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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The measure passed 215-208 on Wednesday, with four Republicans breaking ranks to join Democrats in support. It now heads to the Senate, where its prospects remain uncertain, and would still face a presidential veto if it clears both chambers. The vote does not immediately halt US operations, but it marks the first time the Republican-controlled House has adopted a resolution aimed at forcing Trump to wind down the Iran campaign launched in late February.

The resolution requires the withdrawal of US forces from hostilities against Iran unless Congress authorises the mission. Its supporters argue that the president exceeded his authority by committing forces without explicit approval from lawmakers, while the administration maintains that military action is lawful and necessary to counter threats from Tehran and prevent Iran from advancing its nuclear programme.

The four Republicans who backed the measure — Thomas Massie, Brian Fitzpatrick, Tom Barrett and Warren Davidson — gave Democrats the margin needed to pass it. Their votes underscored a small but visible split inside Trump’s party over war powers, constitutional limits and the political cost of an open-ended conflict in the Middle East.

Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and sponsor of the resolution, framed the vote as a defence of Congress’s constitutional authority to decide whether the country goes to war. Democrats were united behind the measure, arguing that the White House had not provided a clear strategy, timeline or legal basis for continuing operations in Iran.

Republican leaders opposed the resolution, saying it risked weakening the president’s negotiating position and limiting his ability to respond to threats against US forces and allies. Speaker Mike Johnson and other Trump allies have argued that the commander-in-chief has authority to conduct limited military operations without waiting for Congress, especially where national security interests are at stake.

The vote followed weeks of procedural manoeuvring. A House vote expected before the Memorial Day recess was delayed after signs that a handful of Republicans were prepared to join Democrats. Senate lawmakers had earlier advanced a similar war powers measure in a 50-47 procedural vote, with four Republicans siding with nearly all Democrats, signalling that congressional resistance was not confined to one chamber.

Trump has sought to describe the Iran campaign as limited, while critics say its duration and intensity have moved beyond short-term military action. US operations began alongside Israeli strikes on February 28 and have continued amid broader regional tensions involving Iran, Israel, Lebanon and Gulf security routes. The administration has cited threats to US personnel, shipping lanes and non-proliferation goals as justification for maintaining pressure on Tehran.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires a president to notify Congress after introducing US forces into hostilities and to terminate involvement within a set period unless lawmakers grant authorisation. Presidents from both parties have disputed aspects of the law, often treating it as a reporting framework rather than a firm restriction. The latest House vote revives that long-running contest between executive flexibility and legislative control over military action.

For Trump, the outcome creates a political complication even if it does not translate into binding policy. The House vote puts Republicans on record at a time when the party is preparing for midterm elections and facing internal debate over foreign policy, spending and loyalty to the president. Some Republican lawmakers fear that a prolonged conflict could drain attention from domestic priorities and expose vulnerable members to criticism over costs and casualties.

Democrats see the resolution as both a constitutional intervention and a political opening. They have linked the Iran operation to questions over military spending, transparency and presidential accountability, while urging the Senate to act quickly. Their strategy is to force Republicans to defend Trump’s handling of the war and to highlight divisions within the governing party.

The White House has shown no sign of retreat. Officials have argued that congressional action could embolden Iran and complicate diplomatic efforts. Trump retains the power to veto the measure, and Congress would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override him, a threshold that appears out of reach given current Republican opposition.

The measure applies to tenancy contract renewals across the emirate and means rents must remain unchanged for the duration of the freeze. New tenancy contracts for previously rented units must also be registered at the same rental value as the preceding agreement, preventing landlords from raising prices when a sitting tenant leaves and a new occupant moves in.

The move marks a direct intervention in Abu Dhabi’s property market at a time when housing costs, office demand and industrial leasing activity have been under pressure from population growth, economic expansion and rising investor interest. By freezing increases across all three major property categories, the authorities have widened protection beyond households to include retailers, small businesses, offices, workshops, warehouses and industrial operators.

Abu Dhabi Real Estate Centre, the emirate’s real estate regulator under the Department of Municipalities and Transport, is expected to implement the freeze through the tenancy registration system. Registration is central to the enforceability of tenancy contracts in Abu Dhabi, giving the directive immediate practical effect for landlords, tenants and property managers processing renewals or new agreements on previously occupied units.

Before the decision, landlords in Abu Dhabi could raise rents by up to 5 per cent annually at renewal, subject to the applicable notice rules and contract terms. The new 0 per cent ceiling suspends that allowance for the period of the measure. The decision does not create a permanent abolition of the rent cap framework, but it changes the operating position for contracts being renewed or registered while the freeze remains in place.

For tenants, the measure offers cost certainty at a time when rental inflation has become one of the most closely watched parts of household expenditure across the UAE. Residents renewing leases will not face the annual increase that many had expected under the previous cap. Businesses also gain temporary protection from higher occupancy costs, a factor that can influence pricing, hiring and expansion decisions.

For landlords, the freeze narrows room to adjust returns in line with market demand, maintenance costs and financing expenses. Property owners who were relying on rental uplift after a lease expiry will have to keep contract values unchanged for covered properties. The impact may be more pronounced in areas where market rents have moved above older contract values, leaving some landlords unable to close the gap during the freeze.

The policy also affects the brokerage and property management sectors. Leasing agents handling renewals will need to ensure contract values match the previous registered rent. Property managers will have to communicate the change to landlords and tenants, particularly where increase notices had already been issued or where renewal talks were under way before the announcement.

Abu Dhabi’s decision comes as the emirate continues to position real estate as a pillar of wider economic diversification. Demand has been supported by job creation, infrastructure spending, sovereign-backed investment, tourism, education, healthcare and the expansion of financial and technology-linked activity. Commercial and industrial assets have also gained attention as logistics, manufacturing and services firms look for space linked to the capital’s growth plans.

The freeze may help reduce short-term friction in the rental market by discouraging abrupt price adjustments and limiting disputes over renewal increases. It also gives households and companies a clearer basis for budgeting. At the same time, prolonged restrictions could prompt some landlords to delay upgrades, reassess leasing strategies or wait for further guidance before making investment decisions on rental assets.

The measure differs from Dubai’s rental framework, where permissible increases are linked to the rental index and the gap between current rent and market value. Abu Dhabi’s approach has relied on a broad annual cap for renewals, and the latest decision temporarily reduces that ceiling to zero across covered property sectors.

The transaction, valued at about $835 million, is the largest acquisition undertaken by AD Ports Group and is expected to close in the second half of 2026, subject to regulatory and antitrust approvals. The purchase will give the Abu Dhabi-listed group control of a business that operates key sugar and grain export terminals at the ports of Santos and Itaqui, two important gateways for Brazil’s agricultural trade.

CLI is being acquired from Macquarie Asset Management and IG4 Capital, which developed the platform into one of Brazil’s leading independent agribulk terminal operators. Existing senior management will remain in place after completion, with Gabriel Motta continuing as chief executive, a move intended to preserve operational continuity while AD Ports builds its Latin American strategy.

The deal marks a major step in AD Ports Group’s international expansion, extending its network beyond its established positions in the Gulf, Europe, Africa and Asia. It also deepens the company’s exposure to agrifood logistics, a priority area as countries seek more resilient food import channels and as commodity flows shift in response to demand growth, weather disruption and geopolitical pressures.

CLI owns 100 per cent of CLI Norte, which operates a terminal at the Port of Itaqui in Maranhão, and 80 per cent of CLI Sul, which operates at the Port of Santos in São Paulo state. CLI Sul is a major sugar export terminal and also handles corn and soyabeans, while CLI Norte serves as a strategic grains gateway within Brazil’s “Arc of the North”, a logistics corridor that has gained importance as production expands across central and northern regions.

The two terminals handled a combined 17 million tonnes of agribulk cargo in 2025. CLI generated AED654 million in revenue and AED360 million in earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation during the same year, underlining the scale of the platform AD Ports is adding to its portfolio.

Captain Mohamed Juma Al Shamisi, managing director and group chief executive of AD Ports Group, said the acquisition extends the group’s international reach into Latin America for the first time and strengthens agrifoods as one of its core verticals. The company plans to use CLI as a base for new trade routes linking Brazil with Khalifa Port and the Abu Dhabi Food Hub in KEZAD, as well as wider markets across the Indian Subcontinent, East Africa and Southeast Asia.

Brazil’s role in the transaction is central. The country is the world’s largest sugar exporter and among the top suppliers of soyabeans, corn and coffee. Sugar alone accounts for a substantial share of global export flows, while soyabeans and corn remain critical to feed, food and biofuel supply chains. AD Ports’ entry into this market gives it direct access to cargoes tied to long-term demand from Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

The acquisition comes as the UAE seeks deeper economic ties with South America. Negotiations with Mercosur, the trade bloc that includes Brazil, are aimed at establishing a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement, while bilateral investment links between the UAE and Brazil have already expanded across logistics, energy, infrastructure and food security. UAE investment in Brazil is estimated at about $5 billion.

For AD Ports Group, the transaction follows a series of large cross-border deals. The company acquired Spain’s Noatum in 2023 for AED2.65 billion, expanding its logistics and freight forwarding network, and bought a 51 per cent stake in Dubai-based Global Feeder Shipping in early 2024 for AED1.9 billion, strengthening its maritime capacity. The CLI purchase is larger than both and adds long-term concession-based port assets in a major commodity-exporting economy.

The acquisition also fits into AD Ports’ wider push to connect port infrastructure, shipping, logistics, economic zones and digital trade services. By linking CLI’s Brazilian terminals with Khalifa Port and Abu Dhabi’s food logistics infrastructure, the group aims to capture cargo flows from origin to destination rather than limiting itself to terminal operations.

The latest confrontation followed US military strikes on radar, drone control and launch facilities near Qeshm Island and Goruk after the downing of an American MQ-1 drone over international waters. US forces later intercepted Iranian missiles fired towards bases housing American troops in Kuwait, with no American casualties reported.

The exchange has complicated negotiations aimed at ending a three-month-old war that has drawn in US forces, Iran, Israel, Hezbollah and Gulf states hosting Western military assets. A ceasefire that took effect in early April has reduced the tempo of direct attacks but has not eliminated retaliatory strikes, maritime threats or cross-border fire linked to the wider conflict.

President Donald Trump sought to project confidence, saying Iran “really wants to make a deal” and that any agreement would be favourable to the United States and its allies. He also criticised domestic opponents of his approach, urging them to “sit back and relax” and saying the process would “work out well in the end”.

Tehran’s position remains more conditional. Iranian officials have tied any durable settlement to developments beyond the US-Iran track, including fighting in Lebanon and pressure on allied groups across the region. Iran has accused Washington of violating the spirit of the ceasefire by striking its territory while also holding the US responsible for Israeli military actions that Tehran says threaten any diplomatic outcome.

Kuwait, which hosts US Army Central and key American military facilities, has again found itself exposed to the conflict’s spillover. Air defence systems were activated after missile and drone threats were detected, and authorities said hostile projectiles were intercepted. The attacks have sharpened concerns among Gulf governments that even limited US-Iran exchanges could endanger civilian aviation, energy infrastructure and shipping routes.

The Strait of Hormuz remains central to the risk calculation. Qeshm Island sits near one of the world’s most important energy corridors, through which a substantial share of global oil and liquefied natural gas trade passes. Even short-lived disruptions around the waterway can affect insurance costs, tanker routes and crude prices, particularly when military activity involves drones, missiles and radar systems near coastal launch zones.

The US has framed its strikes as defensive and proportionate, arguing that Iran’s actions placed American personnel and regional partners at risk. Tehran has presented its response as retaliation for attacks on its territory, while the Revolutionary Guards have warned that further US action could draw stronger countermeasures.

The pattern has become familiar since the April ceasefire: one side reports a military provocation, the other launches a limited response, and both then return to diplomatic messaging while warning against escalation. A similar exchange took place last Thursday, when Iran said it targeted a US airbase after an American strike near Bandar Abbas. The repetition has raised questions over whether the ceasefire is functioning as a pause in the war or merely as a framework for controlled confrontation.

Regional diplomacy has grown more difficult as the conflict overlaps with renewed fighting involving Israel and Hezbollah. Washington has tried to separate the nuclear and security negotiations with Tehran from the Lebanon front, but Iran has resisted that compartmentalisation. The result is a negotiation process vulnerable to battlefield developments outside the direct US-Iran channel.

Trump’s public optimism suggests the White House still sees room for a deal, possibly within days if back-channel talks produce language acceptable to both sides. The administration is under pressure to prevent Iran from rebuilding military and nuclear-linked capabilities while avoiding a broader war that could strain US deployments and unsettle global energy markets.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s Parliament speaker and a central figure in talks with Washington, said no agreement would be approved without certainty that Iran had secured tangible gains. His remarks, broadcast through state media on Sunday, signalled that Tehran is seeking enforceable commitments rather than broad political assurances as diplomacy continues under pressure from military escalation, sanctions and deep mistrust.

Ghalibaf’s comments came as the conflict entered a decisive phase, with diplomatic channels remaining active despite strikes, threats of retaliation and sharp disagreements over nuclear guarantees, sanctions relief, frozen assets and security arrangements in the Strait of Hormuz. Washington has maintained that any deal must ensure Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, while Tehran has insisted that its sovereign rights, economic access and national security cannot be traded for temporary pauses in hostilities.

The statement also underlined the domestic constraints facing negotiators in Tehran. Ghalibaf, re-elected as Parliament speaker on May 25, has had to balance pressure from hardline factions wary of concessions with the practical need to secure economic relief. His position gives Parliament a direct role in shaping the political legitimacy of any settlement, particularly if the terms require legislative approval or public defence before a sceptical power structure.

Iran’s negotiating posture has hardened around the phrase “tangible results”, reflecting its demand that commitments by Washington be implemented before Tehran fulfils reciprocal obligations. That sequencing has become a central dispute. Tehran fears that a deal built on promises could unravel under domestic US political pressure or enforcement disputes, while Washington wants early Iranian commitments on military and nuclear restrictions before easing financial pressure.

The talks have been shaped by the conflict that erupted after US and allied military action against Iranian targets earlier this year, followed by attempts to establish a ceasefire framework. Strikes around southern Iran and the Gulf have kept tensions high, with the Strait of Hormuz remaining a key strategic concern because of its role in global energy shipments. Any prolonged disruption there would place renewed pressure on oil markets, shipping costs and regional security planning.

Ghalibaf accused the United States of using economic pressure and media operations to divide Iran, language aimed as much at domestic audiences as foreign negotiators. Tehran has framed the talks as a test of whether Washington is prepared to recognise Iran’s rights rather than impose surrender terms. That messaging helps the leadership defend engagement with the US without appearing to retreat under pressure.

Washington’s position remains centred on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and limiting the regional military risks tied to missiles, militias and maritime threats. President Donald Trump has said he wants a favourable deal but has also left open the possibility of further military action if diplomacy fails. That dual-track approach has reinforced Iranian doubts about US intentions while giving Washington leverage in negotiations.

Mediators in Qatar and Pakistan have sought to keep the process from collapsing. Doha remains important because of its role in financial arrangements and back-channel diplomacy, while Islamabad has offered political space for communication between the two sides. Discussions have touched on frozen assets, sanctions relief, oil access, ceasefire enforcement and maritime security, though the most contentious nuclear and military guarantees remain unresolved.

Iran’s economy has endured years of sanctions, currency pressure and restricted access to global financial channels. A settlement could ease some of those strains if it unlocks assets and restores parts of its oil trade. Yet any deal perceived as weak could trigger backlash from powerful factions that view negotiations with Washington as a strategic risk.

The updated position, issued on 29 May, broadens earlier sanctions guidance that focused on tolls, donations, offsets, digital assets and other indirect payments demanded in connection with passage through one of the world’s most important energy corridors. The warning makes clear that a guarantee, route clearance or other service from the Government of Iran may itself breach US sanctions rules if received by US persons or US-owned or controlled foreign entities.

“Regardless of whether a payment is made, US persons are prohibited from receiving services from the Government of Iran, including services related to a guarantee of safe passage,” the US Treasury said in its updated guidance.

The clarification raises the compliance stakes for shipowners, charterers, traders, insurers, reinsurers, banks and port-service providers at a time when maritime traffic through the Gulf has been disrupted by the conflict between Washington and Tehran. The Strait of Hormuz links the Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, carrying a large share of global seaborne crude and liquefied natural gas trade. Any prolonged restriction in the passage risks increasing freight costs, war-risk premiums and supply uncertainty for Asian and European buyers.

The Treasury’s move follows the designation on 27 May of the Persian Gulf Strait Authority, described by Washington as an Iranian body created to collect tolls and manage vessel passage through the waterway. US officials say the authority works with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its naval arm to direct traffic, require vessel information and impose payments or conditions in return for passage. The IRGC is already under multiple US sanctions authorities and is designated by Washington as a foreign terrorist organisation.

The latest guidance closes a potential loophole for companies that may have sought to avoid explicit toll payments while still obtaining informal assurances from Iranian authorities. Under the revised position, the problem is not only the transfer of funds. It is also the receipt of a service or guarantee from sanctioned Iranian actors. That distinction is likely to influence legal advice across the maritime sector, particularly for companies with US exposure, dollar transactions, US insurers, American investors or links to US financial institutions.

The warning also extends beyond US companies. Non-US firms and foreign financial institutions may face penalties if they participate in transactions involving the Government of Iran, the IRGC or blocked Iranian entities. Such exposure could include restrictions on access to the US financial system, asset freezes or other sanctions measures. The compliance risk is heightened where payments are routed through intermediaries, charities, embassy accounts, digital wallets, swaps or in-kind arrangements.

Washington has also warned Oman against any direct or indirect role in facilitating a toll mechanism for the Strait of Hormuz. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US would target actors involved in any such arrangement and penalise willing partners. The warning reflects US concern that regional intermediaries could be used to give Iran’s passage system a veneer of administrative or security coordination.

Energy companies are already adjusting their posture. Chevron chief executive Mike Wirth has said the company would not consider paying a toll to move ships through the strait, while noting that shipowners and insurers must be comfortable before normal traffic can resume. The company has vessels under third-party charter in the area, but vessel owners ultimately decide whether to transit.

For insurers and reinsurers, the guidance creates a sharper due-diligence obligation. Maritime service providers are expected to examine whether vessels have coordinated with Iranian bodies, provided sensitive voyage information, paid passage charges or accepted safe-passage guarantees. Failure to detect such links could expose companies to enforcement risk if US persons, financial institutions or insurers are drawn into prohibited activity.

The Strait of Hormuz has long been a pressure point in tensions between Iran and the US, but the latest dispute places sanctions compliance at the centre of vessel movement. Commercial operators now face a difficult balance between crew safety, contractual delivery obligations, insurance cover and exposure to US penalties. Even vessels carrying lawful cargo may face scrutiny if their passage involves Iranian authorisation outside permitted channels.

The policy also strengthens Washington’s effort to deny Tehran revenue from maritime pressure while preserving the principle of free navigation. For Iran, any toll or passage-guarantee regime could serve both financial and strategic objectives by asserting control over a chokepoint vital to global energy trade. For the US, treating even no-payment guarantees as prohibited services signals an attempt to prevent normalisation of that control.

The proposed arrangement would extend the current pause in fighting for 60 days and open a new round of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear programme. It has not yet received final approval from Trump, who held talks with senior national security officials at the White House after negotiators produced a draft understanding.

Trump signalled that he viewed the framework as a potential diplomatic opening, but he also set out demands that Iran has not publicly accepted. These include a permanent bar on nuclear weapons, unrestricted navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, the removal of maritime mines and guarantees over Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile. Tehran has pushed back against several of those points, insisting that sovereignty over the waterway and the scope of nuclear talks cannot be dictated by Washington.

The talks follow weeks of military escalation that drew in US forces, Iran and Israel, disrupting energy markets and raising fears of a wider regional war. The ceasefire has lowered the immediate risk of direct confrontation, but its extension has become entangled in the same issues that triggered the conflict: Iran’s nuclear capacity, missile capability, sanctions pressure and security arrangements across the Gulf.

A central sticking point is the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway through which a major share of the world’s seaborne oil trade passes. Washington wants guaranteed access for commercial shipping without tolls or military harassment. Iran has argued that management of the strait must be handled through regional understandings, including with Oman, and has resisted any language that would amount to a surrender of strategic leverage.

Sanctions relief is another unresolved element. Tehran wants oil restrictions eased and frozen assets released as part of any extended truce. US officials have been cautious about offering financial concessions before Iran makes verifiable commitments. The release of billions of dollars in frozen funds has been discussed, but the White House has not publicly committed to such a step.

The nuclear file remains the most politically sensitive issue for both sides. Trump has said Iran must never obtain a nuclear weapon and has criticised earlier diplomatic arrangements as insufficient. Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes and has rejected proposals that would require it to surrender control of enriched uranium or accept conditions it sees as undermining national sovereignty.

The proposed deal appears designed to defer the hardest questions rather than settle them immediately. It would extend the ceasefire and create a negotiating channel, but it does not appear to contain a final settlement on enrichment, missile limits, regional forces or sanctions sequencing. That makes Trump’s decision politically risky: approval could prevent a return to fighting, while rejection could revive military tensions within days.

The pressure on the White House is also economic. Any disruption in the Gulf can push up crude prices and fuel costs, feeding domestic political concerns. At the same time, Iran hawks in Washington are warning against a deal that allows Tehran to retain nuclear infrastructure, preserve missile capacity or gain sanctions relief without sweeping concessions.

Iran’s leadership faces its own constraints. Hardline factions are wary of any agreement that looks like capitulation after military confrontation. Diplomats in Tehran have therefore sought to present the talks as a process based on reciprocal steps, not unilateral concessions. Officials have also rejected suggestions that an agreement has already been finalised, saying decisions remain under review.

Regional actors are watching closely. Gulf states want a durable reduction in maritime risk and a return to stable energy flows, while Israel remains focused on Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes. Any ceasefire extension that leaves those issues unresolved may calm markets temporarily without removing the drivers of confrontation.

The next phase will depend on whether Trump accepts the draft understanding as a bridge to broader talks or demands more explicit Iranian commitments before signing off. For now, the proposed 60-day extension offers a diplomatic route away from renewed conflict, but the gap between US conditions and Iran’s public position remains wide.

Gas engine maker Innio is seeking a valuation of up to $20.25 billion in a New York listing, placing the Munich-based company at the centre of investor demand for businesses tied to artificial intelligence infrastructure and data centre power.

AI Alpine, Innio’s principal shareholder and an entity co-owned by funds managed by Advent International and the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, plans to sell 75 million shares at $24 to $27 each. At the top of the range, the offering would raise about $2.03 billion, with a further 11.25 million shares available to underwriters through a 30-day option. Innio has applied to list on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the ticker INIO.

The proposed transaction comes as power supply has become one of the biggest constraints facing the expansion of AI computing. Data centre developers are seeking faster access to reliable electricity as grid connections, substation capacity and transmission upgrades struggle to keep pace with demand from cloud platforms, chip-intensive computing and enterprise AI workloads. That shift has lifted market interest in companies offering modular, decentralised and quick-start power systems.

Innio manufactures gas engines and related systems under the Jenbacher and Waukesha brands. Its products are used in data centres, microgrids, grid stabilisation, industrial energy systems and gas compression. The company also operates a services business built around maintenance, spare parts, upgrades and digital monitoring across an installed base of about 44 gigawatts in roughly 100 countries.

The IPO is being positioned less as a conventional industrial listing and more as an infrastructure play linked to the AI buildout. Innio’s annual data centre equipment orders expanded about 16-fold between 2020 and 2025, while overall equipment order intake reached $3.88 billion in 2025, up nearly 188 per cent from the previous year. Data centre order intake rose to about $2.28 billion in 2025 and stood at about $1.01 billion in the first quarter of 2026, underscoring how sharply customer demand has shifted towards behind-the-meter power.

Financial disclosures show revenue of $2.64 billion in 2025, up 22.1 per cent from 2024. Gross profit stood at $911.8 million, operating income at $346.5 million and net income at $141.8 million. For the 12 months ended March 31, 2026, revenue was about $2.81 billion and net income about $97.8 million, reflecting both the scale of the order cycle and the costs tied to capacity expansion.

The offer is structured as a sale by the shareholder rather than a primary capital raise for the company, meaning Innio will not receive proceeds from the sale of shares by the selling shareholder. That feature may draw scrutiny from investors weighing the strength of the company’s operating momentum against the extent to which the IPO functions as a partial exit for its private equity and sovereign wealth fund backers.

Advent created Innio as a standalone company in 2018 after carving out General Electric’s distributed power business in a $3.25 billion transaction. ADIA later took a minority stake in 2023, adding Gulf sovereign capital to a business positioned around flexible gas generation, hydrogen-ready systems and distributed energy services. Under Advent’s ownership, Innio has expanded its North American manufacturing and assembly footprint, a key issue as data centre developers look for shorter delivery timelines.

Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan and Morgan Stanley are leading the offering, with market reception likely to be watched closely across the energy technology and infrastructure sectors. The deal also follows a period in which investors have rewarded companies tied to electrification, grid reliability and AI-related capital spending, while applying sharper scrutiny to valuations where growth depends on sustained hyperscale data centre expansion.

The central investment case rests on Innio’s ability to supply flexible power at a time when electricity bottlenecks are reshaping the economics of data centre development. Reciprocating gas engines can be deployed in modular configurations, start quickly and support customers seeking on-site generation where grid access is delayed or insufficient. The company has also promoted hydrogen-ready technology and fuel flexibility as part of a longer-term energy transition strategy.

Washington carried out defensive strikes against Iranian drone operations near the Strait of Hormuz after what it described as imminent threats to American forces and commercial shipping, deepening strain around one of the world’s most important oil transit routes while both sides claim they remain committed to a ceasefire.

US forces shot down four one-way attack drones and struck a ground control station near Bandar Abbas, the major port city on Iran’s southern coast, where a fifth drone was said to be preparing for launch. The operation followed an alleged attempt by Iranian forces to impede tanker traffic through the strait, a narrow waterway linking the Gulf with the Arabian Sea and carrying roughly a fifth of global oil flows.

Washington framed the strikes as limited and defensive, saying they were intended to protect personnel, vessels and commercial navigation rather than widen the conflict. Tehran condemned the action as a violation of Iranian sovereignty and a breach of the truce, while insisting that its forces had acted in response to unauthorised movements by a tanker and hostile US activity near its territorial waters.

The exchange has exposed the fragility of the ceasefire that took effect in April after weeks of US and Israeli strikes on Iran and retaliatory attacks by Tehran on regional targets. Although the truce reduced the scale of direct confrontation, the maritime theatre has remained volatile, with rival claims over tanker movements, drone launches, mines, missile sites and the legal status of passage through the Strait of Hormuz.

Bandar Abbas is central to Iran’s maritime posture. The city hosts naval, logistics and military facilities and sits close to the entrance of the strait, giving it strategic value in any confrontation involving shipping lanes. A strike on a control station there signals Washington’s willingness to hit command infrastructure when it believes threats are forming, even as diplomats continue efforts to prevent the conflict from spreading.

Iran has rejected US assertions that its drone activity posed an imminent danger to international shipping. Officials and state-aligned outlets have portrayed the confrontation as part of a broader US campaign to maintain military dominance over the Gulf while applying economic pressure on Tehran. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has warned that further attacks would draw a stronger response, raising concerns that tit-for-tat moves could undermine the ceasefire mechanism.

President Donald Trump has said the Strait of Hormuz must remain open to all international shipping and ruled out any arrangement that would give Iran or any other country unilateral control over the passage. His comments came as reports circulated about a possible framework involving Iran and Oman in managing traffic through the waterway, a claim rejected by Washington as inaccurate.

Oman has traditionally played a mediation role between the United States and Iran, including in past nuclear diplomacy. Its position has become more delicate as maritime security, sanctions and ceasefire monitoring converge around the strait. Any arrangement involving Muscat would need to balance its role as a regional mediator with the concerns of shipping nations, Gulf states and Washington’s military posture.

The United States has also increased economic pressure on Iran’s maritime apparatus by targeting entities linked to the management of passage through the strait. Washington says Tehran has sought to extract payments and sensitive shipping information from vessels seeking safe passage. Iran argues that it is asserting lawful oversight of waters close to its coastline, while critics say the move amounts to coercion against commercial shipping.

Energy markets remain sensitive to each development around Hormuz. Even limited clashes can raise insurance costs, alter shipping schedules and push operators to reassess risk. Tankers carrying crude, condensates and liquefied natural gas from Gulf producers depend on the route, making the waterway a persistent flashpoint during periods of military tension.

The latest episode also complicates wider negotiations over the future of Iran’s nuclear programme, sanctions relief and regional security guarantees. Washington has said it is not satisfied with the current state of talks and remains opposed to any arrangement that would leave Tehran with unrestricted enrichment capacity. Iran continues to demand sanctions relief and recognition of what it calls its sovereign nuclear rights.

Military planners on both sides appear to be testing the limits of the ceasefire while avoiding a full-scale rupture. US officials say intercepting drones and striking launch infrastructure are consistent with defensive rules of engagement. Iran says such operations prove Washington is using the ceasefire as cover for continued attacks.

The latest flare-up came after US forces struck what they described as missile launch sites and mine-laying boats, saying the operation was defensive and limited. Tehran denounced the action as a violation of the ceasefire that has largely held since April, warning that it would not leave aggression unanswered. The exchange has sharpened doubts over whether diplomacy being channelled through Qatar and Pakistan can deliver a settlement before military incidents derail the process.

President Donald Trump has argued that an agreement with Iran and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz are largely negotiated, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said talks on extending the ceasefire and restoring commercial passage through the waterway could take several days. Washington’s public message remains one of guarded optimism, but the battlefield signals are less clear. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard said it had shot down at least one drone and deterred other aircraft entering its airspace, while US officials have maintained that their strikes were calibrated to avoid a wider escalation.

The Strait of Hormuz remains the central pressure point. Before the war began on February 28, roughly a fifth of the world’s crude oil and natural gas flows moved through the narrow channel linking the Gulf with the Arabian Sea. Iran’s effective closure of the route after the opening phase of the conflict stranded vessels, lifted energy-market risk premiums and disrupted fertilizer supply chains. Limited passage has resumed, but traffic remains far below normal levels, with Iran’s Guard navy saying 25 commercial vessels were allowed through in a 24-hour period, compared with more than 100 ships a day before the fighting.

US Central Command has pushed back against reports suggesting that American forces had restarted escorts or direct assistance for commercial vessels transiting the strait. The command said Project Freedom, the earlier operation to support shipping movement, had not resumed and that US forces were not escorting commercial vessels through Hormuz. The clarification came after market and maritime circles reacted to claims that a Greek supertanker had been guided through the waterway, underscoring how quickly information about the strait can affect oil prices, insurance costs and shipping decisions.

Diplomatic bargaining is now focused on a package that would freeze major hostilities, unlock Iranian access to billions of dollars in frozen assets and create a timetable for easing restrictions on energy exports. Tehran is also seeking relief from the US blockade of Iranian oil ports, while Washington wants guarantees on freedom of navigation and fresh constraints on Iran’s nuclear programme. A separate timeline under discussion would allow the strait to reopen more fully while the two sides negotiate more difficult security and nuclear issues.

The talks have placed Iran’s political leadership under competing pressures. President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi have engaged with mediators, while Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf has been central to discussions in Doha. Hardliners in Tehran argue that any deal should preserve Iran’s leverage over Hormuz, viewing the strait as a strategic tool after years of sanctions and confrontation. In Washington, critics of Trump’s diplomacy warn that releasing funds or easing economic pressure without ironclad security guarantees could strengthen Iran’s military position.

Regional risks are widening the negotiations beyond a bilateral US-Iran framework. Israel’s operations in Lebanon have intensified, raising questions about whether any deal with Tehran can hold if allied fronts remain active. Iran is seeking stronger assurances that Israel will be bound by ceasefire terms, while Washington is trying to prevent the Hormuz crisis from expanding into a wider Gulf security breakdown. Gulf states, Iraq, Pakistan, China and energy-dependent Asian economies all have strong stakes in restoring shipping confidence.

Energy markets have reflected the uncertainty. Oil prices have moved sharply on signs of military escalation, only to ease when negotiators signal that talks remain alive. The pattern points to a market that sees genuine diplomatic momentum but is not convinced that either side can control events at sea, in Iranian airspace or across linked regional battlefields.

The 15-member council said the strike on an electricity generator outside the plant’s inner perimeter amounted to “a flagrant violation of international law” and called for an immediate and permanent halt to attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in the UAE, including peaceful nuclear facilities. The statement marked a rare unified position by the council at a time of heightened Middle East tensions and widening concern over the vulnerability of strategic energy assets.

No responsibility was assigned by the council. UAE authorities have said six drones were launched towards the country from Iraq, with one reaching the Barakah site. Two other drones were dealt with by defence systems. Iraq hosts armed groups aligned with Iran, though no group has publicly claimed responsibility for the Barakah strike. Baghdad has condemned attacks that threaten regional stability, while avoiding direct acknowledgement of the UAE’s account of the drones’ origin.

The strike caused a fire and damaged an electricity generator linked to external power supply, but UAE nuclear regulators and plant authorities said there were no injuries, no release of radioactive material and no impact on public safety. Radiation levels remained normal, and safety systems at the facility functioned as designed. Emergency diesel generators provided backup power to Unit 3 before external supply was restored.

International Atomic Energy Agency director general Rafael Mariano Grossi told council members that military activity threatening nuclear safety was unacceptable, stressing that restraint around nuclear power plants was essential. His warning has added weight because the global nuclear safety debate has already been sharpened by attacks and military activity around nuclear facilities in Ukraine, as well as the broader confrontation involving Iran’s nuclear programme.

Barakah is the Arab world’s first operational nuclear power plant and one of the UAE’s most important energy assets. Its four APR-1400 reactors, developed with South Korean technology, have a combined capacity of 5.6 gigawatts and are designed to generate about 40 terawatt hours of electricity a year, roughly a quarter of the country’s power demand. The plant is central to the UAE’s strategy to diversify electricity generation, lower reliance on gas-fired power and support long-term decarbonisation targets.

The incident has also raised questions about the adequacy of air defence systems around civilian nuclear infrastructure in an era of long-range drones, low-cost loitering munitions and proxy warfare. Security specialists have warned that even when reactor containment structures remain untouched, attacks on switchyards, generators, cooling-related systems or grid connections can create serious operational stress. Nuclear plants are built with layered safety systems, but their safe operation depends on reliable power, trained personnel, emergency response capacity and uninterrupted command structures.

Regional tensions form the wider backdrop. The attack came amid continuing friction linked to the conflict involving the United States, Israel and Iran, with drone launches from Iraqi territory towards Gulf countries becoming a significant security concern. Saudi Arabia has also reported intercepting drones entering from Iraqi airspace, reinforcing fears that armed groups could use regional instability to target energy and transport infrastructure beyond the immediate theatre of conflict.

For the UAE, the strike crosses a sensitive threshold. Abu Dhabi has positioned its nuclear programme as peaceful, internationally monitored and commercially focused, with Barakah operating under the Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation and IAEA safeguards. Officials have described the attack as an assault on sovereign territory and civilian infrastructure, while emphasising that the country reserves the right to protect its security under international law.

Diplomats at the UN framed the issue as broader than the UAE. The Security Council’s wording reflected concern that normalising attacks near nuclear facilities could weaken established protections for civilian infrastructure and create environmental risks that would not stop at national borders. Council members also urged states to adhere to the highest standards of nuclear safety, security and safeguards, and to avoid actions that could endanger nuclear facilities.