Editor's Picks
Opinion
Travel & Tourism
“Individually, you come from diverse regions and disciplines, bringing outstanding expertise in AI and related fields. Collectively, you represent something the world has never seen before,” The UN chief told scientists on Tuesday at the…
Most Read
Share It!
World News
“Individually, you come from diverse regions and disciplines, bringing outstanding expertise in AI and related…
António Guterres presented his latest biennial report on the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration to Member States…
Features
Subscribe to Updates
Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.
Health & Fitness
Trending Now
To understand the new politics stance and other pro nationals of recent times, we should look to Silicon Valley and…
Latest Articles
Damage caused by an Iranian drone strike at one of the buildings next to the headquarters of the…
The past few days have served up multiple reminders of why armed conflict is almost never a good option, let alone the best one: war is dangerous, expensive, and unpredictable, making it the last resort for prudent leaders. The entire region is on edge, with Iran seeking to internationalize the conflict so that other states will put pressure on the United States and Israel to halt their air and missile offensive. We are now on the precipice, however, of developments whose impacts will effect virtually everyone, everywhere. I refer, or course, to the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow, shallow, and uniquely vital waterway that connects the Gulf to the open seas and haunts the dreams of risk analysts everywhere. About a fifth of the world’s oil – worth more than half a trillion dollars annually – transits this passage, and while Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have pipelines that avoid the strait, they can’t handle nearly the same volumes. In addition, approximately the same share of the world’s liquefied natural gas passes through the same corridor, most of it Qatari LNG outbound for Asia. For good measure, Hormuz is also the route by which some 200 million people, including most of the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), receive most of their food and other imports. For decades, the Iranian government has claimed the right, boasted the ability, and vowed the willingness to close this waterway in response to various forms of military or other pressure from the US. Then as now, its reasoning has been both subtle and brutal. Outwardly, Iranian officials have denied targeting GCC and other states with missiles and drones, insisting that their forces were aiming instead at US military assets on their soil, even though most of these countries have not allowed their airspace to be used for the US/Israeli offensive. Even if it were true, the Iranian interpretation would certainly be a distinction without a difference for those mourning lost loved ones, but there have now been countless attacks drone and missile attacks on homes and residential buildings, port facilities, oil and gas infrastructure and other civilian targets in several GCC countries. Either way, the Iranians seem to have calculated that inflicting some degree of pain on their neighbors will cause more voices – in this case from within US-allied countries – to demand an end to the war. A similar arithmetic makes Hormuz the world’s ultimate choke point. The mere possibility of lasting disruption there has caused energy prices to rise on countless occasions, including the current crisis, and an actual closure for any length of time would be highly corrosive to the global economy. And since energy prices get baked into virtually everything else, the pain would be felt virtually everywhere. The number of countries that Iran can hit with missiles or drones is relatively limited. But close Hormuz and no country on earth would be immune to the consequences, causing many of them to demand a return to diplomacy. The fact of the matter is that Iran administers only a small section of the strait, specifically a strip of the northern channel usually used for entering the Gulf, and international law gives it no legal authority to suspend shipping there for more than a few hours without compelling reasons. Article 44 of the 1982 Law of the Sea specifically mentions that innocent passage cannot be denied. This is one reason why Tehran has been so cagey about its intent, for instance by having its parliament pass and illegal legislation supposedly authorizing closure, but then leaving the activation to the executive branch. In legal terms, then, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which Iran could justify closing the strait and imposing so much hardship on so many people around the world. Whatever its stated intentions, its actions would amount to little more than sabotage and extortion. In reality, Iran is already getting some of what it wants. Information published by Navionics and other ship tracking services indicates that until the current interruption, increasing numbers of ships were avoiding Iranian waters altogether, sailing entirely or almost entirely in Omani waters. But several ships have already been damaged, putting instant upward pressure on insurance rates and convincing most shipping companies that the risk is too great. Dozens of hulls – carrying oil, LNG, and all manner of general cargo – are now waiting to leave the Gulf, and dozens more are piling up outside it. Prices are already starting to rise, and each day that passes makes energy scarcer and more expensive. It won’t take long for the consequences of this kind of disruption to grow in size and severity. Traders and speculators may be able to stave off the full impact for a few days, and other oil producers can pump more to compensate, but eventually most of the GCC states will run out of storage and have to halt production. The situation for LNG could be even worse because there are so few producers, and Qatar has already halted production over safety concerns, idling almost a fifth of global output. For all of these reasons, this war involves far more than the official belligerents. The region’s geography and geology mean that anyone who uses energy in any way has a direct stake in the outcome. Even countries that export oil and gas have a vested interest in a return to stability: rising prices might be tempting in the short term, but they inevitably damage economies and weaken demand over time. For this reason in particular, all responsible participants, willing or otherwise, need to be pushing for a negotiated solution. Dialogue and diplomacy are never wasted efforts. Even when they fail to prevent or end a conflict, discussions carried out in good faith can leave behind the building blocks for a future understanding. The mere fact of direct or indirect contacts can also attenuate the intensity of operations – therefore limiting potential casualties and renewed impetus for more war – as planners start considering the repercussions for diplomacy. As human beings, therefore, we should never give up on the possibility of peace. But nor can we sit and say nothing as Iran lashes out at peoples and countries who have nothing to do with this conflict, destabilizing the entire region and undermining standards of living the world over. This is especially true of Qatar and Oman, both of which have left no stone unturned in trying to keep Iran out of a war in the first place. Roudi Baroudi is the author of several books about maritime boundaries and has worked in the international energy business since the 1970s. He currently serves as CEO of Energy and Environment Holding, an independent consultancy based in Doha. Related Story Source link
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer walks outside 10 Downing Street in London, Wednesday. Keir Starmer said Britain would respond to the escalating conflict in the Middle East with a “cool head” after President Donald Trump chastised the prime minister for failing to provide sufficient support for his strikes on Iran.Britain, historically a staunch ally of Washington, initially refused to allow its military bases to be used by the US for its assault on Tehran, only tempering that position when Iran attacked its neighbours — allowing UK bases to be used for limited defensive strikes.Trump responded by castigating Starmer three times, including in the Oval Office on Tuesday where he told reporters “This is not Winston Churchill that we’re dealing with”.Starmer, who had previously said any British military action must have a “viable, thought-through plan”, told parliament Wednesday that the so-called special relationship was on display every day in the conflict, and didn’t hang on the words of the US president.Citing American planes flying from British bases, British jets protecting US bases and the sharing of intelligence, he said: “That is the special relationship in action.”Hanging on to President Trump’s latest words is not the special relationship.”Starmer said he knew people across Britain were worried about the potential for escalation, and as a result he said Britain would act “with clarity, with purpose and with a cool head”.Starmer has been criticised from all sides at home for the decision, with opponents on the left calling for him to condemn the military action. On the right, opposition leaders Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage attacked Starmer for failing to back Britain’s key security and intelligence ally.Starmer said Britain had been liaising closely with the US for weeks on pre-deploying military assets to the region.After an Iranian-made Shahed drone hit the runway on the British Akrotiri base on the island of Cyprus, London said it would deploy HMS Dragon, an air-defence destroyer, along with additional helicopters with counter-drone capabilities. Related Story Source link
Turkiye’s Ministry of National Defense announced on Wednesday that a ballistic missile launched from Iran toward Turkish airspace was intercepted.In a press statement, the ministry said the missile was detected heading toward Turkish airspace and was neutralized in a timely manner by NATO air and missile defense elements deployed in the Eastern Mediterranean region.The ministry affirmed that Ankara reserves the right to respond to the attack, adding that it is in contact with NATO and other allied countries. Source link
World number one Aryna Sabalenka on Tuesday voiced her support for a proposal to make women’s matches best-of-five sets during the later stages of Grand Slam tournaments.Speaking ahead of this week’s ATP-WTA tournament in Indian Wells, the hard-hitting Sabalenka said she believed switching to five sets would benefit her game.”Yeah, let’s do that,” the four-time Grand Slam singles champion said when asked about the idea, which was floated by incoming US Tennis Association chief Craig Tiley at the Australian Open earlier this year.”I feel like I would have probably more Grand Slams,” Sabalenka added. “Physically I’m really strong, and I’m pretty confident that my body can handle that. So let’s do it.”Tiley, the former head of the Australian Open who last week was named as the new USTA chief, told the New York Times in an interview last month that switching to five sets from the quarter-finals onwards at Grand Slams should be discussed.”All the research shows interest grows as the match goes on,” Tiley said. “As a sport, we need to evolve.”But while Sabalenka backed the move, other women players were more circumspect.”I mean, it probably would favor me, because I’m physically up there with the best, but I mean, I probably wouldn’t want to see that happen,” reigning French Open champion Coco Gauff told reporters.”And if it were to happen, I would prefer it to be the whole tournament, not just the quarters. I think changing the format in the middle of the tournament defeats the purpose of the playing field.”Six-time Grand Slam champion and former world number one Iga Swiatek was firmly against the idea, and questioned the suggestion it would boost audiences.”I think honestly it’s a weird approach in the world where everything is becoming faster, you know,” Swiatek said. “So I don’t know if the audience honestly would like that.”Also, I don’t know if we would be able to keep the quality for five sets. Well, that’s a fact, like, men are more physically strong and they can handle it for sure better.”Swiatek said the physical demands would also force players to adjust their schedules, potentially leading to them playing fewer tournaments.”We have never practiced in a way to prepare for that, so we would need to change, I think, our whole calendar, because the Grand Slams would be so tough that I don’t think we would have honestly time to prepare for any other tournaments,” she said.”I think it would change a lot. I don’t think it would change anything for good.”World number five Jessica Pegula echoed Swiatek’s remarks, stating while five sets were well within the physical capabilities of women, a switch could be counter-productive.”I think we have amazing female athletes that honestly I think we could do that,” the American said. “I don’t think it’s the fact that we can’t; I just don’t necessarily think that we should.”On that aspect, I don’t even know how you would schedule tournaments. We’d have to add weeks. We can’t even get through the schedule now. So I’m not really sure for like a fan experience how that would really work.” Related Story Source link
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Wednesday that no damage has been detected at facilities containing nuclear materials in Iran.In a statement posted on the X platform, the agency said that analysis of the latest available satellite imagery showed no damage at facilities housing nuclear materials, adding that there is currently no risk of radioactive leakage.The IAEA noted that damage was detected to two buildings near the Isfahan nuclear site, while no additional impact has been observed at the Natanz facility beyond the previously reported damage to its entrances.It added that no impact has been detected at other nuclear sites, including the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Source link
