards. European forces have Gulf patrol and Red Sea escort experience, but a Hormuz operation would carry greater escalation risk because it would require coordination with US forces, Iran and Oman while tensions with Israel and Hezbollah remain unresolved.

Emmanuel Macron has cast the issue as a test of whether the G7 can turn a fragile ceasefire into durable access to energy markets. France says aircraft, frigates and a carrier group could be made available quickly, while Britain has mine-countermeasure expertise and Germany is considering support within political and legal constraints. None of those governments wants to underwrite an agreement whose terms are not yet visible.

Washington and Tehran have accepted a preliminary framework aimed at ending their war, lifting the U. S. blockade of Iran and reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a move that pushed oil prices lower while leaving Iran’s nuclear programme for another round of negotiations.

President Donald Trump declared the agreement “complete” on Truth Social on Sunday evening in Washington, shortly after Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif said a text had been agreed after mediation by Islamabad. The announcement marked the most significant diplomatic opening since the conflict shut one of the world’s most important energy corridors and unsettled financial markets.

The proposed framework provides for a cessation of hostilities, the removal of restrictions on Iranian ports and the phased reopening of commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Formal signing is expected in Switzerland later this week, though both sides are still working through implementation language, verification arrangements and sequencing of relief measures.

Oil markets reacted sharply to the announcement. Brent crude fell by more than $4 a barrel to near $83, while West Texas Intermediate dropped to about $80, reflecting expectations that a sustained reopening of Hormuz would ease supply pressure. The strait normally carries about 20 million barrels a day of oil and petroleum liquids, roughly a quarter of seaborne oil trade, as well as nearly a fifth of global liquefied natural gas flows.

The framework is not a final peace treaty. Officials on both sides have described it as an interim arrangement that creates a 60-day window for broader talks covering Iran’s nuclear activities, sanctions relief, maritime security and regional guarantees. Iran is expected to halt further enrichment expansion during that period, while Washington would refrain from imposing new sanctions and begin unfreezing some Iranian assets if agreed benchmarks are met.

The unresolved nuclear issue remains the most sensitive part of the arrangement. Iran has long insisted that its nuclear programme is peaceful, while Washington and its partners have demanded restrictions capable of preventing any rapid move towards weapons capability. The draft understanding appears to leave major questions open, including the future of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, the role of inspectors and whether any material would be diluted, exported or kept under monitored storage inside Iran.

For Trump, the announcement offers a chance to claim a major foreign-policy breakthrough after weeks of escalating military and economic pressure. His statement that the deal was “complete” went further than the more cautious language used by other officials, who have emphasised that the pact still needs to be signed and implemented. That gap in tone has already raised questions over whether the sides share the same understanding of the accord.

Sharif’s role has placed Pakistan at the centre of the diplomatic effort. Islamabad maintained contact with both Washington and Tehran during the conflict and used its regional ties to press for a de-escalation formula. The mediation has also given Pakistan a higher diplomatic profile at a time when Gulf stability remains directly tied to its economy, remittances and energy security.

Tehran has framed the framework as a victory for resistance and sovereignty, particularly over the language on Hormuz. Iranian officials are likely to insist that any reopening of the strait occurs under arrangements that recognise its security role in the Gulf. Washington, by contrast, is expected to stress freedom of navigation, commercial access and guarantees for allies dependent on Gulf energy supplies.

The accord has been welcomed cautiously by European and Asian governments, whose energy and trade interests were hit by the disruption. China, Japan and South Korea depend heavily on Gulf crude and LNG, while several European economies were exposed through higher gas and shipping costs. Insurers and shipping companies are expected to wait for clearer security guarantees before returning traffic to normal levels.

Regional risks remain substantial. Israel’s actions in Lebanon and its hostility to any deal that leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact could complicate the next phase. Gulf states will also seek assurances that maritime security arrangements do not simply postpone another confrontation. Any breach of the ceasefire, attack on shipping or dispute over sanctions sequencing could quickly restore the risk premium in oil prices.

Dubai has created a federal authority to steer artificial intelligence, public data and digital government policy under one national framework, marking a new phase in the country’s plan to embed autonomous systems across state services.

HH Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President, Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, approved the establishment of the Artificial Intelligence and Data Authority on June 14, placing it directly under the Cabinet and giving it responsibility for coordinating national priorities, legislation and strategies in a field central to administration and economic competitiveness.

Omar Sultan Al Olama, Minister of State for Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy and Remote Work Applications, has been named chairman of the authority. His appointment gives the new body a leadership link to the UAE’s earlier push to create a ministerial portfolio for artificial intelligence in 2017, when the country sought to position itself ahead of other governments in adopting emerging technologies.

The authority will combine functions that had been handled by three separate structures: the Office of Artificial Intelligence, Digital Economy and Remote Work Applications; the Digital Government Sector at the Telecommunications and Digital Government Regulatory Authority; and the UAE Data Office. The consolidation is intended to reduce overlap, strengthen accountability and establish a unified operating model for AI, data sharing, cybersecurity, digital services and platforms.

The move follows an April Cabinet framework that set a target of shifting 50 per cent of federal government sectors, services and operations to Agentic AI within two years. Agentic AI refers to systems capable of analysing information, making recommendations and carrying out multi-step tasks with limited human intervention. For public administration, that shift could reshape licensing, permitting, customer service, procurement and internal workflows.

Sheikh Mohammed said the goal was a government that is “faster, smarter and always one step ahead”, while stressing that the model should be built around people rather than paperwork. The authority’s mandate reflects that balance, combining service acceleration with requirements for data quality, responsible sharing and information security across federal entities.

A central task will be the development and leadership of the national AI strategy, alongside efforts to raise the contribution of the digital economy to gross domestic product. The authority is also expected to operate AI-powered national data platforms to support evidence-based decision-making and proactive services that anticipate the needs of residents, citizens and businesses before they approach counters or online portals.

The creation of the body comes as Dubai and Abu Dhabi accelerate their own digital government programmes. Dubai has directed entities to integrate individual and business services into a unified digital platform within a year, while Abu Dhabi’s 2025–2027 digital strategy is backed by AED13 billion in planned investment and seeks to build an AI-powered government model through cloud adoption, automation and public service delivery.

The federal authority may serve as the coordination layer between national policy and emirate-level execution. Its role in aligning federal and local initiatives will be critical because the UAE’s digital government ecosystem includes multiple regulators, service platforms and data custodians. Without consistent standards, AI projects can produce fragmented datasets, uneven user experiences and security gaps.

The policy challenge is not limited to technology deployment. Governments worldwide are facing scrutiny over how AI systems handle personal data, explain decisions and preserve human accountability, particularly when automated tools influence public services. The authority will need to set clear rules for model governance, data access, audit trails, bias testing, procurement and escalation to officials in high-impact cases.

For businesses, the authority’s creation signals a more centralised route for engagement with public-sector AI and data initiatives. Technology companies, cloud providers, cybersecurity firms, universities and AI start-ups are likely to watch closely for standards that shape procurement, compliance and partnerships. Its international coordination mandate also opens room for bilateral projects, regulatory dialogue and talent development.

US President Donald Trump’s assertion that an interim agreement with Iran would be signed on Sunday and immediately reopen the Strait of Hormuz has exposed a widening gap between Washington’s public confidence and Tehran’s more guarded account of the negotiations.

Trump said in a social media post on Saturday that “the Deal is scheduled to get signed tomorrow” and that, once completed, the Hormuz Strait would be “OPEN TO ALL”. He also claimed that Iran “no longer wants a Nuclear weapon”, presenting the proposed arrangement as the first step towards ending months of fighting and restoring one of the world’s most important maritime corridors.

Tehran did not confirm Trump’s timetable. Foreign Ministry officials urged caution, saying no final decision had been taken and that the text still needed approval through Iran’s political and security channels. The contradiction left diplomats and energy traders watching whether Sunday would produce a formal signing, a looser statement of intent, or another delay in negotiations that have repeatedly moved close to agreement before stalling.

The immediate dispute centres on three issues: who manages the waterway after reopening, whether Iran can collect payments or transit fees from ships, and how quickly financial relief would be provided to the Islamic Republic. Washington wants unfettered navigation through the strait, while Tehran has sought arrangements giving it a supervisory role over traffic in waters it considers central to its security.

A draft framework under discussion is understood to include a halt to hostilities, reopening of the strait, the lifting of some restrictions affecting Iranian trade, and a 60-day negotiation period on nuclear issues. The most sensitive question remains the fate of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile and the level of international access to nuclear sites damaged during the conflict. Trump has framed the draft as a firm barrier against an Iranian weapon, but the technical details appear unresolved.

Mediators from Qatar and Pakistan have intensified contacts with both sides, with Islamabad positioning itself as a key channel between Washington and Tehran. The idea of an electronic signing has been floated, reflecting the difficulty of arranging a public ceremony while military tensions persist. A formal document could still fall short of a comprehensive peace accord, functioning instead as a memorandum designed to freeze the conflict and open a longer bargaining phase.

The stakes are unusually high because the Strait of Hormuz handles a large share of global energy trade. Around 20 million barrels per day of oil moved through the waterway in 2024, roughly one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption. The route is also critical for liquefied natural gas, particularly cargoes from Qatar and the UAE, with no realistic alternative route for many volumes.

Oil markets have reacted sharply to every signal from the talks. Prices fell after Trump projected confidence in a deal, but the decline was limited by Iran’s refusal to confirm the Sunday signing and by doubts over whether ships could return quickly to normal passage. Energy traders remain concerned that even a signed agreement may require demining, naval coordination, insurance cover and guarantees against attacks before full commercial traffic resumes.

The conflict has already reshaped shipping behaviour across the Gulf. Tanker operators have faced higher insurance costs, altered routing plans and greater scrutiny from naval forces. Some cargoes have been delayed, while refiners in Asia have reviewed emergency supply options. Gulf exporters have pushed for a settlement that restores predictable access without creating a precedent for tolls or political control over an international chokepoint.

Iran’s internal politics add another layer of uncertainty. Hardline factions have criticised concessions that could be seen as surrendering leverage gained from the closure, while pragmatists argue that reopening the strait and securing financial relief would ease pressure on the economy. Any agreement signed by negotiators may still need to withstand domestic scrutiny from institutions close to the supreme leader and security establishment.

Washington also faces resistance from allies worried that a narrow Hormuz deal may leave wider regional conflicts unresolved. Israel has pressed for stronger guarantees on Iran’s nuclear programme and regional networks, while Gulf governments want de-escalation without giving Tehran authority over maritime flows. The draft does not appear to settle disputes linked to Lebanon or allied armed groups, leaving potential flashpoints outside the core text.

Abu Dhabi has denied claims that money was transferred from the UAE to Iran, rejecting allegations that frozen Iranian assets, including a reported $3bn tranche, had been released or routed through its financial system.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the reports were “entirely false and unfounded” and stressed that no frozen Iranian funds had been released, transferred or facilitated through the country. The denial, published on Saturday, followed claims circulating in international coverage that Abu Dhabi had agreed to unlock billions of dollars for Tehran as part of efforts to lower tensions during a volatile phase in the Gulf.

The ministry also urged media outlets to rely on official information and avoid circulating unverified allegations, a pointed response at a time when financial claims are feeding into broader speculation about a possible US-Iran arrangement involving sanctions relief, maritime access and frozen oil revenues held abroad. The statement did not give further details on the origin of the allegations or identify the outlets behind them, but its language left little room for ambiguity on the central issue.

The dispute has emerged against a sensitive regional backdrop. Washington and Tehran have been discussing mechanisms under which Iran could gain phased access to assets blocked overseas, with any movement of funds expected to face strict scrutiny under sanctions rules. Tehran has long argued that billions of dollars in oil revenues held in foreign accounts should be made available, while US officials have insisted that any economic benefit must be linked to compliance and channelled in a manner that does not strengthen Iran’s military or security apparatus.

The UAE’s denial is significant because Dubai has historically served as a major commercial gateway for Iranian traders, exchange houses and re-export businesses. That role has created both economic interdependence and regulatory pressure, particularly as sanctions have tightened around Iran’s banks, oil entities and affiliated networks. Emirati authorities have sought to balance trade links with tighter financial oversight, a task made harder by periods of confrontation between Iran and Western powers.

The allegation of a $3bn transfer also carries political sensitivity because it intersects with wider claims about Gulf states using financial channels to secure calm during the conflict. Regional governments have been under pressure to protect shipping, energy flows, aviation routes and investor confidence while avoiding steps that could be interpreted as direct participation in the confrontation. For the UAE, whose reputation rests heavily on financial stability and predictable regulation, any suggestion that sanctioned funds moved through its system risks scrutiny from partners, banks and markets.

The denial came as diplomatic activity around the US-Iran conflict intensified, with negotiators working on possible arrangements tied to the Strait of Hormuz, the US naval posture near Iranian ports and the sequencing of economic incentives. The waterway remains central to Gulf security because it handles a large share of global seaborne oil and liquefied natural gas trade. Even limited disruption can affect insurance premiums, freight costs, crude prices and confidence across energy-importing economies.

Markets have been reacting sharply to signs of de-escalation. UAE equities rallied on expectations that a deal could reduce the risk premium attached to regional assets, while oil prices moved lower from elevated levels as traders weighed the possibility of freer shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Banks, property firms and logistics companies remain especially sensitive to the trajectory of talks because their earnings and valuations are closely linked to capital flows, tourism, shipping schedules and business confidence.

The UAE has firmly rejected allegations that money was moved from the country to Iran, including claims involving as much as $3bn, saying no frozen Iranian assets have been released, transferred or facilitated through its territory.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs said reports carried by unnamed international media outlets were “entirely false and unfounded”. The statement followed accounts suggesting that funds linked to Iran had been unlocked through the UAE at a sensitive point in regional diplomacy and amid speculation over possible financial provisions in wider talks involving Tehran and Washington.

Abu Dhabi’s denial focused on two points: that money had not been transferred from the UAE to the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that frozen Iranian funds had not been moved through the country’s financial system. The ministry also urged media organisations to rely on official sources and avoid circulating unverified allegations, signalling concern that claims about sanctioned funds could carry diplomatic and market consequences.

The dispute comes as negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme, regional security and access to blocked revenues remain under close scrutiny. Tehran has long pressed for sanctions relief and the release of funds held overseas, while Washington has insisted that any economic benefit must be tied to verifiable commitments. US Vice President JD Vance said Iran would not receive money merely for signing an agreement or attending talks, seeking to push back against reports that financial concessions were already in motion.

The allegations concerning the UAE emerged against that backdrop, with disputed accounts suggesting that billions of dollars could be used as part of an arrangement to reduce tensions and support wider diplomacy. Abu Dhabi’s response leaves no room for ambiguity, framing the claims not as a misunderstanding over technical banking arrangements but as false assertions about the movement of money.

Frozen Iranian assets have been among the most contentious elements of diplomacy with Tehran for years. Funds linked to Iranian oil sales and other revenues have been restricted in various jurisdictions because of US sanctions, banking compliance rules and political negotiations. Even when release mechanisms are discussed, they often involve strict channels, humanitarian carve-outs, escrow accounts or controls intended to prevent money from being used for sanctioned activity.

The UAE’s position is complicated by its role as a financial, logistics and trade hub. Dubai has deep commercial ties with the wider region, including a long-standing Iranian business presence, while Abu Dhabi has sought to balance de-escalation with strict compliance obligations. That balance has become more delicate as the Gulf faces pressure from military flare-ups, energy-market uncertainty and diplomatic manoeuvring around Iran’s nuclear and regional posture.

Abu Dhabi has repeatedly presented de-escalation as a core principle of its foreign policy. The country has maintained dialogue channels across the Gulf while aligning its financial system with international anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism financing standards. Officials are particularly sensitive to claims that could imply sanctioned transactions, given the UAE’s continuing efforts to strengthen regulatory oversight and protect its standing as a global financial centre.

The timing of the denial also matters for markets. Reports involving Iranian funds, sanctions relief or Gulf-based payment routes can affect oil prices, currency expectations and risk perceptions across the region. Any suggestion that blocked Iranian money is being released outside a formal agreement would invite scrutiny from Washington, European capitals and financial institutions responsible for sanctions compliance.

Iran has continued to demand access to its overseas funds as part of any diplomatic settlement, arguing that sanctions have restricted legitimate revenues. The United States has treated financial access as leverage, linking relief to nuclear, security and maritime assurances. Gulf states, meanwhile, are trying to avoid becoming the venue for an unmanaged financial compromise that could expose them to retaliation, sanctions risk or political criticism.

The UAE statement did not provide operational details beyond the categorical denial, nor did it identify the specific reports it was rejecting. Its wording was nevertheless direct, making clear that the government wanted the matter closed before speculation could harden into an accepted narrative.

President Donald Trump said the United States and Iran could sign a peace agreement as early as this weekend to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but Tehran pushed back against his claim, saying no final decision had been made on any settlement.

The competing statements left diplomacy in a delicate phase on Friday, with Washington presenting the outline of a breakthrough while Iran signalled that core demands remained unresolved. The proposed arrangement, if completed, would aim to end months of confrontation, restore safer passage through one of the world’s most important energy corridors and open a further negotiating track on Iran’s nuclear programme.

Trump, speaking from the Oval Office on Thursday, said a “great settlement” was close and that he had cancelled planned military strikes after being told the final points had been approved at the highest level in Tehran. He said the Strait of Hormuz, partly shut to commercial shipping during the conflict, would reopen once the documents were signed. A signing could take place in Europe over the weekend, with Vice President JD Vance expected to lead the US delegation.

Iran’s foreign ministry, however, said speculation over the timing and location of any signing was premature. Spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said Tehran had not reached a final decision and would not compromise on its “red lines”. The statement appeared designed to slow expectations created by Trump’s announcement while preserving space for negotiations through intermediaries.

The Strait of Hormuz has been at the centre of the crisis because it carries roughly a fifth of globally traded oil and large volumes of liquefied natural gas. Any durable reopening would ease pressure on shipping, insurance, crude prices and regional energy security. Oil markets moved lower after Trump’s remarks, reflecting hopes that a diplomatic settlement could restore more predictable Gulf traffic, though traders remained wary of renewed clashes.

The framework under discussion is understood to include continued de-escalation, steps to restore shipping through the strait, and a limited negotiation window on nuclear issues. Iran has sought relief from sanctions, access to frozen funds and guarantees that its export routes will not be blocked. Washington’s central demand remains a verifiable assurance that Iran will not acquire a nuclear weapon.

The gap between the two sides remains substantial. Tehran has resisted demands that would be seen domestically as surrendering strategic leverage, while Washington faces pressure from regional partners and Congress to ensure that any agreement has enforceable limits. Israel has said it is not a party to the deal and has maintained that Iran’s nuclear and missile infrastructure must be addressed more directly.

Qatar and other Gulf states have played a central role in keeping channels open, while regional governments have pressed for a reopening of shipping lanes after weeks of disruption. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait have all been exposed to the economic and security risks of the confrontation, including threats to ports, energy facilities and airspace.

Military tensions have not disappeared. US forces were reported to have intercepted Iranian drones near the Strait of Hormuz even as diplomatic claims were being made. Iran has also accused the United States of shifting positions during talks, while Washington has blamed Tehran for threats to commercial shipping and regional bases.

The political stakes are high for Trump, who has framed the possible settlement as proof that military pressure can produce a diplomatic outcome. His critics argue that the public announcement may have run ahead of Iranian approval and could complicate final bargaining. Iranian officials, facing their own hardline pressures, are unlikely to endorse language that suggests they accepted terms under threat of renewed strikes.

The April ceasefire, already weakened by repeated exchanges, provides the immediate backdrop to the talks. Both sides have accused each other of violations, and shipping operators have treated the strait as a high-risk zone. Crew safety, war-risk insurance and naval escort arrangements are expected to remain central issues even if an agreement is signed.

US forces struck military targets across Iran overnight, widening an air campaign that has pushed Washington and Tehran closer to open conflict as President Donald Trump warned that further attacks would follow unless a peace deal is secured.

Central Command said the operation was completed about four hours after it began, shortly after midnight in Tehran, with strikes aimed at military surveillance assets, communication systems and air defence sites. The command described the action as a response to Iran’s “unwarranted and continued aggression” and said Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy assets used precision munitions against targets that posed threats to US forces and commercial shipping in regional waters.

The latest wave marks a sharp escalation in a confrontation already centred on the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway that carries a large share of the world’s seaborne oil trade. Washington has linked its military action to threats against shipping, attacks on regional facilities and the downing of a US Army Apache helicopter near the waterway. Tehran has denied that it is the source of the wider crisis, accusing Washington of violating its sovereignty and warning that US bases in the region could face retaliation.

Trump, speaking before the overnight strikes, said Iran had delayed negotiations and would face heavier bombardment if it failed to agree to a settlement. His remarks signalled that the White House is combining military pressure with demands for a diplomatic breakthrough, a strategy that has drawn support from hawks in Washington and concern from allies fearful of a broader Gulf conflict.

Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had said earlier that Central Command would be “busy” and that key Iranian facilities would be hit. The timing gave Tehran some warning but did little to reduce the risks of miscalculation. Iran’s military said it retained the capacity to respond and later claimed attacks on US-linked positions in Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan, while US officials said air defences intercepted incoming missiles and there were no immediate confirmed reports of major damage at American facilities.

The strikes have placed Gulf states under heightened security pressure. Bahrain hosts the US Fifth Fleet, Kuwait is a long-standing logistics hub for US forces, and Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have all played roles in managing previous rounds of US-Iran tension. Air defence systems across parts of the Gulf were put on alert as shipping companies reviewed exposure to the Strait of Hormuz and energy markets weighed the risk of sustained disruption.

Oil prices have remained sensitive to the crisis, with traders focused on whether Iran could obstruct tanker traffic or whether US naval protection would keep the route open. Washington has said the strait remains open, but Tehran’s threats have added a war-risk premium to shipping and insurance costs. Any prolonged disruption would place fresh pressure on importing economies and complicate efforts by central banks to manage inflation.

The military action also raises questions over the legal and political limits of the president’s authority. The White House has framed the strikes as self-defence against threats to US personnel and international commerce. Critics in Congress are expected to press for fuller briefings on the scope of the campaign, the targets selected and whether the administration intends to seek explicit authorisation if operations continue.

Iran’s nuclear programme remains central to the confrontation. Washington wants verifiable limits on enrichment activity, tighter inspection arrangements and guarantees that Tehran will not move towards weaponisation. Iran insists its programme is for civilian purposes and has demanded sanctions relief, access to frozen assets and security guarantees before accepting any broader settlement. The gap between the two positions has widened as military action has intensified.

Mediation efforts continue through regional channels, with Qatar and Oman seen as the most likely intermediaries capable of carrying messages between the two sides. Previous US-Iran understandings have often depended on indirect contacts, but the present atmosphere is more volatile because of active strikes, retaliatory threats and pressure on regional bases.

Washington carried out overnight strikes on Iranian military sites near the Strait of Hormuz after President Donald Trump said Tehran had shot down a US Army Apache helicopter patrolling the strategic waterway.

US Central Command said the operation was launched on Trump’s orders and described the action as self-defence. The strikes targeted air defence systems, ground control stations and surveillance radar sites positioned around the Gulf chokepoint, before ending several hours later. The Pentagon framed the operation as a limited response intended to degrade Iran’s ability to threaten US aircraft and shipping rather than open a broader campaign.

The action followed Trump’s assertion that Iran had brought down an AH-64 Apache helicopter during a patrol near the Strait of Hormuz. Two crew members were rescued and were described as safe and uninjured. The helicopter came down near the coast of Oman, placing the incident close to one of the world’s most sensitive maritime corridors and raising the risk of renewed escalation between Washington and Tehran.

Trump said the United States had been informed that the aircraft had been shot down while conducting a routine mission over the strait. He said the survival of the crew did not remove the need for a response, arguing that Washington had to answer what he called an attack on US forces. His remarks came as the White House was attempting to keep diplomatic channels open with Tehran while also maintaining pressure over Iran’s military activity in the Gulf.

Iranian officials condemned the US strikes and warned that American attacks on Iranian territory would draw countermeasures. Tehran’s response appeared calibrated, combining public defiance with signals that it did not seek a full-scale confrontation. Iranian statements identified damage in areas including Jask, Sirik and Qeshm, locations that sit near the mouth of the Gulf and are central to surveillance of maritime and air movements through Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz remains a central pressure point in any confrontation involving Iran, the United States and Gulf states. Roughly a fifth of the world’s oil consumption passes through the waterway, along with large volumes of liquefied natural gas. Even limited military exchanges in the area can affect shipping costs, insurance premiums and energy market expectations, particularly when naval, missile and drone capabilities are brought into play.

The US military has maintained a heavy presence across the Gulf through bases, naval deployments and air patrols intended to protect commercial shipping and deter attacks on regional partners. Iran, meanwhile, has invested heavily in coastal missile batteries, drones, fast-attack craft and radar networks designed to offset US conventional superiority. That asymmetry makes the Hormuz area prone to sudden confrontations, especially when aircraft or vessels operate close to disputed zones.

The helicopter incident adds pressure to an already fragile security environment. Washington and Tehran have been engaged in indirect and direct contacts aimed at limiting wider conflict, while Israel-Iran tensions and attacks involving allied groups have kept the region on edge. Any exchange between US and Iranian forces risks spilling into Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq and the United Arab Emirates, where American military assets and personnel are stationed.

The White House faces a difficult balance between deterrence and containment. A muted response could be interpreted by Iran and its allies as reluctance to defend US forces, while a broader strike package could trigger retaliation against bases, ships or energy infrastructure. The choice of radar and air defence sites suggested an attempt to punish the alleged attack without directly targeting Iran’s political leadership or core energy facilities.

For Tehran, the episode carries its own risks. A successful strike on a US military aircraft may be presented domestically as proof of deterrent strength, but it also exposes Iran to further US action at a time when its economy remains under heavy sanctions and its regional network is under strain. Iran’s leadership must also consider Gulf Arab reactions, as any extended disruption in Hormuz could damage neighbouring economies and invite a larger international response.

Saudi Arabia’s Arabian Dyar has put its planned Tadawul initial public offering on hold, becoming the latest issuer to step back from the Kingdom’s listings pipeline as volatile trading conditions and weaker investor appetite complicate efforts to bring larger private companies to market.

The real estate and construction company, formally known as Aldyar Alarabiya Real Estate Development Company, had faced a June deadline to complete the offer after securing approval from the Capital Market Authority at the end of December. That approval covered the registration and sale of 97.5 million shares on the Saudi Exchange’s main market, equal to 30 per cent of the company’s capital of 325 million shares.

The decision to defer the transaction reflects a tougher environment for issuers seeking premium valuations. Arabian Dyar had been aiming for a valuation of about SAR16 billion, a level viewed by some advisers as demanding against a backdrop of selective demand, geopolitical uncertainty and uneven performance across regional equities. The company is not cancelling its long-term capital-market ambitions, but the timing has become less favourable for a deal requiring strong institutional support.

The pause comes despite a sizeable business profile. Arabian Dyar’s investment portfolio has been estimated at about SAR15 billion, anchored by the Dyar Al-Haram project in Makkah, which is being developed in phases with investments of about SAR10 billion. The company has also pursued expansion around high-profile urban projects, including an agreement with Umm Al-Qura for Development and Construction to reserve land at the Masar destination for a residential tower involving investment of around SAR700 million and more than 300 residential units.

A listing would have given investors exposure to the Kingdom’s real estate development cycle at a time when major housing, hospitality and religious-tourism projects remain central to Vision 2030. Yet the same scale that made the company attractive also increased scrutiny over pricing, execution risk and the sustainability of earnings in a sector exposed to funding costs, land values and construction delivery schedules.

Market conditions have become harder to read. The Tadawul All Share Index rose 1.3 per cent on Tuesday to 11,115.37, helped by gains in heavyweight financial stocks, but the rebound followed a period of choppy trading linked to regional tensions and wider caution in Gulf markets. The benchmark had ended 2025 down 12.8 per cent, its sharpest annual percentage fall since 2015, leaving investors more sensitive to valuation discipline and aftermarket performance.

Saudi Arabia remains the Gulf’s busiest IPO market, but demand has become more selective. Thirteen main-market IPOs in 2025 raised about SAR14.5 billion, broadly in line with the previous year’s SAR14.2 billion, yet the headline figures masked a shift in investor behaviour. Buyers have shown willingness to support well-priced transactions with clear growth stories, while larger deals seeking aggressive valuation multiples face more resistance.

Arabian Dyar is not the only company reassessing timing. Quick-delivery platform Ninja has been testing investor appetite, including meetings with investors in London, but has not yet decided whether to proceed with a listing that could raise about $1 billion in late 2026 or early 2027. The company has appointed major international and local banks as advisers, signalling continued interest in public markets even as timing remains uncertain.

Other issuers are still moving ahead. Mutlaq Al-Ghowairi Contracting Company has been preparing to sell 240 million shares, representing 30 per cent of its share capital, on the main market. Its offer is structured across institutional and retail tranches, with book-building and subscription windows designed to meet regulatory timelines. The contrast shows that the Saudi IPO market is not closed, but pricing and sector positioning have become decisive.

For regulators and market operators, the shelving of Arabian Dyar’s offer is a reminder that a deep pipeline alone cannot guarantee execution. Saudi Arabia has spent years widening participation in its equity market, encouraging private-sector listings and using the exchange as a channel for economic diversification. The next phase may depend less on the number of approvals and more on whether issuers are prepared to accept valuations that leave room for investors after listing.

Etihad Airways is ordering more widebody aircraft as the Abu Dhabi carrier moves to restore momentum across long-haul markets and lift flying by about 8 per cent from year-earlier levels by 15 June.

Chief executive Antonoaldo Neves said the airline was buying widebody planes in double digits, though he declined to identify the manufacturer, aircraft type or exact number. The remarks, made on the sidelines of a global airline industry gathering in Brazil, point to a fresh phase in Etihad’s expansion as Gulf carriers race to secure scarce delivery slots and capture rising intercontinental demand.

The planned purchase comes as Etihad works to strengthen its position from Zayed International Airport, where Abu Dhabi is seeking a larger share of transit, premium and inbound tourism traffic. Widebody aircraft are central to that strategy because they support higher-capacity services to Europe, North America, Asia and Australia, while also giving the carrier more cargo space on passenger flights.

Neves said the airline expects to be flying about 8 per cent more than a year earlier by mid-June, signalling confidence that demand remains resilient despite pressure from fuel costs, regional airspace disruption and aircraft delivery bottlenecks. He also indicated that the carrier has no current plan to cut capacity as a cost-saving measure, with empty seats seen as a bigger financial risk than maintaining operations through a volatile market.

Etihad’s latest move follows a period of disciplined expansion after years of restructuring. The airline has shifted away from the aggressive equity-alliance strategy of the past decade and focused instead on network growth, aircraft utilisation and profitability. Its turnaround has given management greater room to pursue fleet investment while avoiding a return to the costly expansion model that once weighed on its balance sheet.

The carrier reported a strong 2025 performance, with net profit reaching about $698 million, passenger numbers rising to 22.4 million and fleet size expanding to 127 aircraft. Load factor stood near 88 per cent, reflecting robust demand across key markets. The airline added aircraft during the year, brought more Airbus A380 capacity back into service and continued to open routes in Europe and Asia.

Etihad has already placed sizeable orders and commitments as part of its long-term growth plan. A 2025 agreement covered 28 Boeing widebody aircraft, including 787s and 777X jets, with deliveries expected from 2028. The airline also moved to add Airbus A330-900 aircraft, additional A350-1000s and A350 freighters, reinforcing a fleet strategy built around flexibility across passenger and cargo markets.

The new widebody order under discussion appears to sit within a broader ambition to grow the fleet towards 200 aircraft by 2030, above an earlier target of about 170. Such growth would allow Etihad to expand beyond its current network, deepen frequencies on high-yield routes and improve connectivity through Abu Dhabi as the emirate develops tourism, financial services, advanced industry and logistics.

The timing is significant. Airlines worldwide continue to face aircraft shortages caused by production delays at Boeing and Airbus, engine supply issues and longer maintenance turnaround times. Carriers with strong balance sheets have been trying to secure aircraft years ahead of delivery, while lessors have benefited from high demand for widebody and narrow-body jets. Gulf airlines, which rely heavily on long-haul transfer traffic, are especially exposed to delivery delays because widebody capacity determines how quickly they can scale global networks.

Etihad’s expansion also comes as regional competition intensifies. Emirates remains the largest long-haul carrier in the Gulf, Qatar Airways continues to invest heavily in its fleet and network, and Saudi Arabia is building Riyadh Air as part of a wider push to turn the kingdom into a major aviation and tourism hub. Against that backdrop, Etihad is seeking to grow without repeating the overstretch that marked earlier phases of its history.

Abu Dhabi’s upgraded airport infrastructure provides the platform for that push. Zayed International Airport has increased capacity sharply and gives Etihad room to add routes, improve passenger handling and compete more directly for premium traffic. The airline’s ability to fill larger aircraft will depend not only on transfer demand but also on Abu Dhabi’s success in attracting visitors, business travellers and conferences.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said it had launched missile strikes on “enemy bases in the region” after US forces hit targets near the Strait of Hormuz, pushing Gulf states into a new security alert as sirens sounded in Kuwait and Bahrain.

Guard commanders framed the operation as retaliation for US strikes on Iranian coastal positions around Sirik and Qeshm Island, both close to one of the world’s most sensitive energy corridors. US forces said earlier action against Iranian radar and surveillance sites followed the launch of drones towards shipping lanes in and around the Strait of Hormuz. All the drones were reported intercepted before reaching targets.

Seven ballistic missiles were fired towards US-linked facilities in Kuwait and Bahrain, with most intercepted by regional air defence systems and one failing before impact. Iran claimed it had targeted Ali Al Salem airbase in Kuwait and the headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. US officials denied damage to the Bahrain facility and said there were no American casualties from the latest salvo.

Kuwait activated air raid sirens and emergency alerts across parts of the country as air defences engaged incoming threats. Bahrain also issued warnings after explosions were reported and residents were told to follow civil defence instructions. Gulf governments moved quickly to reassure the public that airports, ports and energy infrastructure remained under monitoring, though heightened security measures caused disruption to aviation and maritime operations.

The exchange marks one of the sharpest escalations since Washington and Tehran began indirect efforts to stabilise a fragile ceasefire that has been under strain for weeks. The Strait of Hormuz, through which about a fifth of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes, remains central to the confrontation. Any sustained threat to shipping there would have immediate consequences for crude prices, insurance costs, tanker routing and Gulf export schedules.

US forces described their strikes on Iranian coastal sites as defensive, saying the targeted installations were linked to surveillance and targeting systems that could threaten commercial shipping and allied military assets. Iran rejected that account, calling the attacks a violation of its sovereignty and warning that any assault near its southern coast would be answered beyond its borders.

Tehran’s use of the IRGC Aerospace Force underlines the role of missiles and drones as its main tools of pressure against US positions and Gulf-based military infrastructure. The Guard has invested heavily in ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and one-way attack drones, allowing it to threaten bases, ports and vessels without relying on conventional air power.

Washington has maintained that its objective is to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and prevent Iranian attacks on regional maritime traffic. US naval assets operating from Bahrain and other regional facilities have been placed at the centre of that mission, making them likely targets whenever Iran seeks to signal that it can raise the cost of American military action.

Kuwait and Bahrain face particular exposure because they host key US military facilities while also depending on regional stability for aviation, trade and energy flows. Kuwait’s earlier airport disruptions and damage linked to Iranian strikes had already sharpened domestic concern about the conflict spilling into civilian spaces. Authorities have urged residents to avoid spreading unverified footage and to rely on official safety instructions during alerts.

Oil markets are expected to react sharply if the fighting threatens regular tanker passage through Hormuz. Even limited exchanges near the waterway can lift freight rates and war-risk premiums, while shipping firms may delay departures or reroute vessels if commanders judge that drones, missiles or naval harassment pose unacceptable risks.

Diplomatic channels remain active, but the latest strikes have narrowed room for compromise. Iran has tied any durable de-escalation to sanctions relief, access to frozen revenues and limits on US military action near its coast. Washington has demanded an end to attacks on regional bases, allied states and shipping lanes before any broader arrangement can advance.

Crude loading at Oman’s Mina al Fahal terminal was suspended on Friday after an explosion near its single-buoy mooring berths, disrupting operations at one of the Sultanate’s most important oil export outlets.

Two people familiar with the matter said the blast occurred between SBM 1 and SBM 2 and was believed to have followed a drone attack. The timing of the incident was not immediately clear, and there was no official confirmation of casualties, damage levels or a restart schedule for loading operations.

Mina al Fahal, located near Muscat on the Gulf of Oman, is a central outlet for Oman Export Blend crude and forms a critical part of the country’s energy infrastructure. The terminal handles crude loading through offshore mooring systems linked by subsea pipelines, allowing tankers to receive cargoes without docking at a conventional jetty. Any extended stoppage could delay cargo schedules, raise insurance concerns and sharpen market attention on Gulf export security.

The incident comes as energy traders are already watching disruptions across key shipping corridors and export hubs in West Asia. Brent crude was trading near $95 a barrel on Friday, with market sentiment shaped by uncertainty over regional security risks, oil diplomacy and supply availability. Oman’s crude is closely watched in Asia, where it is widely used in physical trade and pricing linked to the Dubai-Oman benchmark system.

Oman is not a member of OPEC but is part of the broader OPEC+ production framework. Its crude exports are heavily oriented towards Asian buyers, particularly China, and the country’s ability to maintain steady flows has long supported its position as a reliable supplier outside the Strait of Hormuz choke point. Mina al Fahal’s location gives it strategic value, though the incident shows that infrastructure beyond the narrow waterway is also exposed to regional threats.

The single-buoy mooring system is designed to support offshore tanker loading, but it also creates concentrated operational points where safety inspections are required after any blast, fire or suspected attack. Operators usually need to assess subsea pipelines, mooring integrity, floating hoses, marine exclusion zones and potential hydrocarbon leaks before restarting loadings. Even when physical damage is limited, port and energy authorities can halt operations as a precaution while naval, security and technical teams complete checks.

No group had claimed responsibility for the alleged drone attack by Friday morning. Oman has traditionally maintained a neutral diplomatic posture in regional disputes and has often served as a channel for back-door talks involving Iran, the United States and Gulf states. A direct strike or attempted strike on energy infrastructure inside Oman would therefore carry wider political significance, particularly if investigators confirm the involvement of armed groups linked to conflicts elsewhere in the region.

The Sultanate has faced growing pressure from the broader instability around the Gulf and the Arabian Sea. Earlier disruptions in regional ports and tanker movements increased scrutiny of maritime security, while shipowners and commodity traders have adjusted routes, insurance cover and cargo timing to account for heightened risk. War-risk premiums, vessel availability and inspection delays can all raise the cost of moving crude even when production itself remains unaffected.

Mina al Fahal is also linked to Oman’s domestic refining and export ecosystem. The area hosts petroleum facilities, including refinery and storage infrastructure, and has long been associated with the country’s upstream and downstream operations. A prolonged loading suspension would be more damaging than a short safety halt, especially if cargoes awaiting shipment must be rescheduled or diverted through alternative logistics.

Oman’s authorities and terminal operators are likely to face immediate questions over the status of loaded and waiting tankers, the extent of any damage to the SBM berths, and whether crude flows through pipelines feeding the terminal have been reduced. Market participants will also look for clarity on whether the suspension affects all crude loadings or only operations tied to the damaged mooring area.