Announcing his retirement, Glickman said, “When I joined ZIM nine years ago, I did so after deep deliberation, but with absolute clarity of purpose. I believed in this company, I believed in its people, and I believed that with the right strategy, discipline, and courage, we could transform ZIM into a stronger, more innovative, and more resilient global player. Together, we did exactly that.”

“Over these years, ZIM delivered what can only be described as an astounding turnaround, achieving results that, at times, were unprecedented for the company and restoring pride in the ZIM name across the industry. None of this belongs to one person. It belongs to the extraordinary ZIM team, colleagues across the globe who showed professionalism, determination, and heart every single day. I am profoundly proud of what we achieved together, and I am grateful to every employee, in every country and every function, for the role they played in that success,” he added.

In early 2026, Zim signed a deal with German shipping giant Hapag-Lloyd, in which the latter will acquire 100% of its Israeli counterpart’s shares for USD 4.2 billion, apart from delisting the company from the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Hapag-Lloyd will sell Zim’s Israeli operations to Ishay Davidi-led FIMI fund, in order to comply with the conditions of Tel Aviv’s “golden share,” which mandates the continuity of the country’s maritime transport during emergencies.

“In recent months, the company’s board promoted a merger process with Hapag-Lloyd. I respect the board’s decision; however, after reflection, I concluded that I cannot continue as CEO of ZIM. I have always put my heart and soul into this position. For me, leadership is not a title – it is a commitment, and it must be aligned with the journey ahead. One of my central aims throughout this period was to help secure the future of ZIM’s dedicated employees. Our employees have also lived through a very challenging period of war, and I have felt a deep responsibility to lead with steadiness and care. With the transition process underway, I believe this is the right moment to move ahead,” Glickman remarked.

Before Hapag-Lloyd’s takeover, Glickman had reportedly attempted to lead a group to acquire Zim. However, the bid was rejected. In March 2026, the outgoing CEO sold nearly all of his shares in Zim for approximately USD 40 million, at a price about 20% lower than the offer price set by Hapag-Lloyd. Zim went public on the NYSE in 2021 at a valuation of USD 1.5 billion pre-money and USD 1.7 billion post-money. Its current market value stands at around USD 3.2 billion, approximately USD 1 billion below the acquisition price.

The post Zim CEO Eli Glickman resigns after failed takeover bid appeared first on International Finance.

After World War II and the division into East and West Germany, the country was largely demilitarised and focused on economic reconstruction under the security umbrella of the United States and the Soviet Union, and later under NATO.

With the end of the Cold War, much of Europe came to believe that large-scale continental war was behind them. However, Europeans had a wake-up call, first with the conflicts in the Balkans, followed by the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, and the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. The war in Ukraine is a frozen conflict in its fourth year of devastation.

Europe’s rearmament is being driven by two major forces. Firstly, fear of an expansionist Russia and, secondly, growing doubts about whether the United States, under Donald Trump’s more isolationist approach, would fight on Europe’s behalf.

The age of European pacifism is ending. Germany, Poland, and other states are rearming, while France and the UK remain active military powers. Ukraine, forged by years of war, has become the continent’s most experienced military and a testing ground for 21st-century warfare.

ALSO READ | Can Britain’s 298 billion pound ‘Defence Investment Plan’ keep the country safe?

With the US-Israel’s war with Iran, and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz, the great powers of Europe hesitantly find themselves in the Indian Ocean with fleets and submarines.

Great Shadow Of The Military Industrial Complex

The world seems to be in a security crisis. Heads of state are being abducted or assassinated (Venezuela and Iran). The sovereign territory of one nation is being invaded and annexed by another (the Ukraine war). There are accusations of genocide or ethnic cleansing (Israel-Palestine). And, the fight for resources, especially energy, is entering a new phase. Global economies are bracing for $200 a barrel. But even in war, there is money to be made.

Defence spending in EU member states has risen from €218 billion in 2021 to €381 billion in 2025. According to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), Europe accounts for around 21% of global military spending, which means more than one-fifth of the global military budget is now in Europe (a region that America took great care to ensure doesn’t rearm or militarise for the longest time).

It began as an emergency response to what was happening in Ukraine, a reaction to perceived Russian aggression. It quickly turned into structural rearmament as European governments grew more doubtful about the durability of US security guarantees.

Ursula Von Der Leyen, President of EU Commission, introduced REarm Europe on March 2, 2025, to EU member states. The new REarm Europe/ Readiness 2030 plan is an €800 billion framework in which members will push defence spending from 1.9% of their GDP in 2024 to 3.5% by 2030. The EU initiated a €150 billion loan programme titled ’SAFE’ (Security Action for Europe) to support joint weapons procurement, with projects generally requiring that no more than 35% of component costs come from outside the EU, the EEA-EFTA states, or Ukraine.

Additionally, €1 billion will be allocated to the European Defence Fund in 2026 for research and development, primarily for hypersonic missile defences, drone swarms, and next-generation tanks.

Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger told Reuters: “A new era of rearmament has commenced in Europe,” and that it brings “unprecedented growth opportunities” for the company.

Not too long ago, defence contractors in Europe struggled to convince governments to increase the budget and procurement. Now, supply chains and even politics can’t seem to keep up with the demand.

The Doves Slowly Turn into Hawks

The EU Parliament and think tanks believe that the EU’s defence budget has risen 63% since 2020. The estimate for 2025 was €381 billion, amounting to about 2% of the bloc’s GDP.

The EU spent around €88 billion in 2024 on equipment procurement. This number was at €130 billion in 2025, while R&D is said to have risen from €13 billion to €17 billion at the same time.

There have been accusations about Germany underspending for many years. Understandably so, because German militarisation was more frightening than a stingy defence budget for most of the world. However, Germany is now the biggest spender in Europe, and has answered its critics by sharply expanding its defence budget, with spending projected to rise to €162 billion by 2029. This would represent approximately 3.5% of GDP.

The Baltic and Scandinavian states are also splurging money to harden NATO’s eastern flank. They are especially energised because they share land borders with Russia.

On February 15, Ursula Von Der Leyen tweeted: “We need a surge in defence spending. Europe must bring more to the table. I will propose to activate the escape clause for defence investments. It will allow member states to substantially increase their defence expenditure, in a controlled and conditional way.”

There is a ’national escape clause’ in the bloc’s fiscal rules, which allows for an additional 1.5% of GDP to be spent on defence without budgetary constraints. Furthermore, the SAFE facility enables €150 billion in joint borrowing to finance cross-border projects and encourage European governments to purchase European weapons rather than ammunitions, drones, tanks, and missiles from the United States, Israel, or Japan.

The bond markets and investors are happy. Not so long ago, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) portfolios did not include defence. But now, because of hard security shocks, defence has been rebranded as a public good on par with environmental conservation.

Europeans, once again, are beginning to see war as an inconvenient necessity rather than an evil to be avoided.

War Is Good Business

Armin Papperger wrote on the company’s official X account: “Defence is now by far the most dynamic sector of German industry.”

Europe’s Aerospace and Defence Index has surged over the past year, reflecting investor enthusiasm for the sector. Fitch Ratings estimates that the eight largest defence companies are seeing at least a 15% increase in demand from 2024, and their combined cash flow is at a record-breaking €8 billion.

Germany’s Rheinmetall is acquiring US-based Loc Performance Products for $950 million. In France, Safran is buying the AI defence firm Preligens for around €220 million so that it can have better surveillance and data analysis capabilities.

Even startups like the Europe-based Helsing is raising €600 million in a Series D round for their state-of-the-art drone and electronic warfare systems, which are AI-operated.

Investment managers and law firms are jubilant as SAFE brings cheap credit to the European military-industrial complex, with experts expecting increased funding for missiles, armoured vehicles, and aircraft. Resources will also be allocated to neotechnologies, such as quantum secure communication, space-based surveillance, and autonomy.

This trend is projected to drive countless cross-border mergers and joint ventures well into the 2030s.

Too Slow To Make Bombs

Europe is throwing money at the problem, hoping to be prepared for an inevitable showdown with Russia. But money can’t make missiles, shells, and drones by itself. European factories are ramping up production, but there are bottlenecks and serious limitations to output capacity.

Economists at BNP Paribas believe that the bloc can transform its underutilised industrial capacity, which was once used for automotive and adjacent sectors, for defence production. The defence output would be raised by 0.5 percentage points to annual GDP growth in the mid-2020s. That growth is not just going to come from weapons, but also from metals, electronics, and machinery required to make them.

Additionally, the SAFE initiative, which demands procurement from within Europe, and investor enthusiasm might revitalise factories that were once closed for defence manufacturing.

The European Defence Fund has grand plans, but full-scale production won’t start until early 2030, even though Ukraine is running out of ammunition and drones at an unprecedented rate.

Europe is trying to buy off-the-shelf systems while setting up its own, while also scaling up its existing lines.

The Side Effects Of Defence Spending

There are conflicting opinions from economists on how increased defence spending will affect the economy.

Filippo Taddei, senior European economist at Goldman Sachs, told Reuters that extra defence spending will support European growth, in particular, support European industry at a time when they are particularly struggling.

Carsten Brzeski, ING’s global macro head, said: ’increased defence expenditure results in a negative multiplier effect on growth’ in the short term.

Klaas Knot, head of the Dutch central bank, said, “A temporary fiscal exemption for higher defence spending is justifiable, but warned that public debt in the EU remained excessively high.”

If you focus too much on war, you risk deprioritising other sectors (essential sectors such as education and healthcare). There is also the risk of inflation and higher interest rates.

Europe is infamous for its expensive welfare system and green transition programmes. If they pile up military outlays on top of that, the continent could see a backlash from voters who struggle to make ends meet.

There is also a lot of debate about the inequality within the bloc. Bruegel and other think tanks analysed ’Rearm Europe’, and believe that the move would largely benefit national governments instead of the EU as a whole. For example, rich nations like Germany and the Netherlands will borrow cheaply and aggressively invest in weapons manufacturing, while Eastern and Southern Europe will find themselves in unsustainable debts, or incapable of militarising at a pace on par with their wealthy counterparts.

Europe’s political and cultural rebranding of making defence an ESG-compatible investment is still on the debate floor.

Institutional investors are arguing that supplying democracies with weapons to defend against tyranny is ethical and consistent with the EU’s vision.

But, many are afraid of dual-use technologies that will later be exported to poor countries with questionable human rights records. There is already a lot of uproar towards sending weapons to Saudi Arabia and Israel.

The ethical complexity of the issue is likely to affect industrial growth, even though the weapons manufacturing sector is seeing a boom.

An End To Reliance On External Security Umbrellas

Europe is beginning to understand that pacifism and reliance on external security umbrellas might not cut it. True safety and security come from self-reliance. The wars in Ukraine and Russia are stark reminders of a return to armament.

Despite throwing money at the problem and having the potential to have outstanding armies by the end of the decade, there are still several challenges that governments must navigate.

For starters, there are the industrial bottlenecks. Not all the money in the world can create missiles, artillery, and drones instantly. There are supply chain problems and production limits that are to be overcome gradually.

There is also the economic inequality and in-bloc politics that might arise because of a re-armed Europe, as Eastern and Southern states might find themselves drowning in debt, while nations like Germany and the Netherlands might make a profit through the rapid militarisation race.

Europe has long positioned itself as the most ethical society on earth. Making defence an ESG-compatible public good is highly controversial in European societies, and many see it as a means to pour government funds into the military-industrial complex.

Regardless, money is being poured into the military establishment, factories are reopening, and war looms on the horizon.

The post As threat of war looms, Europe hikes spending on military and defence equipment appeared first on International Finance.

“Today, I approved the largest gas deal in Israel’s history. The deal is worth 112 billion shekels (USD 34.7 billion). Of this total, 58 billion shekels (USD 18 billion) will go to the state coffers. The agreement is with the American company Chevron, with Israeli partners who will supply gas to Egypt,” Benjamin Netanyahu said during a televised address.

Energy Minister Eli Cohen, who was present during the address, said it was the “largest export deal in the state’s history.”

Israeli firm NewMed Energy announced in August 2025 the signing of a USD 35 billion deal to provide Egypt with natural gas, and as per the firm, the deal would increase the total volume of gas supplied to Egypt to 130 billion cubic metres.

In a statement issued late on November 17, NewMed CEO Yossi Abu said it was “a historic day for the natural gas sector, one that guarantees continued investment in Israel and creates regulatory stability for years to come.”

In 2024, Egypt imported a record 981 million cubic feet per day of natural gas from Israel, registering a 18.2% year-over-year increase. Egypt imports up to 20% of its gas from Israel. Over the past couple of years, the nation has witnessed its ambitions to become a regional natural gas supply and LNG export hub go up in flames, with a series of setbacks turning the country from a net exporter of the vital commodity to an importer.

Egypt’s natural gas production has experienced a significant decline in recent years, particularly since its peak in 2021 at around 6.6 bcf/d. Data from early 2025 indicated an eight-year low of below 5 billion cubic feet per day.

Egypt’s existing gas fields, including the massive Zohr one, are facing the phenomenon of natural depletion, and it has become a headache for Cairo as Zohr itself accounts for about 40% of the North African country’s total gas production. Production at Zohr has dropped by about a third since 2019.

Lack of discoveries and investment has also taken a toll, with very few significant new gas fields discovered since Zohr in 2015. Also, insufficient investment in exploration and development, partly due to the government’s arrears owed to foreign oil companies, has hampered efforts to offset the natural decline of existing wells.

The post Israel approves USD 35 billion natural gas deal with Egypt appeared first on International Finance.

This funding, part of a broader $1 billion recovery framework, aims to kickstart economic recovery and establish a foundation for long-term reconstruction in the country.

The initiative, officially termed the Lebanon Emergency Assistance Project (LEAP), comes as Lebanon grapples with the aftermath of conflict and years of economic collapse, offering a glimmer of hope that essential services can be restored and growth revived.

Lebanon’s economic crisis

Lebanon has been in the throes of one of the world’s worst economic crises since 2019. A combination of financial mismanagement, political paralysis, and external shocks has caused living conditions to plummet.

Lebanon’s economy has suffered a catastrophic collapse. Its GDP shrank by nearly 40%, effectively wiping out years of growth and reducing incomes across the board. The Lebanese pound has lost over 98% of its value, turning what was once 1,500 pounds to a dollar into a rate of tens of thousands, decimating household savings and purchasing power.

This currency freefall triggered triple-digit inflation through 2023, making basic goods unaffordable and pushing a large portion of the population into poverty. At the same time, the banking sector imploded, deposits were frozen, and trust evaporated, forcing the country into a cash-based, dollarized shadow economy. By 2022, around 45.7% of GDP, or $9.8 billion, circulated outside the formal banking system as citizens increasingly relied on hard currency to survive.

This economic freefall was compounded by other disasters. A massive explosion in Beirut’s port in 2020 caused billions in damages, and years of political gridlock left Lebanon without effective reforms or a stable government.

Public services such as electricity, water, healthcare, and education have drastically deteriorated. Even before the latest conflict, Lebanon was described as a nation in “crisis upon crisis,” dealing with financial collapse, a refugee burden, and infrastructure decay.

Yet, by mid-2023, there were fragile signs of stabilisation. In a bid to control hyperinflation, authorities unified exchange rates, and the Lebanese pound’s rampant depreciation slowed. Since July 2023, the pound has stabilised at around 89,500 LBP to $1, which helped tamp monthly inflation down from triple digits to more manageable levels. By 2024, inflation even fell to double-digit percentages, the first time since early 2020 that price growth was below 100%.

The World Bank noted in June 2025 that if political stability and reforms hold, Lebanon’s economy could see modest growth of around 4.7% in 2025, a remarkable turnaround after years of contraction. However, this outlook remains extremely fragile and contingent on sustained reforms and stability.

Just as Lebanon was trying to stabilise its economy, it was hit by a new shock: a spillover of regional conflict. Beginning in October 2023, fighting flared between the militant group Hezbollah (based in Lebanon) and Israel, amid a broader regional war. Clashes and hostilities along Lebanon’s southern border and even strikes in Beirut’s suburbs caused significant destruction.

A Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment by the World Bank found that between October 8, 2023, and December 20, 2024, the conflict inflicted an estimated $7.2 billion in direct damage across Lebanon.

The devastation spanned 10 sectors, from homes and businesses to infrastructure. Critical public infrastructure vital to communities’ well-being and economic activity was hard-hit, with roughly $1.1 billion in damage to key facilities.

World Bank $250M Lebanon recovery plan

In response to these extraordinary needs, the World Bank launched the Lebanon Emergency Assistance Project (LEAP), beginning with a $250 million financing approval in June 2025. This project is structured as part of a scalable $1 billion framework, meaning the World Bank’s initial contribution can absorb and coordinate additional funds (from other international donors or lenders) up to that amount.

The idea is to create a unified, government-led reconstruction programme that others can join, rather than a scattershot of uncoordinated aid projects.

Jean-Christophe Carret, the World Bank’s Middle East director, explained that LEAP’s structure “emphasises transparency, accountability, and results” to serve as a credible vehicle for partners to align their support with Lebanon’s own reform agenda. In other words, the framework is meant to assure donors that funds will be well-managed and impactful, encouraging them to contribute and “maximise collective impact” on Lebanon’s recovery.

According to the World Bank, the project takes a phased approach focusing on fast, high-impact interventions first. Initial actions aim to restore basic services and normalcy for the population as quickly as possible. Some priority components include:

The initial funding will focus on high-impact, phased interventions designed to kickstart Lebanon’s recovery. One key priority is the safe and efficient removal of war debris, with an emphasis on recycling and reuse to reduce waste and supply materials for reconstruction, while also addressing public safety and health concerns.

The project will also rapidly repair essential services such as electricity, water supply, transportation infrastructure, healthcare, education facilities, and municipal services, enabling communities to resume daily life and stimulating local economies. Beyond emergency fixes, LEAP will lay the groundwork for long-term rebuilding by financing technical designs and environmental and social assessments for major infrastructure like roads, bridges, and power stations.

To ensure impact and avoid dilution of resources, interventions will be guided by a data-driven, area-based prioritisation strategy endorsed by Lebanon’s Council of Ministers, focusing on the most severely affected regions and projects that promise the greatest social and economic return.

The initiative’s emphasis on “response, recovery, and reconstruction” in phases means it will tackle immediate needs while laying groundwork for medium- and long-term projects. For example, repairing a vital water pumping station now (recovery) can be paired with plans to completely modernise the water network later (reconstruction).

This sequencing is designed to yield tangible improvements in daily life within months, which is crucial for public morale and economic activity, while not losing sight of the larger rebuilding that may take years.

Rebuilding infrastructure is not just about bricks and mortar; it is fundamentally about reviving the economy and livelihoods. Modern economics has plenty of evidence that post-conflict reconstruction, when done efficiently, can stimulate growth by creating jobs (especially in construction), improving productivity, and restoring investor confidence. In Lebanon’s case, the swift repair of infrastructure and public services is a precondition to economic and social recovery.

Businesses cannot operate during constant power outages, farmers cannot irrigate crops with broken water systems, and children cannot learn if schools remain closed. By focusing on these basics, the World Bank project aims to create the conditions for normal economic activity to resume in affected areas.

The injection of $250 million (with prospects of scaling up) also provides a much-needed fiscal stimulus in an economy starved of investment. Lebanon’s government, essentially bankrupt, has a very limited ability to spend on capital projects.

International aid thus fills a critical gap by funding projects that hire local workers and contractors, purchasing materials (many of which are locally sourced or supplied), and circulating money in the economy.

For example, rubble-clearing initiatives will employ local labour and engineers; repairing schools means contracts for construction firms and suppliers. These activities have multiplier effects that can boost local incomes and consumption.

However, analysts caution that international aid alone cannot solve Lebanon’s crisis. Aid is most effective when paired with sound economic management and reform. The World Bank itself has pointed out that Lebanon’s longer-term recovery hinges on addressing root issues, including a dysfunctional banking sector, unsustainable public finances, and the lack of a reliable social safety net.

The LEAP project is occurring alongside renewed calls for Lebanon to implement a comprehensive reform program (as outlined in a recent Lebanon Economic Monitor report) to restore macro-financial stability and citizens’ trust.

Banking sector sees reform

In July, the momentous economic reform in Lebanon’s history took place, as the country’s Parliament passed a major piece of legislation to finally begin restructuring the country’s broken banking sector, nearly six years after its collapse. This marked the first serious step by lawmakers to tackle the country’s unprecedented financial crisis, which has left millions of depositors locked out of their savings since 2019.

One of the main conditions set by international lenders for financial assistance has been the passage of a bank restructuring law, alongside other key legislation. In April, Lebanon amended its banking secrecy law, ending decades of financial opacity. Washington and the IMF were among those believed to be pushing Beirut to fast-track such reforms to unlock bailout funds.

The Bank Restructuring Law should establish a legal and institutional framework for dealing with insolvent or “zombie” banks, those that have no capital and are unable to operate. The new legislation will replace the existing Banking Control Commission with a new Bank Restructuring Authority, empowered to restructure, recapitalise, merge, or liquidate failing banks. The aim is to stabilise the sector and pave the way for returning funds to small and medium depositors.

In other good news, S&P Global Ratings has raised Lebanon’s long-term local currency credit rating to “CCC” from “CC,” while maintaining a stable outlook and affirming its foreign currency rating at “SD” (selective default). This upgrade indicates an improving ability of the government to service its local currency commercial debt, supported by fiscal surpluses over the past two years and progress on reforms needed to access a new IMF programme.

Still, S&P does not expect major progress on debt restructuring before parliamentary elections in May 2026. The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hezbollah continues to weigh on recovery prospects.

Path to sustainable recovery

In essence, rebuilding physical infrastructure will provide only temporary relief unless accompanied by policy reforms that restructure the banking system, enforce anti-corruption, and create a conducive environment for private sector growth.

International institutions like the IMF are still looking for Lebanon to unify its multiple exchange rates, recapitalise banks, and reduce its deficits, steps necessary to unlock larger-scale financial assistance.

For the Lebanese people, weary of crisis after crisis, this initiative offers a rare bit of good news, namely a plan to rebuild, backed by global support. If managed prudently, this recovery boost could mark the first steps on a path toward economic normalcy and renewed hope in a country that has endured far too much hardship in recent years.

The post Lebanon’s road to recovery begins now appeared first on International Finance.

Referencing the July 2024 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), these nations argue that it is incompatible with EU commitments in international law to maintain economic relations with settlements.

In July 2024, the ICJ rendered a historic advisory opinion declaring that Israel’s occupation and settlement exercises in Palestinian lands are illegal. Significantly, the Court held that third states should desist from recognition, assistance, or facilitation of this unlawful occupation. Though advisory in character, the opinion has legal and moral significance, infusing non-binding United Nations stances with an added coat of juridical legitimacy.

This EU letter explicitly points to the ICJ’s stance that, in the absence of concrete suggestions from the Commission, member states remain unclear about the measures required to halt trade benefiting these settlements.

Trade Magnitude: Why It Matters

Israel’s economy is still heavily linked to the European Union (EU) markets. In 2023, trade between the EU and Israel reached a record 42.6 billion euro (around USD 49 billion), equivalent to about one-third of Israel’s total goods trade.

Although settlement origin data are not available, even a small percentage would account for enormous revenue streams potentially used to construct and expand settlements, which is a central issue quoted by the ICJ.

The latest action also represents a turning point in policymaking at the EU. By calling on the European Commission to table specific (not blanket) trade sanctions, the letter demonstrates a calculated effort to weigh economic relations with Israel against legal and normative constraints.

It is a subtle but purposeful approach: rather than demanding a wholesale boycott, attention is focused on trade related to illegal settlements. This indicates strategic sophistication, seeking to isolate deviation from international law without disabling wider cooperation.

At the same time, the initiative tests the cohesion of the European Union. There is no guarantee of consensus. Some member states fear the diplomatic fallout of such a stance, particularly those with close economic or strategic ties to Israel. Others support the moral imperative, viewing this as a necessary step to ensure that EU trade policies are aligned with international law and human rights.

Belgium’s Foreign Minister, Maxime Prévot, summarised this perspective by declaring, “Trade cannot be disconnected from our legal and moral responsibilities.” The drive to decouple EU trade from illegal settlements is part of a broader adjustment: one in which moral calculus can start to take precedence over diplomatic expediency.

The timing of the letter is also important. It arrived just before a Council of Foreign Ministers gathering slated for June 23 in Brussels. The agenda features a consideration of Israel’s fulfilment of the human-rights article in the EU-Israel association agreement, a legal article that paves the way for punitive measures should breaches be established. The timing of the letter in proximity to this session implies strategic planning, perhaps intended to shape the Council’s tone or direction.

Thus far, Israel’s mission to the EU has been conspicuously quiet. Whether this is a strategic delay or an indication of inner doubt is uncertain. But the silence itself is significant. At a period of escalating international attention, silence can be more than nothing; it can be a strategy. Or it can be immobility. Either way, it contributes to the tension of the moment, particularly if the EU moves toward steps that might officially change the relationship.

At the core of this endeavour is a compelling legal-ethical conundrum. Can the EU have intense economic activity with Israel while also presenting itself as being opposed to its settlement enterprise in occupied land? For most of the signatory nations, this is not a matter of commerce; it is a challenge of legal credibility.

They contend that withholding settlement goods is not a punitive act, but a targeted readjustment that safeguards the EU’s institutional integrity. Not everyone is so sure. They fear that such actions, unless applied transparently and strictly, will placate critics while failing to achieve tangible transformation.

This is more than an intra-European debate; it is a reckoning. When global legal norms, such as those that enjoy the backing of the International Court of Justice, seem at odds with geopolitical or economic interests, which road will the EU follow? Will it stand up for its adherence to the rules-based order or fall back into pragmatism?

If the EU does go ahead, it will probably employ a combination of policy instruments. Compulsory labelling regulations would make products from settlements unmistakably recognisable in the European market. This would potentially inform consumers as well as exert reputational pressure.

Stronger measures would be restrictions on imports or complete prohibitions on settlement products. A third option is legal compliance toolkits (basically instructions that can assist European enterprises and financial institutions in their auditing of supply chains and exclusion from illegal settlement involvement). Together, these tools might tip the cost-benefit equation of firms operating in contested areas.

The implications run well beyond trade policy. For Palestinians, the step (if taken) would enhance the international legal position against settlements and might alter the economic dynamics that facilitate their expansion.

For Israel, it might put pressure on its relations with one of its biggest trading partners and drive diplomatic efforts into more fraught territory. And for liberal democracies everywhere, the EU decision will be scrutinised closely as a test case on whether values-based governance is resilient enough to withstand the demands of realpolitik.

In the end, the letter is more than a plea. It is an ultimatum: to the European Union, to Israel, and to an international system faced ever more with the divide between its principles and its practices.

Internal EU Dynamics

The correspondence brings attention to a new rift within the European Union regarding the management of the problem of Israeli settlements. There is one bloc that is pro-restrictions, which consists of nations focused on legal harmonization with international law, even at the risk of diplomatic strain with Israel. They hold the view that maintaining the European Union’s declared values on human rights and international legality must outweigh political convenience.

Opposed to this is a more conservative group of states. These member states are not willing to lead on imposing strict trade sanctions out of fear of hurting their own domestic industries, Israel’s strategic alignments, or other possible retaliations across the wider Middle East. For them, stability in the economy and inter-regional diplomacy may take precedence over legal or ethical issues.

Despite these conflicting stances, the tide seems to be turning. With nine nations openly spearheading the initiative, pressure is building within the union to come up with a more unified and principled approach. This could eventually result in a readjustment of the European Union’s internal solidarity, pitting its external values against the practical imperatives of realpolitik.

Challenges Ahead

Perhaps the most pressing problem that confronts the European Union in the imposition of trade bans is the absence of tangible statistics regarding settlement-related trade. Without precise figures that determine the goods coming from illegal settlements, it is not easy to craft viable policies or implement them uniformly across member nations. Such transparency plays a hindrance to compliance and monitoring schemes.

Compounding the challenge is the legal aspect. Any limits imposed by the EU need to be crafted with care to meet World Trade Organisation (WTO) norms. Formulating flawless dispute-proof laws calls for exacting legal language and strong justification, particularly in light of potential international court challenges from Israel or other trading nations.

Politically, the EU likewise stands to face serious backlash. Israel could retaliate with counter-measures, whether in the shape of economic sanctions, diminished diplomatic involvement, or increased lobbying pressure within EU institutions. This response might strain overall EU-Israel relations and stimulate divisions among the member states.

Last but not least, there are economic consequences for European companies. Businesses in or trading with Israel may be subject to legal ambiguity or reputational damage. Certain companies might struggle to inspect their supply chains, revise financial projections, or introduce additional compliance structures, all of which could involve additional expense. To prevent disruption, the EU might need to contemplate providing guidance or assistance to businesses affected.

If done intelligently, this exercise may be a new paradigm of normative foreign policy, where firm global legal opinions are made into graduated economic penalties. It would show that EU foreign policy is not merely rhetoric but implemented in action.

The post IF Insights: All you need to know about European Union’s trade policy against Israeli settlements appeared first on International Finance.

Stardust is reportedly planning to conduct outdoor tests in Israel, and a governance report commissioned and now endorsed by the start-up disclosed that the company had initiated the process of filing for “relevant intellectual property” rights.

The report further outlined that the company is “developing and testing both a particle and a dispersal system and plans to upgrade the prototype airborne dispersion system to an operational level, enabling dispersion at the required capacity from a future operational aircraft in the coming year.”

The Convention on Biological Diversity, which Israel has been a party to since 2008, has been issuing a series of decisions relating to geoengineering, including a de facto moratorium because of its implications for biodiversity. The moratorium was reaffirmed by consensus at CBD COP16 in Colombia in October–November 2024, with parties citing concern about the increase in outdoor solar and marine geoengineering experiments.

While the moratorium has an exemption for small-scale research, a commercial factor is a key aspect of determining whether or not a project meets the criteria for this exemption. It now remains to be seen whether Stardust’s experimentation will be “small-scale” or not, because if it is not, then it has all the possibilities of being considered a violation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

What is geoengineering?

The term represents intentional and large-scale manipulative acts committed on our planet Earth. The term is most commonly discussed in the context of climate change. One such technique, “ocean fertilisation,” is the best-studied technique and is the one that is clearly regulated.

The method deals with adding nutrients to ocean waters to increase the phytoplankton population, with the theory propagating that the plankton will absorb carbon dioxide, just as plants do on land. However, ocean fertilisation has been discredited as a climate change response in the scientific literature. Why? Because it is too risky, the effects on the marine food web are unknown, and there is little evidence to prove successful sequestration.

Both the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the London Convention on Dumping of Waste at Sea prohibit large-scale, open-ocean and/or commercial ocean fertilisation. Only small-scale, legitimate scientific research is allowed, and that too after the successful completion of environmental assessments.

However, Stardust’s geoengineering goals are more ambitious, developing proprietary geoengineering technology that would help block sun rays from reaching the planet.

The start-up, formed in 2023, has a novel approach to private companies, driving the development and deployment of technologies that experts say could have profound consequences for the planet, while going against the trend of most geoengineering research being led by scientists at American universities and federal agencies, and while keeping public scrutiny out of the picture.

Geoengineering projects, even those led by climate scientists, have previously drawn the ire of environmentalists and other groups. In the words of Ramin Skibba, a space writer whose work covers space science, environmentalists, politics, conflicts, and industry, “Such a deliberate transformation of the atmosphere has never been done, and many uncertainties remain. If a geoengineering project went awry, for example, it could contribute to air pollution and ozone loss, or have dramatic effects on weather patterns, such as disrupting monsoons in populous South and East Asia.”

Geoengineering under scrutiny

Global warming has become a hot topic in the current century. As global temperatures rise, public and scientific sentiments are shifting as well. If those temperature trends continue, governments and private entities may ultimately use geoengineering to alleviate or avoid the worst impacts of extreme weather, including deadly heat waves, firestorms, and hurricanes. Whoever deploys the technology will need to maintain it for decades while pent-up greenhouse gases gradually dissipate or are removed.

“Its approach is novel: Most geoengineering research today is led by scientists in the US at universities and federal agencies, and the work they are doing is more or less accessible to public scrutiny. Stardust is at the forefront of an alternative path—one in which private companies drive the development, and perhaps deployment, of technologies that experts say could have profound consequences for the planet,” Skibba noted.

However, environmentalists are sceptical, as a deliberate transformation of the atmosphere has never been done, and from that angle, geoengineering contains many uncertainties. If a project went awry, for example, it could contribute to air pollution and ozone loss, or have dramatic effects on weather patterns, such as disrupting monsoons in populous South and East Asia.

“Few outsiders have gotten a glimpse of Stardust’s plans, and the company has not publicly released details about its technology, its business model, or exactly who works at the company. But the company appears to be positioning itself to develop and sell a proprietary geoengineering technology to governments that are considering making modifications to the global climate—acting like a kind of defence contractor for climate alteration,” Skibba added.

While Stardust is moving ahead with an experiment that has uncertain implications for biodiversity, a lack of rules and limited oversight gives it an upper hand. A recent report by the company’s former climate governance consultant, Janos Pasztor, called for the venture to increase its transparency, engagement, and communication with outsiders.

However, Pasztor also told Undark that the company did not meet all of his requests.

He continued, “Stardust still needs to implement his recommendations, be as transparent as possible, be available proactively to respond to questions people may have, and also engage with other actors, because they do not, or not yet, have a social license for geoengineering activities.”

Stardust solar research

The company discussed by International Finance is led by its CEO and cofounder, Yanai Yedvab, who is also a former deputy chief scientist at the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, which oversees the country’s clandestine nuclear programme. When Undark tried to reach out to Yedvab, he issued an emailed statement, which read: “Stardust is a startup focused on researching and developing technologies that may potentially stop global warming in the short term. The company is studying and developing safe, responsible, and controllable solar radiation modification, and our goal is to enable informed and responsible decision-making by the international community and governments.”

Yedvab further refused to admit that his company is “secretive,” while adding that the startup is “unwaveringly committed to publishing results as one of the measures to gain public trust.”

While Stardust did not publish any of its research data or reports in March 2025, Yedvab stressed that it would do so once “scientific validation is concluded” on all of its results.

When it comes to solar geoengineering, the most common approach has been flying high-altitude aircraft or balloons to release reflective particles in the upper atmosphere, well above the flight paths of commercial planes. The technique, known as stratospheric aerosol injection, requires deploying tiny, carefully chosen particles in precise amounts. To work effectively, the particles need to be periodically replenished. Scientists have accumulated evidence for this approach by studying natural events that have flung small particles into the atmosphere.

The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 is a good case study, as sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide generated from this phenomenon hung in the atmosphere and measurably cooled the planet for more than a year.

However, research by a team from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and Columbia University in New York claimed that the sunlight-blocking particles from an extreme eruption would not cool surface temperatures on Earth as severely as previously estimated.

Some 74,000 years ago, the Toba volcano in Indonesia exploded with a force 1,000 times more powerful than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. What happened afterwards, and to what degree that extreme explosion might have cooled global temperatures, remains a mystery. When it comes to the most powerful volcanoes, researchers have long speculated how post-eruption global cooling, sometimes called volcanic winter, could potentially pose a threat to humanity.

Previous studies agreed that some planet-wide cooling would occur but diverged on how much. The GISS and Columbia University researchers used advanced computer modelling to simulate super-eruptions like the Toba event. They found that post-eruption cooling would probably not exceed 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) even for the most powerful blasts.

“The relatively modest temperature changes we found, most compatible with the evidence, could explain why no single super-eruption has produced firm evidence of global-scale catastrophe for humans or ecosystems,” said lead author Zachary McGraw, a researcher at NASA GISS and Columbia University.

To qualify as a super-eruption, a volcano must release more than 240 cubic miles (1,000 cubic kilometres) of magma. These eruptions are extremely powerful and rare. The most recent super-eruption occurred more than 22,000 years ago in New Zealand. The most famous example is the eruption that devastated Yellowstone Crater in Wyoming roughly 2 million years ago.

Is deliberately strewing sulphates in the atmosphere a risk worth taking? While some scientists argue that there are indeed risks, they are small in comparison to the health risks from climate change.

“We know that sulphuric acid air pollution causes mortality, and we roughly know how much. There’s more than a century of studies. We’re very unlikely to be wrong about that,” said David Keith, head of the Climate Systems Engineering initiative at the University of Chicago and an advocate of geoengineering research.

Stardust plans to distribute the particles through a machine mounted on an aircraft, according to Pasztor, a veteran climate diplomat and policy expert at the United Nations and elsewhere.

According to Pasztor’s report, the company is engineering the particle and a prototype of the aircraft mount, as well as developing a system for modelling and monitoring the climatic effects. Over the coming year, Pasztor wrote, the company was planning on advancing those technologies and testing those particles in the stratosphere.

In his emailed reply to Undark, Yedvab confirmed that they are working on the technologies and that experiments would be done in a “contained, non-dispersive manner,” meaning that its particles would not be strewn over a wide area.

While reiterating Stardust’s commitment to publishing information about any such outdoor geoengineering tests, the CEO further added that the company has not performed any such outdoor experiments, but has done “a few outdoor aerial checks.” That meant that they have tested their dispersal system “under flight conditions,” but they haven’t yet scattered their aerosols in the atmosphere.

According to Yedvab, Stardust is now testing nonsulfate particles. He continued, “The ability to tailor particle properties to meet a broad set of requirements—safety, effectiveness, cost, and dispersibility—is a key advantage of our approach, giving it a distinct edge over sulphates and other candidate particles.”

Doubts still remain

While the concerns around Stardust’s work may seem justified to some extent, there are no international rules or treaties that put obvious limits on experiments like geoengineering, which could affect billions of lives. Pasztor is advocating for a rule-based order in which more informed experts and stakeholders will be involved in decision-making before the experiment proceeds.

He also believes Stardust has a moral obligation to inform the public about what it is doing and ensure it is receiving input from a wide variety of groups before tinkering with the planetary thermostat. In fact, he stated that Stardust agreed to publish a public website, including a copy of Pasztor’s report, and to develop a voluntary code of conduct.

This would have publicly laid out how they intend to conduct their research and development, including agreeing not to be involved in large-scale implementation, which would instead be under the purview of government agencies. Pasztor expected Stardust to publish this information in September 2024 or soon afterwards. However, the whole plan was “delayed.”

In February 2025, Undark’s website emerged with only three sections to display: Home, Our Principles, and Contact Us. The site also has links to Pasztor’s report and lists seven principles, including “prioritising safety and scientific integrity,” publishing “unfavourable results as well as favourable ones,” and “supporting comprehensive regulation of this emerging field.”

Stardust, however, has not yet released a code of conduct, despite Yedvab stressing that the company complies with all applicable governmental and international regulations.

Stardust’s global role

In Stardust’s portfolio of technologies, Yedvab added, they “could be deployed following decisions by the US government and international community,” suggesting that the startup’s prospective clients will be governments. Even experts believe that Stardust will become a go-to provider for countries considering geoengineering.

The company is attempting to patent its geoengineering technology.

“We anticipate that as US-led geoengineering research and development programmes advance, the value of Stardust’s technological portfolio will grow accordingly,” Yedvab wrote.

Pasztor’s report, however, states that if governments decide not to pursue geoengineering, investors “risk not receiving a return on their investment.”

Other experts have also questioned Stardust’s conduct so far. Among them is Shuchi Talati, founder of The Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, a Washington–based nonprofit: “When it comes to principles of governance, like transparency and public engagement, they’re not adhering to any of them. Pasztor’s report is the only public thing we know about them.”

In Talati’s opinion, the lack of transparency could have consequences for the company, as Stardust’s approach may spark conspiracy theories about what a “secret Israeli company” is doing, and, down the road, it will be much harder for people to trust Stardust.

People at Friends of the Earth, an environmental group that has long dismissed geoengineering as a “dangerous distraction,” echo Talati’s concerns and go further with their critiques of Stardust.

“I don’t think it’s compatible to have venture capital funding and to be committed to scientific ideals,” said Benjamin Day, FOE’s senior campaigner on geoengineering.

He believes the problem lies in Stardust’s engineers having a vested interest in finding that stratospheric geoengineering can and should be done.

“If governments choose to use geoengineering, they may become heavily dependent on Stardust if they’re ahead of the competition, of which there currently is none. There’s no private market for geoengineering technologies. They’re only going to make money if it’s deployed by governments, and at that point they’re kind of trying to hold governments hostage with technology patents,” Benjamin Day added.

Talking about government-level projects, the United States government is developing an early warning system that could detect geoengineering in the stratosphere. Furthermore, deploying geoengineering means using and monitoring it for as long as a century, while any abrupt adjustment or end of that deployment could be disruptive, with “termination shock” potentially triggering dangerous global warming within months.

“Geoengineering research has long been entangled with national defence,” said Kevin Surprise, a professor of environmental studies at Mount Holyoke College who studies the economics and geopolitics of geoengineering.

“Some of the first geoengineering papers in the late 1990s came from institutions with Pentagon ties, like Lawrence Livermore National Lab and the Hoover Institution. High-profile geoengineering meetings with the George W Bush administration and the Council on Foreign Relations, as well as a mention in a Department of Defence report, soon followed, and the CIA reportedly funded the first geoengineering report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Because of the long-standing connections between geoengineering research and development, the military, and Silicon Valley, Surprise argues, Stardust shouldn’t be viewed as a rogue actor. This isn’t out of the blue,” he noted.

In Stardust’s case, they’ve received an estimated $15 million in venture capital funding, mainly from Awz Ventures, a Canadian-Israeli VC firm, in addition to a small investment from SolarEdge, an Israeli energy company. Despite the startup claiming that it has received no monetary help from the Israeli Defence Ministry, Awz’s partners and strategic advisers have strong ties to Israeli military and intelligence agencies, as well as the CIA and FBI, according to its website. Awz also invests in AI-based surveillance and security tech in Israel, such as through the company Corsight, which has provided facial recognition technology for Israel’s war in Gaza.

“Defence scholars and security experts don’t see geoengineering technology as a potential weapon, but they do view it as something a government might use for its advantage, and as something that would disrupt international relations,” said Duncan McLaren, a researcher with the Institute for Responsible Carbon Removal at American University.

The post Stardust & Geoengineering: A rising debate appeared first on International Finance.

Trump now sees Gaza as “Trump Gaza,” with a song preaching: “Donald is coming to set you free, bringing the light for all to see. No more tunnels, no more fear, Trump Gaza is finally here.”

The AI-generated video, which shows a post-war transformation of the territory along the lines of modern-day Dubai, arrived amid the ongoing three-phase ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, which has resulted in the exchange of prisoners and hostages between the two sides. A 15-month-long war pounded Gaza severely, as over 48,000 people have reportedly died. Israel, on the other hand, lost over 1,200 people during the attack by Hamas on October 7, 2023, which triggered the war.

What is Trump up to?

Immediately after taking over the administrative reins in January 2025, Trump presented his vision for rebuilding Gaza, under which some two million Palestinians would be resettled in neighbouring countries.

“No, they wouldn’t, because they’re going to have much better housing. I’m talking about building a permanent place for them,” he told Fox News in February. Then came another clip of the interview, where the Republican stated he was “committed to buying and owning Gaza.”

While Trump’s proposal invited backlash from all over the world, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas reiterated that Palestinian land was “not for sale.” However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump’s proposal as “revolutionary and creative.” The United Nations (UN) has also warned that any forced displacement of civilians from occupied territory is strictly prohibited under international law and is “tantamount to ethnic cleansing.” Talking about Gaza’s situation, there is a ceasefire in place, as part of which Hamas has already released some of the Israeli hostages it was holding in exchange for Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails.

Most of Gaza’s population has also been displaced multiple times. Almost 70% of buildings are estimated to be damaged or destroyed, the healthcare, water, sanitation, and hygiene systems have collapsed, and there are shortages of food, fuel, medicine, and shelter. Trump, on his part, has promised to build “beautiful communities” for the Palestinians of Gaza.

“Could be five, six, could be two. But we’ll build safe communities, a little bit away from where they are, where all of this danger is. In the meantime, I would own this. Think of it as a real estate development for the future. It would be a beautiful piece of land. No big money spent,” he added.

Trump believes that the Palestinians would have no right of return to Gaza because their lives would be “much better” elsewhere, contradicting Secretary of State Marco Rubio and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who told reporters the relocations would be temporary during reconstruction. Egypt and Jordan’s leaders have rejected both Trump’s plan and his previous requests to take in refugees from Gaza. However, Trump further doubled down on his takeover plan.

“I’m committed to buying and owning Gaza. As far as us rebuilding it, we may give it to other states in the Middle East to build sections of it. Other people may do it through our auspices. But we’re committed to owning it, taking it, and making sure that Hamas doesn’t move back,” he told reporters on board “Air Force One,” without explaining who he would buy the territory from or how the US would own it.

In what seems to be an outrageous statement, Trump said people from all over the world would be able to move to Gaza and that Palestinians would not want to go back there. However, the proposal found support from Netanyahu, who stated, “For a full year, we have been told that on the ‘day after,’ the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organisation), the Palestinian Authority, needs to be in the Strip. President Trump came with a completely different vision, much better for the ‘State of Israel,’ a revolutionary and creative vision, which we are discussing. He is very determined to carry it out. This also opens many possibilities before us.”

Palestinians now fear a repeat of the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” when hundreds of thousands fled or were driven from their homes before and during the war that followed the creation of the “State of Israel,” in 1948. Many of those refugees ended up in Gaza, where they and their descendants now make up three-quarters of the population. Another 900,000 registered refugees also live in the West Bank, which Israel occupied in the 1967 Middle East war, along with Gaza, while 3.4 million others live in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, according to the United Nations. In fact, one of the bones of contention between Palestine and Israel has been the right of those refugees to return.

Israel unilaterally withdrew its troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005, though it retained control of its shared border, airspace, and shoreline, giving it effective control of the movement of people and goods. The UN still regards Gaza as Israeli-occupied territory because of the level of control Israel has. In fact, Trump’s plan drew severe criticism from Europe too, with former German Chancellor Olaf Scholz terming the proposal a “scandal.” Egypt’s reaction has been similar, while Saudi Arabia also appreciated the “condemnation, disapproval and total rejection announced by the brotherly countries towards what Benjamin Netanyahu stated regarding the displacement of the Palestinian people from their land.”

Realising the heat his comments generated, especially the angry responses coming from the Arab world, Trump has now asserted that his plan was only a ‘recommendation’ and not an ‘enforcement.’ Speaking to Fox News, Trump reiterated his belief that his plan was the “best approach” to resolve the situation in West Asia.

“I’ll tell you the way to do it is my plan. I think that’s the plan that really works. But I’m not forcing it. I’m just going to sit back and recommend it. And then the US would own the site, there’d be no Hamas. And they’d be developed, and you’d start all over again with a clean slate,” Trump said.

To cut a long story short: Trump’s “request” for Jordan and Egypt, both of which have peace agreements with Israel, to accept Palestinian refugees from Gaza, did not find any buyer. While the Republican justified his position by pointing to the significant aid the United States provides to these countries, the only face-saver for him came from Jordan, which agreed to take in 2,000 sick children.

However, Trump, staying true to his unpredictable nature, has continued to promote his “Gaza Vision,” with this statement: “It’s really essentially levelled now; you don’t have too much to do other than remove debris. That place is not livable. And if you gave people the choice between that and living in a nice community, I think I know where they’d go. But we’ll see what happens,” Trump said in his interview about Gaza.

He didn’t stop there but went ahead and questioned Israel’s 2005 decision to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza, removing settlements and military presence while transferring control to the Palestinian Authority.

Now the question arises: what kind of stakes does Trump have in the Gaza conflict? We will try to answer it below.

Maybe a good property hotspot

The Republicans’ vision for rebuilding Gaza, apart from resettling two million Palestinians in neighbouring countries, actually revived an idea previously touted by both him and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Pay attention to this statement from Trump: “We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal. And I don’t want to be cute. I don’t want to be a wise guy. But the ‘Riviera of the Middle East,’ this could be something that could be so, this could be so magnificent.”

The statement echoed sentiments expressed by Kushner in an interview at Harvard University in February 2024, when he said Gaza’s waterfront property could be “very valuable if people would focus on building up livelihoods.”

He further added that from Israel’s perspective, he would do his best to “move the people out and then clean it up.”

However, as outrageous as the two statements sound, the fact here is that for Trump and his family, the Middle East is as much a business interest as anything else. The region has become a growing focus for The Trump Organisation (the real estate and hospitality conglomerate currently run by Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Junior).

The Trump Organisation has entered into several agreements with Saudi Arabian real estate company Dar Global, the international arm of Saudi Arabia’s “Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Company.” Then we have a luxury Trump-branded hotel and golf resort in Oman, which is currently in its development phase. The Trump Organisation and Dar Global have announced plans for two Trump Tower projects in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

“Trump already owns a golf club in Dubai, which was opened in 2017. The Dubai golf club was built in partnership with DAMAC Properties, run by Hussain Sajwani. In January 2025, Sajwani appeared alongside Trump at a press conference where it was announced that DAMAC would invest ‘at least’ $20 billion (€19.39 billion) to build new data centres across the US. The new agreements in Oman, Jeddah, and Dubai will see The Trump Organisation design, manage, and brand the towers and the luxury resort. The deals are primarily about branding rather than ownership, earning the family millions in exchange for using their name,” reported DW.com.

Trump and his relatives have been quite vocal about the Middle East’s growing relevance to their business interests. Take, for example, Eric Trump’s statement to the British financial newspaper Financial Times, in which he stated, “We will definitely be doing other projects in this region. This region has explosive growth, and that’s not stopping anytime soon.”

As well as the Dar Global goals, the “Trump Organisation” has also collaborated closely with “LIV Golf,” one of the much-vaunted sports investments in Saudi Arabia. The Trump Organisation owns many golf courses around the world and has been paid by LIV to host several tournaments at its venues in the United States. Kushner’s own private equity firm, “Affinity Partners,” has built up close ties with Saudi Arabia and its sovereign wealth fund, known as the Public Investment Fund (PIF).

The PIF, on its part, has invested $2 billion in Affinity. Several other major Gulf investors have also poured money into Kushner’s project, including the “Qatar Investment Authority” and the Abu Dhabi-based asset manager Lunate. Kushner also has substantial investments in Israel, particularly the insurance company “Phoenix Holdings” and the “Shlomo Group.”

Despite the world having severe reservations over the United States’ “Gaza Reconstruction” agenda, Washington is going ahead with the plan, as it eyes convening a summit with regional real estate developers to discuss its plans.

As per the US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, “We’re going to conduct a summit pretty soon with probably the biggest developers in the Middle East region, many of the Arab developers, lots of master planners. I think when people see some of the ideas that come from this, they’re going to be amazed.”

And yes, the plan is likely to face pressure from the Arab world, with the key players in this part of the world ramping up their efforts to put together a rival reconstruction plan that will ward off potential American intervention in the conflict. Egypt is engaging with European and Arab countries to put together a “comprehensive vision” for the Palestinian territory, which could receive up to $20 billion in funding from Arab states. Regional leaders also gathered in Cairo on 4th March for an emergency “Arab League Summit,” shedding more light on the plan.

Despite assuaging concerns around the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, Witkoff said, “We’re not talking about an eviction, but that it would not be possible for residents to remain while the enclave is being rebuilt. It has nothing to do with relocation… right now, it’s a long-term redevelopment plan. Once the Saudis, the UAE, and Egyptians reincorporate that into their thinking, you’ll see plans more aligned with the President’s.”

Witkoff, a major real estate investor, was Trump’s primary negotiator in the Middle East conflict. He also played a key role in securing the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel in January 2025. Witkoff and Kushner reportedly held discussions about bringing real estate executives on board to reconstruct Gaza.

So, things are becoming clear here: Trump’s “Gaza Reconstruction” plan looks more transactional in nature (readers can consider it a big-ticket real estate deal in the garb of a permanent geopolitical solution). The Republican wants to transform the territory into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” In fact, Kushner previously pitched the idea of developing Gaza’s waterfront as a luxury destination.

Can the idea be executed at all?

Trump’s desire to transform Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East, where the world’s people will live” looks impossible to implement, according to Brian Katulis, a Senior Fellow for US Foreign Policy at the Middle East Institute, who sees this desire as unlikely to translate into policy.

“It’s not terribly practical. If it’s rejected by most of the countries and people of the broader region, it’s a road to nowhere. So, it’s a distraction and not likely to produce any meaningful outcomes,” Katulis told DW.

And not to forget the fact that even if Trump presses ahead with his “Riviera of the Middle East” plan, he will once again face conflict-of-interest-related criticisms, given the extensive business ties his family and the affiliated business organisation have in the Middle East.

Despite Trump resigning from all management roles in his businesses during the first term (from 2016 to 2020), his family has remained prominent in his political activities and election campaigns, despite their continuing roles in the business. Kushner has leveraged contacts he made during his previous role as an adviser in the first Trump administration to build up his investment portfolio in the Middle East.

It needs to be reiterated that Washington has no legal claim to the territory of Gaza, and even if Trump intends to stick with his “Riviera of the Middle East” agenda, it is impossible for him to impose American rule in the area in a rules-based global order.

“As with his bullish claims about US control over Greenland or the Panama Canal, it is not yet clear whether Trump really means it or if the comments represent an opening, outlandish bargaining position ahead of a bruising set of negotiations on Gaza’s future,” stated Paul Adams, Diplomatic Correspondent of the BBC.

“Various plans have been discussed for the post-war governance of Gaza. In December 2024, the two main Palestinian factions, Hamas and Fatah, agreed to form a joint committee to oversee administration—an agreement which has so far come to nothing. At other times, discussions have focused on the creation of an international peacekeeping force, possibly made up of troops from Arab countries,” he added.

There were reports about the UAE, US, and Israel discussing the formation of a temporary administration in Gaza until a reformed Palestinian Authority (PA), which already has control in parts of the West Bank, was ready to take over. However, Netanyahu has previously insisted that the PA will have no role to play in running postwar Gaza.

In Paul’s words, “American boots are already on the ground,” as an American security firm has employed around 100 former US special forces to man a vital checkpoint south of Gaza City and screen the vehicles of Palestinians returning to the north for weapons. Egyptian security personnel have also been seen at the same checkpoint. These could be the first signs of an expanded international and possibly US-led presence in Gaza.

“But that is hardly a US takeover, something that would require a large-scale military intervention in the Middle East. That is the sort of thing Trump has long told voters he wants to avoid—and both the President and the White House later said they believe the proposal could be achieved without US soldiers being deployed to Gaza,” Paul concluded.

Most importantly, analysts are also keeping a close watch on the ongoing negotiations between Israel and Hamas on Gaza’s future, as Trump’s bombshell take on the ravaged territory will surely create some ripples on the talking table.

“If Hamas feels the end product of this whole process is a depopulated Gaza – devoid not just of Hamas, but of all Palestinians – it may conclude there is nothing to talk about and hold on to the remaining hostages it took on 7 October 2023,” Paul added.

In February, Hamas delayed the release of a group of hostages due to be freed over claims that Tel Aviv had violated the terms of the ceasefire deal. Netanyahu, in turn, said Israel would end the ceasefire and send troops back into Gaza if Hamas does not release the hostages. His critics have accused him of seeking excuses to sabotage the negotiations and resume the war. With his latest comments, Trump has further complicated the situation.

The post Trump plans to ‘own’ Gaza territory appeared first on International Finance.

The crisis has led to rising costs through various channels. With 90% of shipping traffic from the region diverted around Africa via the Cape of Good Hope, shipping costs have risen by 15% to 30%, and journey times have increased by 6 to 25 days. While rerouting around Africa has a negligible delay effect on most routes, the Asia-Europe route is a notable exception. Redirecting also increases the risk of port congestion and cancelled shipments. For instance, due to shipping delays, several car manufacturers have temporarily paused production at their European plants.

The World Bank notes that, by the end of 2024, around a year after the crisis began, the strategic Suez and Bab El-Mandeb straits, which once carried 30% of world container traffic, had been cut by three-quarters. At the same time, trade diversions have transformed port activity along the Asia-Europe Corridor, changing the fortunes of key hubs. For example, South Asian ports, such as Colombo, have seized the opportunity to capture more regional cargoes, while Gulf countries have adopted alternative solutions, such as the newly established land link from the Gulf ports to Haifa, bypassing the conflict zones. Reduced traffic, however, led to a 50% drop in Suez Canal revenues.

The crisis in the region has also led to escalating trade costs due to increased war risk insurance premiums, which are often used for maritime insurance of ships navigating through high-risk areas during the conflict. According to the World Bank, war risk premiums for the Red Sea, which were reported at a meagre 0.07% before the Israel-Hamas conflict began in October 2023, had risen to almost 0.7% by December 2023.

The Middle East crisis also threatens to disrupt supply chains and affect the availability of goods, which, in turn, leads to price volatility in the concerned markets. Delays in critical components are disrupting global supply chains. Oil-dependent sectors are facing higher input costs, as countries heavily dependent on oil imports from the Middle East are running larger trade deficits. With a quarter of the world’s urea coming from the Middle East, the shortage of fertilisers raises the cost of food production as well.

Given that 80% of India’s oil imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the Middle East crisis continues to put the country’s energy security at risk. Further, with an estimated 9 million Indian workers in the region, the escalating conflicts pose a risk for the potential loss of jobs and the inflow of remittances from the region, which stood at around US$ 50 billion in 2023.

Since the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect on January 19, 2025, disruptions to global maritime trade have been largely contained. The World Bank estimates that, if the crisis is resolved by May 2025, the growth of maritime trade in the Red Sea Neighbourhood will increase by about 6%, and by about 5% in the EU, compared to their baseline scenario, where the crisis was to last until October 2025.

Although the current situation is very different from the Suez Canal blockade of 2021, which caused an estimated $6-$10 billion in global trade losses, it underlines the potential intensity of the economic impact if the regional crisis continues. While the escalation of the Middle East crisis will continue to impact global trade volume, the nature of the global response is likely to be marked by a broad shift toward trade diversification—in terms of logistics strategies and markets—rather than trade reduction, with a shift in priority toward near-shoring.

The post Will global trade be impacted by Middle East crisis? appeared first on International Finance.

The economic impact of ongoing conflicts in this volatile region cannot be understated, and as recent events unfold, it becomes crucial to analyse what it means for the interconnected global economy. The conflicts involving Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, and Iran have resulted in significant loss of life and economic damage.

Moreover, the escalating tensions have raised concerns about the potential onset of a broader global conflict, with some experts warning that the current situation could spark World War III if regional actors and global superpowers are drawn into confrontation.

Clash of geopolitical interests

With Iran’s ongoing proxy warfare, Israel’s expanding occupation, and the involvement of Washington and Moscow in regional dynamics, the conditions are ripe for a scenario where a local conflict spirals into a full-scale global war. Such an outcome would have catastrophic economic consequences, plunging the world into recession and disrupting supply chains, global energy markets, and international trade.

The Israel-Palestine conflict has led to thousands of casualties. Lebanon, meanwhile, continues to struggle with economic collapse, worsened by clashes involving Hezbollah and Israel, which have caused hundreds of casualties and significant infrastructure damage.

The longstanding proxy conflict between Iran and Israel, on the other hand, has escalated into direct military confrontations, significantly altering the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape. The international community is closely monitoring the situation, apprehensive about the possibility of a wider regional war.

This direct engagement underscores the fragility of Middle Eastern stability and the potential for significant geopolitical shifts resulting from the Iran-Israel confrontation.

These conflicts come at a time when fears of a global economic recession are heightened, exacerbated by the ongoing Russian-Ukrainian conflict, with Russia being one of the world’s biggest oil producers. The combined pressure from disrupted energy supplies and heightened geopolitical risk creates a precarious situation for the global economy.

World’s reliance on Middle East

The Middle East holds approximately 55.5% of the world’s proven crude oil reserves, with countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) playing key roles in oil production. Whenever tensions escalate in this region, oil prices immediately react as uncertainty around oil supply chains heightens.

The most recent wave of conflict has already caused a sharp uptick in global oil prices The mere possibility of disrupted supply, or even the fear of a blockade in strategic choke points such as the Strait of Hormuz, where nearly 21% of global oil passes, sends markets into a frenzy react not only to physical disruptions but also to the perception of future threats, leading to price volatility, leading to inflation and increased costs across industries.

Industries ranging from aviation to plastics and logistics are all affected by rising energy costs. This, in turn, can slow down economic growth, as higher inflation usually prompts central banks to raise interest rates, making borrowing more expensive for businesses and consumers alike.

The Middle East’s geographic position is critical to global trade. The Suez Canal, for instance, is one of the world’s most important waterways, linking Europe to Asia. Any conflict that poses a risk to the security of this passage immediately impacts global shipping, causing delays and raising insurance costs for vessels navigating through the region.

In times of heightened tension, the risks for commercial vessels increase substantially, often resulting in surging insurance premiums known as “war risk” insurance. These additional costs get passed on to consumers, driving up the cost of goods globally. The longer these tensions persist, the greater the likelihood of shipping companies rerouting or slowing down operations, both of which contribute to supply chain disruptions and can cause shortages of goods, from consumer electronics to essential commodities.

Conflicts often lead to the imposition of economic sanctions, not just by countries directly involved but also by global powers like the United States, the European Union, or the United Nations. These sanctions can restrict trade, impact foreign investment, and limit access to international financial systems for those countries involved.

For instance, sanctions on Iran’s oil exports have historically caused significant shifts in the global oil market, reducing supply and causing price increases. Sanctions can also cause disruptions in the supply of other goods, such as petrochemicals, fertilisers, and metals, which are key exports from the region. As supply chains are disrupted, global industries dependent on these inputs, like agriculture, pharmaceuticals, and automotive manufacturing, feel the pressure.

The secondary impact of sanctions also reverberates across countries that have significant trade relationships with the sanctioned nations. For example, European firms, which have substantial investments in Middle Eastern energy projects, often find themselves caught in the middle, unable to engage in their ventures without risking penalties.

Investor sentiment, market volatility and inflation

When war or conflict erupts, global stock markets often see heightened volatility, as investors flock toward safer assets like gold or American Treasury bonds. In October 2023, for instance, the price of gold rose by nearly 7% following escalations in the Israel-Palestine conflict. This movement of capital out of riskier markets can lead to temporary liquidity shortages and increased borrowing costs for businesses.

Emerging market economies, which are typically more vulnerable to shifts in investor sentiment, are particularly impacted. In 2023, emerging markets saw a collective capital outflow of $15 billion during heightened tensions in the Middle East, leading to currency depreciations and potential economic instability in these regions.

Investors tend to pull funds out of these markets and place them in “safe havens,” such as US Treasury bonds. The global interconnectedness of today’s financial systems means that these effects aren’t isolated, economic slowdowns in emerging markets can have a cascading impact on global trade and investment flows.

Additionally, countries within the Middle East that are engaged in or adjacent to conflict zones often experience capital flight, where both local and foreign investors pull out their money due to fears of instability. For instance, Lebanon experienced capital flight amounting to nearly $5 billion in 2022 amidst ongoing instability. This diminishes growth prospects in these nations and further deters future foreign direct investment (FDI), leading to a vicious cycle of economic stagnation.

The global inflationary impact of a Middle East conflict extends beyond energy prices. The region is also a significant exporter of petrochemicals, fertilisers, and key agricultural products, accounting for approximately 25% of global petrochemical exports and 20% of global fertiliser supply. Disruption in the supply of these commodities can lead to rising input costs for agriculture around the world, driving food prices up.

For many developing economies, where a significant portion of household income (often more than 50%) goes towards food, this can exacerbate poverty levels and create social unrest. Rising fuel prices, which have increased by over 20% in the last year alone, also increase transportation costs, which further drives food inflation, creating a squeeze on both producers and consumers. The domino effect of higher food prices often forces central banks to adopt tighter monetary policies, potentially stalling economic growth and worsening income inequality.

The wider impact

The Israel-Palestine conflict has persisted for decades, and each resurgence brings with it a host of economic consequences. Israel is a significant player in technology and defence exports, and its robust economy often stands in stark contrast to the Palestinian territories, which face chronic underdevelopment and resource constraints due to political and military tensions. When tensions escalate into open conflict, the implications for the global economy can be severe.

One major impact is on investor confidence. Israel, a technology hub often compared to Silicon Valley, attracts billions of dollars in foreign investment annually. In 2022 alone, Israel attracted over $22 billion in foreign direct investment. The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange can see significant fluctuations when conflicts flare up, leading to an outflow of capital and heightened risk premiums. For instance, during the May 2021 conflict, the Tel Aviv 35 Index fell by nearly 2.5%, demonstrating investor concerns. Additionally, Israel’s advanced military capabilities are both a source of tension and economic burden, as resources are diverted to defence spending, which amounted to over 5.6% of its GDP in 2023.

The humanitarian situation in Gaza and the West Bank also directly affects international aid flows. As conflict intensifies, countries and international organisations funnel significant resources into humanitarian aid, which could otherwise be used for development projects elsewhere. This dynamic redirects financial resources, creating inefficiencies in global economic development initiatives and placing additional burdens on donor countries.

Lebanon’s economic collapse is a critical facet of the broader Middle Eastern crisis, exacerbated by its involvement in regional conflicts, including the Israel-Hezbollah tensions. Lebanon’s financial system has been in a state of free fall for several years, with its currency losing over 90% of its value, unemployment surging, and banking restrictions preventing ordinary citizens from accessing their savings.

Lebanon’s instability has a ripple effect across the region, particularly affecting Syria and the broader Levant area. Hezbollah, a powerful political and military force in Lebanon, receives backing from Iran, and its conflicts with Israel lead to frequent military engagements that disrupt stability not only locally but also in Israel’s northern regions.

In recent years, there have been over 300 recorded skirmishes between Hezbollah and Israeli forces, leading to dozens of casualties and significant damage to infrastructure in both Lebanon and northern Israel. These conflicts have impacted regional stability, contributing to widespread economic losses and infrastructure damage, including the destruction of residential buildings and energy facilities. Such disruptions often impact the wider energy markets, as the risk of conflict spilling over into neighbouring oil-rich countries raises the stakes for global energy supplies.

The inability of Lebanon to provide basic services has resulted in the mass emigration of its population, many seeking refuge in European countries. The refugee crisis puts economic pressure on neighbouring countries like Jordan and Turkey, which have accepted over 1.4 million and 3.6 million refugees respectively, as well as European nations like Germany, which has taken in around 1.1 million refugees. These countries have to redirect financial resources to deal with the social and economic integration of refugees, placing significant strain on public services and infrastructure.

Iran is a significant player in the Middle East, both politically and economically. Its influence stretches across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen, making it a key stakeholder in regional stability. The long-standing sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies have significantly hindered Iran’s economy, limiting its ability to export oil and access international financial markets. Iran’s GDP has contracted by over 6% in certain years due to sanctions, and oil exports have fallen from 2.5 million barrels per day in 2017 to less than 500,000 barrels per day in recent years, resulting in an estimated financial loss of over $150 billion.

Despite sanctions, Iran continues to be a key regional player, and any conflict involving Iran has immediate consequences for global oil prices. The Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes, is a strategic chokepoint that Iran has threatened to block in times of heightened tension. In 2019, for example, Iran was accused of attacking oil tankers in the Strait, which led to a temporary spike in oil prices by nearly 4%.

Additionally, in July 2021, Iran seized a tanker in the Strait, which again raised concerns over oil supply security and caused market jitters. Any disruption here could lead to an enormous spike in oil prices, affecting economies worldwide. Countries that heavily rely on oil imports, such as China, India, and European nations, would feel immediate economic stress, potentially leading to increased inflation and stunted economic growth.

Iran’s influence over proxy groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen adds a layer of unpredictability to the regional dynamics. The country’s support for Hezbollah and its presence in Syria has put it in confrontation with Israel. Such a conflict would not only devastate the region economically but would also disrupt global financial markets due to the uncertainty it would introduce.

A multi-front conflict could lead to a significant economic downturn, impacting various sectors worldwide. For instance, the energy sector would face extreme volatility, with oil prices likely to spike due to potential supply disruptions from Iran and its allies targeting key infrastructure.

The risk to global shipping routes, particularly through the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, would severely disrupt global trade. Insurance costs for shipping through these areas would skyrocket, raising the prices of goods worldwide. The resulting supply chain disruptions could lead to shortages in essential goods and exacerbate the inflationary pressures already being felt in many parts of the world.

Additionally, increased defence spending by regional powers and their allies would divert public funds away from crucial areas such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure development. For instance, the United States increased its defence budget by over $45 billion in 2023, largely attributed to rising commitments in the Middle East, while European allies have collectively raised their defence spending by approximately 10% over the last two years. This redirection of funds has led to reductions in public spending in areas like healthcare and education, exacerbating fiscal deficits and putting pressure on domestic economies.

Humanitarian costs would also rise, with millions likely displaced due to the conflict. This would necessitate large-scale international aid and assistance, putting additional strain on global humanitarian organisations and donor nations. The impact of these displacements would be felt globally, not only in terms of aid but also through increased refugee migration, which could exacerbate social and political tensions in host countries.

As the world watches the Middle East, the decisions made by global leaders, multinational corporations, and financial institutions will play a crucial role in determining whether we can navigate the turbulent waters of economic uncertainty or become swamped by the waves of conflict-induced challenges. The key takeaway is that stability in the Middle East is not just a regional concern, it is a critical factor for the health and growth of the global economy, and world leaders must work collectively to prevent escalation and promote peace.

The post Volatile Middle East ripple through global markets appeared first on International Finance.

Ajay Banga stated in a Reuters NEXT Newsmaker interview that while the war has so far had a minor effect on the world economy, a major expansion of the conflict would attract other nations that contribute more to global growth, such as commodity exporters.

“First of all, I think this unbelievable loss of life – women, children, others, civilians, is just unconscionable on all sides. The economic impact of this war, on the other hand, depends a great deal on how much this spreads,” Ajay Banga said.

“If it spreads regionally, then it becomes a completely different issue because now you start going into places that are far larger contributors to the world economy, both in terms of dollars, but also in terms of minerals and metals and oil and the like,” he observed.

Though Israel’s strongest ally, the United States, has stated that it will continue to support Israel and is sending troops and an anti-missile system, some Western nations are pressing for a ceasefire in Gaza and between Israel and Lebanon.

Israel’s offensive against Hamas began following their October 7 attack on Israel.

According to Gaza’s health authorities, more than 42,000 Palestinians have died in the offensive so far. The Lebanese Health Ministry reports that over 11.2 million people have been displaced as a result of Israeli strikes, which have also killed at least 2,350 people in Lebanon over the past year and injured close to 11,000 others.

According to Ajay Banga, the destruction caused by Israel’s bombing of southern Lebanon will contribute to the USD 14–20 billion in war damage that has already likely resulted from Israeli strikes on Gaza.

The post Wider war in Middle East would impact global economy: World Bank chief Ajay Banga appeared first on International Finance.