Nearly eight months after the outbreak of war with Iran, one thing has become clear: despite disruptions to global energy markets and supply chains, the energy system has proved remarkably resilient. Yet resilience does not necessarily mean a return to what was once considered normal. Although Gulf producers have every reason to seek at least a de-escalation of the conflict, there is little sign of a lasting settlement.
Not necessarily. And here is why: it can go against the physics of power.
Democracy depends not only on strong institutions, but also on the knowledge, honesty, and self-restraint of the people who sustain it.
The meeting between Xi Jinping and Donald Trump in Washington on Thursday was undoubtedly important. Its significance may lie less in what the two leaders agreed than in what the meeting itself reveals about the balance of power.
Democracy can restrain the struggle for power. It cannot make that struggle disappear.
Autumn has arrived, and with it begins one of the busiest periods of the political year. Governments return from the summer break, parliaments resume their work, diplomatic meetings multiply, and unresolved crises once again demand immediate attention.
Iran is betting that time will weaken Washington before the midterms, while the Trump administration is betting that economic pressure will break Tehran first.
The oil market initially treated the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as a crisis that economic self-interest would contain. But the Houthi threat to shipping in the Red Sea changed that calculation: with two strategic chokepoints now at risk, markets could no longer assume that disruption would remain limited.
In a video commentary published by The Daily Signal, Victor Davis Hanson argues that the approaching US midterm elections are pushing Donald Trump towards a final military offensive against Iran—and a plan to transfer responsibility for keeping the Strait of Hormuz open to America’s allies.
Europe has no shortage of talent, wealth, or history. Yet despite its immense advantages, the continent is losing economic and geopolitical momentum. Why?
Only weeks after the United States and Iran announced an interim agreement and the Strait of Hormuz reopened, the conflict has returned. However, the Strait has not been formally closed again, yet there is more in the background.
The Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), consecrated four new bishops on 1 July at its headquarters in Écône, Switzerland, despite appeals from Pope Leo XIV not to proceed.
Global oil prices have retreated to levels seen before the recent US and Israeli strikes on Iran, offering temporary relief to global energy markets despite continued geopolitical uncertainty.
Keir Starmer's resignation is not only the story of one prime minister's failure—it is another sign that British politics is struggling with deeper structural challenges.
Why This Matters: Any disruption in the Strait of Hormuz could lead to higher fuel and energy prices, increase the cost of everyday goods through inflation, strain NATO unity, distract the West from other global challenges such as China, and ultimately affect the economy and security of ordinary people around the world.
The ceasefire between the United States and Iran has brought an end—at least temporarily—to one of the most dangerous confrontations the Middle East has witnessed in decades.
Eastern Europe's competing energy strategies reveal that in the end, geography—not politics—will shape the region's energy security.
The European energy market is gradually settling into a new reality. Gas storage levels across Eastern Europe continue to improve, cross-border bottlenecks are easing, and the continent has largely adapted to reduced Russian gas supplies. Yet this adaptation has come at a cost. Greater security has become a permanent component of energy pricing, while uncertainty surrounding fuel and gas supply has gradually become embedded in the market itself.
Against the backdrop of the U.S.–Iran war, a fundamental question is quietly resurfacing on both sides of the Atlantic: what exactly is NATO for? The conflict has exposed a widening gap between Washington’s expectations and Europe’s strategic priorities. While the United States reportedly expected stronger political and military backing from its NATO allies, European leaders have shown little enthusiasm for deeper involvement in the conflict.
Donald Trump’s visit to China raises a larger question than trade deals or diplomatic symbolism. The real issue is whether this trip marks the beginning of a genuine shift in relations between the United States and China.
Page 1 of 2 · 37 published article(s)