North America

President Trump returned to office with a clear promise to the technology industry, namely that the federal government would get out of the way. He had campaigned on dismantling what he called the Biden administration's overreach on AI safety, installed venture capitalist David Sacks as White House AI and crypto czar, and welcomed Big Tech CEOs to his inauguration as a signal of the partnership he intended.   For Silicon Valley, the message was unambiguous. The deregulatory era had arrived, and American AI companies would be free to race ahead of China without bureaucratic friction slowing them down. Almost 18 months later, those same companies cannot release their most advanced models without first receiving a phone call from the Commerce Secretary. The story of how that reversal happened, and what it means for US national security, allied trust, and the global AI race, is one the administration has never fully explained.

The Strait of Hormuz is no longer merely a disputed maritime passage, nor simply a recurring flashpoint between Iran and the United States. It has instead evolved into a central arena for testing the meaning of sovereignty in the region. While Washington continues to regard the strait as an international waterway governed by the principle of freedom of navigation, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps treats it as a sovereign zone under its direct administration, subject to military rules imposed through effective ground control. Accordingly, the core of the crisis no longer centres on the question, "Is the strait open or closed?" Rather, the more consequential question has become: what is the future of the strait in light of the ongoing negotiations?   Recent developments, particularly following the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to what it described as violations of the terms of the memorandum of understanding, especially about the Lebanese file just days after the memorandum was signed, reveal that the issue has not been resolved but has instead grown more complex. The memorandum treated the strait as a technical issue that could be managed through arrangements governing passage and transit to prevent friction. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, by contrast, approached it as a symbol of sovereignty, power, and the right to set the rules. This divergence rendered the understanding itself incapable of resolving the underlying dispute, because the disagreement between the two sides lies not in procedural details, but in who holds the authority to determine those procedures in the first place.   Although the United States and Iran agreed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz immediately after signing the preliminary agreement, this does not necessarily mean that maritime traffic will return to pre-war levels. Implementing this provision presents complex challenges related to the mechanism for reactivating the shipping corridor, the arrangements required to resume vessel traffic, and the restrictions that may persist during the sixty days allocated to negotiate the final agreement. These challenges are further compounded by the dispute over which party will assume responsibility for regulating and managing maritime traffic through the strait. Taken together, these obstacles suggest that reopening the strait may prove one of the most complex aspects of the agreement, particularly given the ongoing divergence between the American and Iranian visions for the future control of this strategic waterway.   The crisis surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, therefore, cannot be understood merely as a dispute over borders or the passage of ships; it is fundamentally a crisis of authority: the authority to set the rules, to impose exceptions, and to exercise the final say in determining whether this waterway remains open, closed, or conditionally accessible. For this reason, the question of the strait should no longer be viewed as a secondary file within the broader Iran–United States conflict. Rather, it should be recognised as one of the most consequential issues shaping and redefining the very concept of sovereignty, both within Iran itself and in the evolving structure of relations between regional and international powers.

Turkey’s rise as a defence-industrial power is no longer a peripheral subplot in NATO politics. It has become a structural development with implications for how the alliance equips itself, how regional powers diversify procurement, and how strategic influence is exercised between Europe, the United States, and the Middle East. While much of the public discussion around NATO still revolves around burden-sharing targets and the Russian threat, a more consequential transformation is unfolding in parallel: Turkey is building a defence-industrial corridor that links alliance demand, regional export markets, and domestic technological ambition.   The timing gives this argument unusual weight. Turkey is set to host NATO leaders in Ankara on 7–8 July 2026, a moment that places its political role and industrial trajectory under the same spotlight. That summit matters not simply because it will convene alliance leaders in the Turkish capital, but because it comes after a period in which Turkey’s defence sector has expanded in scale, deepened in sophistication, and broadened its customer base across Europe, the Gulf, Africa, and Asia.   What emerges from this trajectory is not a Turkish substitute for NATO, nor a coherent anti-Western bloc inside the alliance. It is something more complex and, in strategic terms, more significant: an alternative source of military capability inside NATO that others can increasingly use when Washington or Brussels appear too slow, too restrictive, or too politically encumbered. In that sense, Ankara is not building a rival alliance. It is building an alternative industrial lane within the existing one.

The petrodollar is one of the most invoked and least understood concepts in global finance. Since the 1970s, it has framed how analysts, journalists, and policymakers think about the dollar’s reserve status — equating America’s monetary supremacy with its energy arrangements. Yet this framing obscures more than it reveals. Dollar dominance is not a product of oil deals; it is the product of financial depth, legal architecture, and institutional trust accumulated over decades. To understand the future of global finance, one must look past the geopolitical theatre of energy pricing and examine the far more durable foundations that anchor the greenback at the centre of the global financial system.   The term "petrodollar" entered the global financial lexicon in the early 1970s, coined to describe the US dollars earned by oil-exporting nations following the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the subsequent surge in crude prices. Its origins, however, are rooted in a deeper structural shift. When President Nixon suspended the dollar's convertibility to gold in 1971 — effectively ending the Bretton Woods system, the United States (US) needed a new anchor for dollar demand. The informal arrangement that followed, most notably solidified through US-Saudi negotiations in 1974, ensured that Gulf producers would price oil exclusively in dollars and reinvest their surpluses into US Treasury bonds and American financial markets.   For decades, this arrangement fed a compelling narrative: that the dollar's global supremacy was underwritten by oil. The logic was straightforward since every oil-importing nation needed dollars to purchase energy, global dollar demand was structurally guaranteed. Any challenge to this system, the argument goes, would directly erode the dollar's reserve currency status. This view gained traction among geopolitical analysts and alternative media circles, especially following Saddam Hussein's 2000 decision to price Iraqi oil in euros, and later amid speculation that US military interventions in the Middle East were partly motivated by protecting the petrodollar system.   Yet this narrative, however widespread, rests on a fundamental misreading of how dollar dominance functions. The Economist challenges it directly, arguing that the petrodollar is often misunderstood and is no longer the primary pillar of dollar strength. The volume of oil traded globally, while significant, represents only a fraction of total dollar-denominated transactions. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the dollar is involved in nearly 88% of all foreign exchange transactions worldwide, a dominance that reflects financial depth and institutional trust, not energy dependence.   Historically, the oil-dollar link carried greater weight when global financial markets were less integrated, and US Treasuries represented the default safe asset for a narrower set of alternatives. That structural context has fundamentally changed. The dollar's role today is upheld by the unmatched liquidity of Wall Street, the enforceability of American contract law, and decades of accumulated creditor confidence — foundations far more durable than any bilateral energy arrangement. The petrodollar, in short, was never the dollar's load-bearing wall; it was, at best, a single supportive beam in a much larger structure.

By mid-2026, the US agricultural sector stands at a critical juncture where macroeconomic shocks intersect with geopolitical repercussions and sharp shifts in domestic trade policy. This has been reflected acutely in the traditional political alliances of rural America—which have historically constituted a formidable electoral stronghold for the Republican Party and, in particular, for President Donald Trump—as they undergo deep structural fractures that continue to widen, driven by the direct economic effects of stringent protectionist trade policies, disruptions to the regulatory framework governing biofuels, and regional conflicts that have combined to erode profit margins and undermine farmers’ confidence in the current system.   To understand the roots of this crisis, it is necessary to examine the nature of the implicit economic contract between the current Republican administration and its rural base. Historically, the government’s strategy rested on a two-dimensional approach: engineering stringent industrial tariffs to protect the domestic manufacturing base, while simultaneously attempting to insulate the agricultural sector from the adverse repercussions of these policies through the injection of exceptional federal support packages. However, the dynamics of 2025 and 2026 have undermined the wager on the sustainability of this equation. The economic strain generated by this dual approach translated into tangible political mobilisation, the effects of which were clearly reflected in opinion polls and primary-election indicators that came as a shock to the Republican camp.   Building on the foregoing, and with the crisis shifting from the economic sphere to the arena of electoral contestation, this analysis seeks to dissect the deep economic drivers that have produced the current state of agricultural frustration, evaluate the effectiveness of government measures in the areas of trade and energy, and assess the extent of the shift in the political calculations of rural voters. Drawing on a systematic reading of quantitative indicators and an examination of the results of the Iowa primary elections, this analysis attempts to anticipate the trajectory of this discontent: does it merely represent a temporary wave of backlash-driven anger, or is it laying the foundations for a broader political realignment capable of reshaping the balance of power in Washington ahead of the midterm elections?

The successful joint bid by the United States, Canada and Mexico to host the FIFA World Cup 2026 was widely welcomed in international diplomatic circles, regarded as an exceptional achievement in cross-border sports diplomacy. Through the "WE ARE 26" slogan, FIFA and the host countries sought to present an image of regional cooperation and shared cohesion, promoting the idea that the soft power of sport could prevail over complex geopolitical differences.     Yet by the summer of 2026, these promises had collided with a completely different political reality. Rather than reflecting unity, seamless movement, and open borders, preparations for this major event revealed deep divisions and strict security measures across North America. As a result, the World Cup shifted from being an instrument of regional integration to a magnifying lens exposing the sharp political contradictions that shape the domestic and foreign policies of the host countries.

For decades, the systems that governments, banks, universities, and public institutions built to verify who someone is rested on a single foundational assumption that personal information, documents, and physical characteristics were difficult to convincingly fake. A Social Security number combined with a date of birth and a driver's license was, for most practical purposes, enough to establish identity.   That assumption has now been broken. The US recorded its highest number of data breaches in 2025 since tracking began, identity theft reports to the Federal Trade Commission rose nearly 20% year over year, and global fraud losses now exceed $534 billion annually. Generative AI, the same technology powering productivity tools and creative applications across the economy, has become a force multiplier for those seeking to deceive digital systems at scale. The speed, sophistication, and accessibility of these tools mean that the problem is no longer confined to the margins of financial crime. It has moved to the centre of a broader question about whether the digital infrastructure modern states depend on to function is as reliable as they have assumed.

War is often fought on numerous battlefronts with state of warfare constantly evolving. In the case of the US-Israel-Iran War, drone and economic warfare are primarily tools of battle between the warring sides with the possibility extension to the seas following President Donald Trump’s proclamation of a naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz. Although the primary theater of war in this conflict has been the skies with an impending theater about to open in the seas of the Gulf, there is another more unconventional theater that has been operating since the beginning of the war, the theater of social media. Since the beginning of the war both the US and Iran have used memes and social media platforms such as X and Instagram as propaganda tools to attack each other’s credibility and shift the war narrative in their favor by engaging wider audiences.   The purpose of this analysis is to explore the idea behind how social media and memes opened a new theater of war between the US and Iran since the start of hostilities in February 2026 and its consequences. This exploration is based on the idea the use of social media and memes transforms the individual from a spectator to active participant in the conflict, while also normalizing violence through humor. Moreover, by transforming social media into a theater of war, the belligerents transform the concept of war into an aesthetic, especially through the US military and White House’s use of social media and memes.    

Recent developments point to a discernible shift in U.S. foreign policy, as Washington moves away from traditional international principles towards a more pragmatic, interest-driven approach. Within this evolving framework, islands and narrow maritime chokepoints have gained renewed strategic prominence as critical instruments of influence. No longer viewed as remote geographic outposts, islands are increasingly regarded as pivotal assets for securing energy flows, safeguarding supply lines, and controlling maritime navigation. This shift reflects a broader strategic intent to assert effective control over key geographic positions in order to sustain military presence, expand economic influence, and command the vital corridors through which global trade flows.   This heightened focus on islands in current U.S. policy reflects a strategic mindset that tightly links geography, military presence, and sovereignty. Within this framework, geographic locations are treated as assets that can be leveraged through acquisition or utilised as instruments of pressure and bargaining. In this context, islands are seen as discrete, manageable nodes that can be secured or defended to project influence across wider regions. This approach is evident in the handling of territories such as Greenland, Kharg Island, the Chagos Archipelago, and the Falkland Islands during Donald Trump's presidency. Against this backdrop, the present analysis seeks to unpack the geopolitical foundations and strategic drivers shaping the Trump administration’s approach to islands, positioning them as central instruments in the reconfiguration of American influence.

Modern patterns of armed conflict are shifting from time-limited operations reliant on advanced, low-volume technologies to protracted confrontations driven by industrial attrition and the large-scale deployment of autonomous systems. This transition exposes critical deficiencies in the traditional defence industrial base's production capacity. As munitions stockpiles decline amid ongoing conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, military assessments increasingly identify manufacturing capability, supply chain resilience, and the speed of industrial mobilisation as decisive factors in strategic competition, alongside technological innovation.   In response to these dynamics, national security institutions are moving to reactivate historically grounded models that integrate the commercial manufacturing sector into military production. This approach was notably deployed during the Second World War, when Ford Motor Company redirected its civilian production lines to manufacture bombers, Chrysler Corporation established dedicated facilities for tank production, and General Motors allocated its industrial capacity to the production of aircraft engines and munitions.   The current operational environment demands a sustained supply of conventional mechanical platforms and expendable systems, including unmanned aerial vehicles and sensor-equipped tactical vehicles. As battlefield requirements increasingly outpace the production capacity of defence manufacturers, the automotive sector emerges as a uniquely positioned industrial base, combining large-scale output with advanced mechanical engineering capabilities. This reality necessitates a focused assessment of the structural and technical attributes that make it the most viable sector for rapid conversion to support military production.

For more than five decades, the petrodollar system has served as one of the central structural pillars of American financial supremacy. Since its establishment in the 1970s, the system has anchored the United States’ monetary power by ensuring that Gulf oil exports remain overwhelmingly denominated in United States dollars. Under this arrangement, Gulf producing nations receive American security guarantees in exchange for recycling their oil revenues into US Treasury securities and dollar-denominated financial markets—a self-reinforcing cycle that has entrenched the dollar’s status as the world’s foremost reserve currency and systematically reduced American sovereign borrowing costs for decades.   The United Arab Emirates has, historically, been among the most faithful participants in this arrangement. Its national currency, the dirham, remains pegged to the USD, and its extensive sovereign wealth funds are invested predominantly in dollar-denominated assets. Nevertheless, a convergence of recent developments—an armed conflict in Iran, severe disruptions to Gulf oil exports, and an acute domestic dollar liquidity constraint—has placed the UAE at an unprecedented geopolitical and financial crossroads.

At the outset of 2026, the global natural gas market underwent a profound structural shift that eroded much of the stability built over years of rebalancing in the aftermath of the 2022 European energy crisis. Markets had been advancing towards a phase of relative supply abundance, underpinned by expanding liquefaction capacity in the United States (US) and large-scale Qatari projects. This trajectory was abruptly reversed on Feb. 28, 2026, when Operation Epic Fury triggered the most severe energy shock to confront the international system in decades. The US-Israel-Iran War and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, removed nearly one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas supply from circulation within days.   This paper analyses the structural transformations in the global natural gas market induced by the crisis, tracing supply and demand dynamics before and after the outbreak of the conflict. It further evaluates the implications for key actors within the international energy system, including countries most exposed to global gas market volatility, such as Egypt and Jordan.