From research reactors and Western contracts to blockades and threats of war, Iran’s nuclear history is also a history of Western reversal
What’s 3,000 people killed in Iran, 2,020 killed in Lebanon, 23 in Israel, and more than a dozen in Gulf states after the US launched its war against Iran? “A little Middle East work” that’s going “very well,” US President Donald Trump said at the White House last week during a state dinner for King Charles.
From research reactors and Western contracts to blockades and threats of war, Iran’s nuclear history is also a history of Western reversal
What’s 3,000 people killed in Iran, 2,020 killed in Lebanon, 23 in Israel, and more than a dozen in Gulf states after the US launched its war against Iran? “A little Middle East work” that’s going “very well,” US President Donald Trump said at the White House last week during a state dinner for King Charles.
Trump’s ‘little work’, which involved significant casualties in the region without a clearly defined objective at the outset, was later framed as serving the purpose of ensuring that “Americans and their children would not be threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran.”
“We have militarily defeated that particular opponent, and we’re never going to let that opponent ever – Charles agrees with me even more than I do – we’re never going to let that opponent have a nuclear weapon.”
Will Charles help Donald make sure there’s nothing – and no one – to allow Iran to work on its nuclear project? It seems like the US will try to level Iran to the ground anyway. According to The Atlantic, the Trump administration began considering strikes aimed not simply at Iran’s military capacity, but at the faction inside the regime that Washington believed was preventing a deal.
Trump even reposted a video by Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen calling for an air campaign along those lines. According to Axios, the military prepared options for a “short and powerful” wave of strikes, which General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed the president on.
The timing is politically delicate. Trump has a state visit to China scheduled for mid-May, a trip that has already been postponed once. If strikes are ordered, they could come before the trip, allowing the president to travel after demonstrating strength. Or they could come immediately afterward, once the diplomatic optics are out of the way.
While Trump supplied the performance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio supplied the doctrine. When Trump spoke of military victory, royal agreement, and Iran never being allowed to possess a nuclear weapon, Rubio framed the same position as strategic necessity: Iran’s government cannot be trusted, its future intentions are already known, and any deal that fails to address the nuclear question is unacceptable.
The nuclear question, he said, is “the reason why we’re in this in the first place.” He insisted that if Iran’s “radical clerical regime” remained in power, it would eventually decide to pursue a nuclear weapon. Therefore, in his view, the issue has to be confronted immediately.
But there is something deeply ironic in this entire spectacle. Listening to Trump and Rubio, one might think Iran’s nuclear program appeared out of nowhere – a dark project born entirely from anti-Western ideology and clerical ambition. This is far from the case.
Iran’s nuclear program did not begin with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. It did not begin with the Islamic Republic. It did not begin as an anti-American project. It began under the Shah, when Iran was a close US ally. And it began with direct American assistance.
When Iran’s nuclear dream was a Western project
The origins of Iran’s nuclear program were actually a pro-Western modernization project of the Shah’s era, and it was the Western countries that acted as the architects in the early stages, Nikolay Sukhov, a leading researcher at the Primakov Institute of World Economy and International Relations and professor at the HSE University in Moscow, told RT.
The Atoms for Peace program, launched by the Eisenhower administration, was designed to export nuclear technology to US allies for peaceful purposes: Research, energy, and medicine, Sukhov said.
Under the Shah, Iran was one of Washington’s priority partners.
Practical implementation began in the late 1950s, when Iran and the US signed an agreement on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Under the agreement, Washington committed to supplying Tehran with nuclear installations and equipment, and to helping train Iranian specialists.
Later, in 1967, the US delivered Iran’s first research reactor. Iranian nuclear experts were trained not only in the US, but also in Britain, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and France. Specialists from Israel, West Germany, France, and the US agreed to work on the project and started laying the foundation for a reactor at Bushehr in southern Iran and a research reactor in Isfahan. Iran signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and ratified it in 1970, formally confirming the peaceful status of its nuclear program.
At the time, few in the West described Iran’s nuclear program as a nightmare, and very few warned that the world was about to be held hostage by Tehran’s atomic ambitions. The reason was simple: Iran was ruled by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah, a close American ally and a central pillar of US strategy in the Middle East.
The Shah’s nuclear ambitions, however, weren’t limited to a peaceful project. The whole thing was part of a much larger project, the ‘White Revolution’ launched in 1963 – a sweeping modernization program that he called the “revolution of the Shah and the people.”
Over the next decade and a half, Iran was transformed at extraordinary speed. A country that had recently been largely agrarian began building steel plants, machine-building factories, petrochemical complexes, automobile and tractor plants, gas and aluminum industries, and even the foundations of national shipbuilding and aircraft production.
“The shah placed his bet on large-scale nuclear energy as a pillar of industrialization and as a way to reduce dependence on oil. Paradoxically, that was precisely the logic: Nuclear power would free up more oil for export,” Sukhov said.
Israeli advisers, who Mohammad Reza Pahlavi reportedly listened to carefully, were among those who convinced him that a country with such vast oil wealth deserved its own nuclear power plants. This is an important detail, because today Israel presents Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as an intolerable threat by definition. But in the Shah’s Iran, Israeli involvement in strategic and technological modernization was not unusual. Iran and Israel maintained close security, intelligence, and technical ties. The same Iran that is now described as a permanent danger was then part of a regional order that Washington and its allies wanted to strengthen.
Israel’s role went back even earlier, to May 1958, when David Ben-Gurion received two Iranian nuclear scientists in his office. According to his notebooks, the visitors said they had come to establish ties with the Israeli scientific world and told him respectfully: “We have heard that in everything concerning science, you are at the level of the Americans.”
The Shah’s vision was simple and grandiose: To move Iran “from the Middle Ages into the nuclear age.” The nuclear project, in his mind, would place Iran in the top ranks of Middle Eastern countries. He said Iran would have nuclear weapons “without a doubt and sooner than one would think,” a statement he later disavowed.
Though the Western countries didn’t see Iran as anything but a partner, Washington did have concerns. Declassified documents from the Ford and Carter years show that US officials worried about the Shah’s interest in plutonium reprocessing, a technology that could provide a faster route to a bomb than enriched uranium. And yet no one seemed concerned enough to stop the process – or perceptive enough to notice another one unfolding in parallel: The slow build-up of a revolution that, within just a few years, would erupt.
“Western specialists in the 1960s and 1970s were not helping Iran build a military program. They were building a classic civilian nuclear system for an allied state, one that still depended heavily on Western technology and expertise,” Sukhov said. “Yet that same system, through its personnel, infrastructure, and institutions, eventually gave Iran the tools to pursue technological sovereignty in the nuclear field later.”
The Revolution that inherited the atom
By the time the Shah fell in 1979, the construction of Iran’s first two nuclear reactors, with German participation, had already entered the final stage. The monarchy was gone but the infrastructure remained. So did the idea that nuclear technology was not simply about electricity, but also about development, prestige, and national independence.
“The turning point came after the Islamic Revolution. Most Western specialists left the country, projects were frozen, and cooperation with the United States and Europe came to an end. But the infrastructure already built – along with the experts Iran had trained – became the foundation for a later program that was more autonomous, more closed, and much harder for the West to control,” Sukhov said.
Then came the Iran-Iraq War.
From 1980 to 1988, the Bushehr area was a repeated target of Iraqi air attacks. The unfinished nuclear plant, visible from a distance, was an obvious and symbolic target. According to Iranian media cited in the source material, American assistance allegedly helped guide Saddam Hussein’s pilots toward the facility several times. The attacks killed workers, damaged parts of the plant, and turned what had once been a prestige project of the Shah into a battlefield ruin.
For Iran, watching the region around it militarize, strike first, and treat nuclear capability as a question of survival were lessons that were hard to miss. It was in the years of the Iran-Iraq War that the idea of an ‘Islamic atomic bomb’ likely began to take shape in the minds of some Iranian leaders.
Publicly, the revival of the Shah’s nuclear program was presented as a matter of energy diversification. Iran had oil and gas, but it also had ambitions to become technologically self-sufficient. Nuclear technology was framed as a symbol of development and as a necessary attribute of any state that considered itself serious and sovereign. The possible military dimension was only one part of a broader Iranian drive for self-reliance in arms, technology, and industry.
After Ayatollah Khomeini’s death in 1989, Iran’s approach to nuclear energy changed again. Under the new supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country resumed its nuclear ambitions and continued seeking technologies connected to nuclear capability. By the early 1990s, the country was recovering from the devastating war with Iraq and trying to rebuild a program that was disrupted by revolution, bombardment, sanctions, and the withdrawal of foreign specialists who helped build it in the first place.
Under US pressure, Germany, India, and Argentina declined to support Iran’s nuclear program. Iran turned to other partners, including China, Russia, and Pakistan. China signed nuclear cooperation protocols with Iran in 1985 and 1990, providing small research reactors, equipment related to uranium enrichment and fuel production, and more than a ton of natural uranium. Russia showed willingness to work on Iran’s civilian nuclear development, and in 1992, Moscow and Tehran signed a nuclear cooperation agreement.
In 1995, Iran finalized a cooperation protocol with Russia to complete the Bushehr reactor, the very project that had begun under the Shah with German involvement and which was battered during the Iran-Iraq War.
This cooperation was controversial, especially in Washington. Then-President Bill Clinton pressed then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin to halt nuclear assistance to Iran, reflecting American concerns that civilian nuclear cooperation could strengthen Iran’s broader technical base. In Russia, however, the argument was more complex. Some analysts believed that cooperation with Iran in nuclear energy could actually create channels of control and transparency: If Russia was involved, it would have contacts, oversight, and leverage that might help keep the project within civilian limits. The International Atomic Energy Agency did not at this stage report clear signs of a military component in Iran’s nuclear program.
There was also a practical economic factor. In the difficult post-Soviet years, Russia needed major industrial contracts, and the Bushehr project promised significant revenue for Russian companies and the state. For Moscow, the project was not necessarily understood as a dramatic geopolitical gamble. It was a civilian energy contract, a continuation of a half-built plant, and a way to preserve Russia’s role in the global nuclear industry.
There were, however, concerns. Some reports suggested that Russian contractors continued providing assistance beyond what Washington considered acceptable, including help involving heavy-water infrastructure and uranium mining. US and Israeli officials increasingly worried that Iran was acquiring not only nuclear power capability, but a wider industrial base that could shorten the distance to military applications if Tehran ever made the decision.
By 1999, reports indicated that Iranian specialists had begun testing enrichment equipment that would eventually be connected to the facility at Natanz. Then, in 2002, the crisis entered a new stage. The Iranian opposition group Mujahedin-e Khalq revealed the existence of two previously undeclared nuclear sites: Natanz and Arak. This disclosure came at a moment when the US was already focused intensely on weapons of mass destruction, ‘rogue states’, and non-state extremist actors.
By early 2003, the scale of Iran’s progress had become clearer. Iran had advanced further than US intelligence had expected. It had completed a cascade of 164 centrifuges and was building many more. Natanz was designed to house tens of thousands of centrifuges. At Arak, inspectors found construction related to heavy-water production and a reactor that could produce plutonium.
For the first time, Iran’s nuclear program became not just a source of suspicion, but the center of an international crisis.
The snowball effect of mistrust of the same countries that helped Iran build its nuclear program is well known.
Even though Iran implemented the Additional Protocol to the NPT in 2003, strengthening the IAEA’s ability to inspect and verify the program, and another agreement extending the temporary suspension of Iran’s nuclear activities in 2004, the mistrust of the Western countries did not disappear. In 2005, the US again accused Iran of violating its commitments and developing a nuclear program, citing intelligence literally found on a stolen Iranian laptop.
Though experts questioned the reliability of this material, suggesting that Iranian opposition factions or a hostile state could have fabricated evidence, Washington successfully pushed for an IAEA resolution condemning Iran for a long history of concealment and failures to meet its obligations under the NPT. Iran’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, rejected the resolution as “illegal and illogical” and described it as the result of a scenario designed by the US.
From that point on, the pattern hardened. Publicly, Washington and its partners spoke of diplomacy, inspections, safeguards, and nonproliferation. Privately, the US and Israel expanded intelligence cooperation and pursued covert means to slow Iran’s progress.
What had begun under the Shah as a Western-supported modernization project had become, under the Islamic Republic, a permanent international crisis.
The larger irony remained intact. Iran’s nuclear program began with American approval, European contracts, Israeli contacts, and international legitimacy. After 1979, the same infrastructure became radioactive in the political sense. It was no longer the nuclear dream of a friendly monarch. It was the nuclear ambition of a state that had broken with Washington.
Today’s American outrage has a strange historical aftertaste. Trump wants to erase what earlier American policy helped create, and Israel wants to destroy a nuclear capacity that Israeli experts once helped nurture. The point is not that Iran’s nuclear program was ‘good’ when the West helped build it and ‘bad’ once the Islamic Republic inherited it. The point is that it became unacceptable when it was no longer in the hands of a US-aligned client state.
After 1979, the same infrastructure, institutions, and expertise ended up under a government Washington could not control. And despite losing Western support, Iran managed to keep the program alive through procurement, covert development, and partial localization. Over time, this produced a more autonomous nuclear cycle. It also gave Iran the ability to move close to weapons-grade capability without formally leaving the NPT. This is what made the program so difficult for Washington to contain – not simply that Iran had nuclear technology, but that it had learned how to sustain and advance it without being a client of the West.
Nitrogen and phosphorus discharged into fjords match the raw discharge of millions of people, according to a new study
Fish farms in Norway release three times more waste into fjords than the country’s entire population produces, new research has suggested.
The findings come from the Sunstone Institute, an Oslo-based research group, which calculated the volume of fish excrement and uneaten feed discharged directly into coastal waters by nearly a
Nitrogen and phosphorus discharged into fjords match the raw discharge of millions of people, according to a new study
Fish farms in Norway release three times more waste into fjords than the country’s entire population produces, new research has suggested.
The findings come from the Sunstone Institute, an Oslo-based research group, which calculated the volume of fish excrement and uneaten feed discharged directly into coastal waters by nearly a thousand fjord-based farms in Norway.
Last year, “the nitrogen and phosphorus in this waste were equivalent to the raw sewage from 17.2 million and 20 million people, respectively,” the report said. “Triple the toilet waste from an entire country,” it added. Norway’s population is about 5.5 million.
The discharge has significant environmental consequences, the report argues. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus trigger algal blooms which, as they decompose, deplete oxygen and create “dead zones” where marine life struggles to survive. Uneaten feed drifting from cages also attracts wild fish, exposing them to elevated nutrient levels and degraded conditions.
The findings stand in contrast to Norway’s reputation as a global environmental leader. In the 2024 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), compiled by Yale and Columbia universities, the country ranked 7th out of 180 nations and placed 2nd globally for environmental health.
Norwegian authorities have not yet commented on the findings. Industry representatives have pushed back, with the Norwegian Seafood Federation telling the Guardian that current production remains “well within nature’s carrying capacity” and that there is no documented proof that operations are damaging fjords.
The sector is a major pillar of Norway’s economy. With the second-longest coastline in the world, the country is the largest producer of farmed salmon, accounting for more than half of global output. It supplies markets across Europe, the US and Asia, exporting 106,000 tonnes worth over $1.1 billion in March alone, according to the Norwegian Seafood Council.
The industry is dominated by a handful of large Norwegian-based companies, including Mowi, the world’s largest salmon farmer, Lerøy Seafood Group, and SalMar. Profits are concentrated among these major players. Mowi’s largest shareholder, shipping magnate John Fredriksen, ranks 118th on Forbes’ 2026 global billionaires list with a net worth of $21.2 billion.
The self-styled champions of international order have flocked to Armenia to strike a pose against Russia
Over the past several days Western leaders have flocked to Armenia, a post-Soviet nation of 3 million people which hosts a Russian military base, for what Western media has described as a “historic summit,” charting Yerevan’s path away from Moscow and highlighting the EU’s purportedly growing responsibility for world affairs.
The gathering gav
The self-styled champions of international order have flocked to Armenia to strike a pose against Russia
Over the past several days Western leaders have flocked to Armenia, a post-Soviet nation of 3 million people which hosts a Russian military base, for what Western media has described as a “historic summit,” charting Yerevan’s path away from Moscow and highlighting the EU’s purportedly growing responsibility for world affairs.
The gathering gave the host, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, and his guests, an opportunity for political posturing – as well as a distraction from the global crisis they’re lurching into.
Who came to Yerevan?
Armenia hosted the latest summit of the European Political Community (EPC), an EU-led intergovernmental group launched in 2022 in response to the escalation of the Ukraine crisis. Originally the brainchild of French President Emmauel Macron, it was transparently designed as a vehicle for an anti-Russian agenda pushed by Brussels and London.
Molodova, an EU candidate state led by a fiercely anti-Russian government, hosted the EPC’s second annual gathering. The group also counts Ukraine among participants and welcomes at its events a Belarusian opposition organization led by Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, which is based in Lithuania and funded by EU taxpayers’ money.
So in short, it’s largely a club for opposing Russia with questionable entry standards.
What does Armenia get out of hosting the summit?
A lot of positive Western media publicity for Pashinyan, whose approval ratings at home barely cross into double digits. His premiership, launched with a soft coup in 2018, was marred by a lost proxy war with neighboring Azerbaijan for its region of Nagorno Karabakh.
The prime minister attempted to scapegoat Russia – faulting Moscow for a lack of military response during border clashes that were part of Yerevan’s broader stand-off with Baku. He also used government powers to crack down on the Armenian Apostolic Church, which played a leading role in protest against his government in 2024.
This does not make Pashinyan an authoritarian ruler in the eyes of his Western guests. After all, part of his media strategy has been to shave his beard and start posting videos of himself making heart shapes to pop music. European leaders, such as Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, would rather echo the Armenian host’s emulation of a K-Pop star than question his governance.
Pashinyan’s efforts to distance Armenia from Russia and convince voters that the EU and the US would ensure their future safety have paid off – at least in the form of a pat on the back from Western leaders.
Eight years ago “nobody would come here,” Macron said on Monday, because when the EPC was launched Armenia was viewed as “de facto satellite of Russia.” He directly linked Pashinyan’s strategy with the Ukraine war and “what is done in Moldova.”
It’s safe to assume that Brussels will have Pashinyan’s back with all its usual ‘anti-interference’ shenanigans during the upcoming parliamentary election in early June. However, unlike Moldova’s President Maia Sandu, who has kept her office thanks to voters based in the EU, Pashinyan must win domestic support, since Armenian laws do not allow casting ballots outside of national territory (the Armenian diaspora numbers some 10 million).
Macron, whose presidency is set to end next year, threw some crumbs for the cameras covering the Yerevan circus by singing Charles Aznavour’s ‘La Bohème’ as Pashinyan played the drums.
Emmanuel Macron chante « la bohème » accompagné à la batterie par le premier ministre Nikol pachinyan . Dîner d’état à Erevan. La musique en amitié. pic.twitter.com/v5vacqZlVv
An inevitable presence at virtually every event involving the EU, Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky popped up in Yerevan with the usual assurances that Russia is on the brink of defeat. Though he and Pashinyan are both fluent in Russian, they communicated in English on camera – political optics beating common sense, as it often does wherever Brussels has a hand.
During a photo op with Western leaders, some clerk who must be on the Kremlin’s payroll placed the Ukrainian leader next to Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama. The positioning was uncomfortable not due to political differences, but because Rama is a giant some two meters tall – contrasting with Zelensky whose height and speculated use of lift shoes has long been debated.
The Ukrainian leader is currently preoccupied with other kinds of optics. Just last week he was faced with a new series of allegations concerning his inner circle’s control and ownership of weapons companies receiving potentially billions in Western aid and orders.
Released transcripts of secret conversations between Zelenskys’ then Defense Minister and his long-time business partner, Timur Mindich – known as “Zelensky’s wallet” – show that Mindich is the beneficial owner of Fire Point, the former casting agency that became a billion dollar weapons company in just 4 years.
Acting Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, whose government forced through extraordinary legislation to accommodate a Fire Point facility on its territory, was spared the outrage that would have met her attending a meeting with Zelensky.
She skipped the meeting, as did German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
So what is all the fuss about?
According to European Council President Antonio Costa, Western dignitaries arrived in Yerevan mainly to demonstrate that “Europe’s way of doing things – diplomacy, multilateralism, and respect for international law – yields results.”
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, a special guest, said he was “very appreciative of the symbolism” of being invited, and said international order “will be rebuilt out of Europe.” He previously argued that Western dominance was based on lies and urged beneficiaries to reject it, but failed to follow through.
US President Donald Trump, whose blatant military interventions have shattered the pretence of a benevolent, hegemonic, and united West, was “the elephant in the room” at the EPC gathering, according to the BBC. His latest strike against confused European NATO members was a drawdown of troops and long-range missiles from Germany. The move came after Merz dared to highlight American humiliation after Washington failed to defeat Iran and put the world on track for a global economic recession.
But Brussels may have had its revenge by challenging Trump’s diplomatic reengagement with Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. Tikhanovskaya was filmed shaking hands with Macron on the sidelines of the summit in Armenia, after reportedly passing on last year’s EPC meeting in Denmark due to financial constraints.
It is very important for us that Europe maintains unity and continues to act together. Today, I thanked 🇫🇷 President @EmmanuelMacron for the role that France plays today in Europe. #EPCpic.twitter.com/DaSx8E30I1
— Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya (@Tsihanouskaya) May 4, 2026
People behind an arms maker promoted by the Ukrainian leader believe peace is bad for business, MP Aleksey Goncharenko has claimed
Members of Vladimir Zelensky’s inner circle are profiting from the ongoing conflict with Russia, Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksey Goncharenko has claimed. According to the MP, newly leaked information related to a major corruption case involving Timur Mindich, a former business partner and longtime associate of Zelensky, co
People behind an arms maker promoted by the Ukrainian leader believe peace is bad for business, MP Aleksey Goncharenko has claimed
Members of Vladimir Zelensky’s inner circle are profiting from the ongoing conflict with Russia, Ukrainian lawmaker Aleksey Goncharenko has claimed. According to the MP, newly leaked information related to a major corruption case involving Timur Mindich, a former business partner and longtime associate of Zelensky, could force the Ukrainian leader to step down.
Goncharenko claimed over the weekend he had obtained transcripts from surveillance recordings of Mindich and his business partners. Media outlet Ukrainskaya Pravda (UP) was the first to publish the leaks known as the ‘Mindich tapes’, which are yet to be officially verified.
One ‘tape’ focuses on a conversation between Aleksandr Zuckerman, a business partner of Mindich, and Igor Khemelev, who is believed to be a co-owner of Fire Point, a drone maker touted globally by Zelensky himself. According to the transcript published by Goncharenko on his Telegram channel, Khmelev told Zuckerman that “as soon as the peace [agreement] is signed, the hoax under which we were getting funding will be no more.”
The two then allegedly discussed ways to cash in on the government contracts by supplying as many arms to the military as possible.
“Zelensky built his entire election campaign on the fact that war is profitable… It turns out that it really is profitable and they really make money from it,” Goncharenko commented, calling the latest leak “something that should lead to Zelensky’s resignation.”
The ‘Mindich tapes’ also suggested that Mindich was effectively running Fire Point and was discussing additional funding for the arms maker with then Defense Minister Rustem Umerov. Mindich fled Ukraine late last year after being accused of orchestrating a $100 million graft scheme.
Last week, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry’s Public Anti-Corruption Council said Fire Point would lose access to any government contracts at the very moment its ties to Mindich are “legally proven.” Its head, Yury Gudimenko, also said that the council had already obtained “unofficial confirmation” of Mindich’s “involvement” with the company.
Technology is enabling traffickers to identify, recruit, and control victims at scale, making exploitation harder to detect, a UK study warns
Artificial intelligence is helping criminals expand their entrapment of modern-day slaves across the UK, with traffickers increasingly using digital tools to identify and exploit victims, a new report has found.
Criminal networks in the UK are seeking to enslave people through coercion, deception, or force,
Technology is enabling traffickers to identify, recruit, and control victims at scale, making exploitation harder to detect, a UK study warns
Artificial intelligence is helping criminals expand their entrapment of modern-day slaves across the UK, with traffickers increasingly using digital tools to identify and exploit victims, a new report has found.
Criminal networks in the UK are seeking to enslave people through coercion, deception, or force, including forced labor, sexual exploitation, and human trafficking, the study, commissioned by the UK Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, has found. AI is enabling traffickers to “identify, recruit and control victims at scale,” making exploitation more widespread and significantly harder to detect.
The report noted that the number of reported cases reached 23,411 in 2025, the highest on record and marked a 22% annual increase, underscoring what officials describe as a growing crisis.
According to the study, AI-driven scams, deepfakes and synthetic identities are being used to target vulnerable individuals, while new forms of digital labor exploitation are expanding the pool of victims. These methods reportedly allow traffickers to operate more efficiently and with greater anonymity.
At the same time, economic pressures, including the rising cost of living, are increasing vulnerability, creating what the commissioner described as a “pipeline” of people at risk of exploitation.
Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner Eleanor Lyons warned that without urgent action, modern slavery will become more complex, more hidden, and harder to combat. She called on the government to prioritize the issue, boost law enforcement resources, and raise public awareness.
Lyons stressed that the rapid evolution of technology means the threat is likely to continue growing.
The growing use of chatbots has long fueled concerns among independent researchers and government agencies worldwide about AI-enabled crime. While most illegal activities have been linked to the digital sphere, including hacking, cyberattacks, fraud, and identity theft, chatbots have also increasingly been implicated in facilitating more serious and violent crimes.
A recent joint investigation by CNN and the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that 8 out of 10 AI chatbots helped simulate violent attack planning, including school shootings and attacks on public figures. The research also found that most systems were willing to provide actionable guidance in violent scenarios to users posing as minors.
Romanian lawmakers have voted overwhelmingly to oust Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan, toppling his cabinet
Romania’s ruling pro-EU coalition collapsed on Tuesday after Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan was ousted in a no-confidence motion in the country's parliament. The defeat follows months of tensions over austerity measures as Bucharest struggles with the highest budget deficit in the EU.
The motion passed 281-4 after a debate on a joint effort launche
Romanian lawmakers have voted overwhelmingly to oust Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan, toppling his cabinet
Romania’s ruling pro-EU coalition collapsed on Tuesday after Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan was ousted in a no-confidence motion in the country's parliament. The defeat follows months of tensions over austerity measures as Bucharest struggles with the highest budget deficit in the EU.
The motion passed 281-4 after a debate on a joint effort launched by the left-wing Social Democratic Party (PSD), which withdrew from the governing coalition late last month, and the right-wing opposition Alliance for the Union of Romanians (AUR) party.
Bolojan called the motion “cynical and artificial” during the parliamentary debate, insisting that he took “urgent and necessary” measures to address the country’s economic crisis.
Critics, however, have argued that after ten months in power, Bolojan and the four-party pro-EU government failed to bring any real improvements for citizens. AUR leader George Simion celebrated the vote, writing on social media that Romanians had only “received taxes, war and poverty” under the government and called for snap elections, which are, however, considered unlikely before 2028.
Why is Romania's politics so unstable
The current government and the four-party coalition were set up in June 2025 by President Nicusor Dan after winning a controversial election rerun that critics argue was orchestrated to keep anti-European forces out of power and appease EU and NATO interest groups.
Romania hosts one of NATO's largest regional airbases at Mihail Kogalniceanu near the Black Sea which is currently being expanded to become the bloc’s biggest airbase in Europe. Meanwhile, the country has also become a significant market for Western European exports and a source of cheaper labour for EU-based companies.
Annulment of Georgescu’s victory
The initial election round, held in December 2024, was won by independent anti-NATO and anti-EU candidate Calin Georgescu who advocated for restoring Romania’s sovereignty and opposed the EU’s confrontational stance towards Russia.
However, Romania’s Constitutional Court, under pressure from Brussels, infamously overturned the result, citing an alleged Russian TikTok interference campaign. While no evidence was ever provided for the accusations, TikTok has testified that it saw no coordinated Russian operation boosting Georgescu but constantly received demands from EU-funded NGOs to remove content supporting the nationalist candidate.
Georgescu was later detained, charged with incitement against the constitutional order, and barred from running in the 2025 rerun. The charges were subsequently reduced to charges of promoting “far-right propaganda.”
The EU’s democratic backsliding
The treatment of Georgescu has been widely criticized, including in the US, where the House Judiciary Committee concluded in February that Brussels had used unproven Russian interference claims to overturn the 2024 election results. The committee’s report described the move as “the most aggressive censorship steps” taken by the EU in recent years.
US Vice President J.D. Vance told the Munich Security Conference in February 2025 that it was “ugly” to see a politician with an alternative viewpoint being blocked from power and accused Europe of backsliding on the most fundamental democratic values.
Georgescu himself has argued that his victory was overturned by the “globalist mafia” because NATO intends to “launch World War III from Romania” and was opposed to his campaign focused on peace.
What happens next
President Dan is expected to begin consultations with party leaders to form a new government as Romania faces an August deadline to complete reforms and unlock around €11 billion in EU funding while a credit rating downgrade remains a risk, according to Politico.
President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Tehran was based on American interests, the Pentagon chief has claimed
President Donald Trump was not “pulled in” to the war on Iran by Israel, but chose to attack the Islamic Republic based on his ‘America First’ policy, War Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed in a Pentagon press briefing on Tuesday.
During the event, the war secretary was asked whether Washington was risking “getting roped back into a war”
President Donald Trump’s decision to attack Tehran was based on American interests, the Pentagon chief has claimed
President Donald Trump was not “pulled in” to the war on Iran by Israel, but chose to attack the Islamic Republic based on his ‘America First’ policy, War Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed in a Pentagon press briefing on Tuesday.
During the event, the war secretary was asked whether Washington was risking “getting roped back into a war” by Israel, as “the Israelis are explicitly stating their intent to continue fighting at a later date.”
Hegseth argued that the core idea that Trump was “pulled into” the Iran war by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a “false premise.”
“Just to be clear, President Trump has led at every step of this based on his view of American interests and ‘America First,’” he said, adding that Washington was “grateful” to have Israel as an ally.
However, he admitted that “they may have some objectives at times that are slightly different than ours.”
Despite recent fire exchanges between US and Iranian forces, “the ceasefire is not over,” the Pentagon chief added.
Israel has continued to bomb southern Lebanon in violation of the armistice, despite Trump directly prohibiting it from doing so since mid-April.
West Jerusalem has claimed that it is only targeting Hezbollah during its invasion of its southern neighbor, however reports have emerged alleging systematic destruction of entire villages and rampant looting of civilian property by the IDF. Since March 2, Israeli attacks have killed at least 2,702 people and wounded more than 8,000, the Lebanese Health Ministry reported on Tuesday.
Despite the ongoing ceasefire, an apparent fire exchange took place on Monday, as CENTCOM forces reportedly attempted to push through the Strait of Hormuz. Tehran considers Washington’s naval blockade of Iranian ports a breach of the ceasefire terms.
“The status quo is intolerable for America; while we have not even begun yet,” Iranian Parliament Speaker and chief negotiator Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said on Tuesday.
Beyond Hezbollah, the offensive reflects deeper geopolitical ambitions and internal pressures
Shortly after US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between the US and Iran, tensions escalated dramatically on the Israeli-Lebanese front. Israel declared that it was launching strikes in Lebanese territory to counter Hezbollah.
The strikes primarily targeted urban infrastructure, including areas in Beirut. In the first 24 hours of the Israel
Beyond Hezbollah, the offensive reflects deeper geopolitical ambitions and internal pressures
Shortly after US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between the US and Iran, tensions escalated dramatically on the Israeli-Lebanese front. Israel declared that it was launching strikes in Lebanese territory to counter Hezbollah.
The strikes primarily targeted urban infrastructure, including areas in Beirut. In the first 24 hours of the Israeli operation, civilian casualties exceeded 250 people.
Israel’s official stance is that the operation is aimed against Hezbollah, which it considers a terrorist organization. However, multiple strikes on urban infrastructure raise doubts that the attacks were directed solely against military targets. While the families of its supporters may reside in some neighborhoods, Hezbollah forces typically avoid urban environments and don’t use civilian infrastructure for military purposes.
Moreover, Israel’s actions exert additional pressure on the (already challenging) negotiation track between the US and Iran. Any escalation in Lebanon automatically involves Tehran as Hezbollah’s key ally. Iran immediately condemned Israel’s strikes – according to Tehran, the ceasefire announced by Trump was supposed to extend to Lebanon. Consequently, the US, as Israel’s ally, was responsible for the strikes against Beirut.
The negotiations held between the US and Iran in Islamabad were also connected to the situation in Lebanon. Iran’s position is clear: It considers Lebanon a zone of its strategic interests and is unwilling to exclude it from the negotiating agenda. Washington, however, is not prepared to accept this configuration. The White House aims to diminish Tehran’s geopolitical influence and prevent it from emerging as a winner in this political game.
Israel’s actions are driven not only by foreign policy considerations but also by domestic political and legal factors. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s position remains vulnerable due to ongoing criminal proceedings. Military de-escalation will likely lead to increasing domestic political pressure, including the acceleration of judicial proceedings, the mobilization of the opposition, and an escalation of internal conflicts between the elites.
At the end of April, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and opposition leader Yair Lapid merged their factions into a single list. This development suggests that the ruling Likud party, led by Netanyahu, could be at risk of splitting due to significant internal disagreements. Consequently, for Netanyahu, the ongoing external crisis serves as a means of preserving the existing political balance.
Military engagement in Lebanon also aligns with Israel’s broader strategy to contain regional proxy structures linked to Iran. Weakening Hezbollah could potentially reduce Tehran’s ability to project power in the eastern Mediterranean.
The strategic interests of Israel and the US are aligned on this issue: Both are interested in limiting Iran’s regional influence by means of weakening its allies.
Prior to launching extensive strikes on Lebanon, Netanyahu addressed residents in northern Israel and stressed that a ceasefire is not being discussed. He stated that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would continue to target Hezbollah “at full scale” until the safety of the population is ensured. He also described his strategy as ‘peace through strength’, causing dissatisfaction in Washington.
According to Axios and the New York Post, Washington has urged the Israeli leadership to at least reduce the intensity of military operations in Lebanon. The strikes jeopardize direct negotiations with Iran and undermine the highly unstable ceasefire. According to reports, Trump reached out directly to Netanyahu, pressing for a more restrained approach. US Vice President J.D. Vance also made it clear that Israel had provided verbal assurances about its commitment not to disrupt the negotiation process with Iran. However, in reality, Israel’s approach did not change.
Despite Trump’s calls for restraint, the situation on the ground continues to escalate. Three days ago, it was reported that the IDF struck and destroyed over 40 Hezbollah infrastructure sites in southern Lebanon within a single day. Targeted facilities included command centers, military structures, and related assets. The New York Times notes that Israel is employing the same tactics in Lebanon as it did in Gaza: Entire neighborhoods, streets, and buildings are being turned into rubble. Not only residential homes but also government institutions, schools, hospitals, and mosques have been demolished.
A day ago, the NYT reported that Israeli forces destroyed 20 towns and villages in southern Lebanon, creating a multi-kilometer buffer zone. According to the publication, the Israeli authorities plan to maintain control over this area until the threat is completely eliminated. Officially, Israel justifies these actions by claiming that Hezbollah continues to attack. However, this rationale deliberately ignores one critical point: Ongoing Israeli operations provoke constant retaliatory actions from Hezbollah, thus perpetuating a cycle of escalation in which each side cites the other’s actions to justify its own.
The cumulative casualties starkly illustrate the true scale of the conflict: At least 2,600 people have died, and more than a million have been displaced. The ceasefire has been breached over 200 times. In other words, there is no real ceasefire – only a diplomatic facade under which a full-blown war continues.
This underlines the duality of the current situation: Israel has not formally declared an end to the war, yet de facto it has agreed to temper its rhetorical intensity under external pressure. Essentially, this is a reluctant adjustment, framed in a way that would minimize reputational costs for Trump, even as the underlying logic of the military operation remains unchanged.
Discussions regarding this approach within the Israeli government have been marked by significant disagreements. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar supported Netanyahu’s course, while members of the right-wing faction sharply criticized it. Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir insisted on the need to exert pressure on Lebanon, including targeting its infrastructure. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich advocated for an expanded military presence and enhanced territorial control. Ultimately, this reflects existing internal contradictions in Netanyahu’s office: There is no agreement on whether to focus solely on combating Hezbollah or to broaden the scope of the conflict and exert pressure on the entire state of Lebanon.
Media reports, including those from the Saudi news channel Al-Hadath and the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, suggest that a ceasefire could be announced as a gesture of goodwill. However, even in this scenario, it seems more like a tactical pause than a long-term resolution. The situation in Lebanon is closely linked to negotiations with Iran. For Washington, maintaining dialogue with Tehran remains a top priority (regardless of whether it is preparing for a new round of conflict with Iran), and de-escalation along Israel’s northern borders is a tool for achieving broader diplomatic goals. Israel, for its part, agrees to these limitations only as long as they do not undermine its own strategy of power projection.
In this context, a shift toward negotiations does not indicate a change in overall policy. According to Israeli media, the government is also considering ramping up military actions in Gaza – officially, because of Hamas’ refusal to disarm as long as there is no comprehensive political settlement. This means that we are talking not so much about de-escalation as a re-distribution of military resources and political focus between several fronts.
Police say National Colored Congress leader Fadiel Adams interfered with investigations into the killing of an ANC Youth League figure in 2017
South African MP and National Colored Congress leader Fadiel Adams has been arrested in Cape Town over fraud and obstruction charges linked to alleged interference in the investigation into the 2017 murder of ANC Youth League figure Sindiso Magaqa, police have said.
This comes after he was instructed by th
Police say National Colored Congress leader Fadiel Adams interfered with investigations into the killing of an ANC Youth League figure in 2017
South African MP and National Colored Congress leader Fadiel Adams has been arrested in Cape Town over fraud and obstruction charges linked to alleged interference in the investigation into the 2017 murder of ANC Youth League figure Sindiso Magaqa, police have said.
This comes after he was instructed by the Political Killings Task Team to present himself at his nearest police station in connection with charges related to fraud and defeating or obstructing the course of justice.
Adams was arrested by PKTT members after handing himself over at Parliament Village on Tuesday.
Earlier on Tuesday, the South African Police Service (SAPS) said its Political Killings Task Team had called on Adams to present himself at his nearest police station. National police spokesperson Brigadier Athlenda Mathe said officers were in possession of a J50 warrant for Adams’ arrest.
“The warrant relates to serious allegations that he interfered with ongoing investigations into the murder of the late ANC Youth League leader, Mr Sindiso Magaqa,” Mathe said. She said investigators had found that Adams allegedly interfered with a convicted hitman at a sensitive and advanced stage of the probe.
On Sunday, IOL News reported that Adams had made a series of allegations against SAPS and KwaZulu-Natal police commissioner Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi, claiming members of the Political Killings Task Team had raided a house he previously owned in Mitchell’s Plain.
Speaking at a media briefing at Parliament, Adams alleged that about 15 task team members stormed a house in Westridge on Saturday in search of him.
He claimed officers did not produce a search or arrest warrant and alleged they pointed rifles at a woman, assaulted a 12-year-old boy and traumatized a family while searching the wrong property.
Adams said he had sold the property a few weeks earlier and no longer lived there. “With a budget of hundreds of millions of rand a year, this corrupt unit cannot even get an address right,” he said, adding that an innocent teacher had rifles pointed at her and her husband was forced to lie on the ground.
He said he had opened a case of intimidation against SAPS and alleged the raid was orchestrated by Mkhwanazi. When asked why there was no photographic evidence of the alleged raid, Adams said residents were too afraid to take pictures.
He also addressed claims that he used a blue-light escort to Westville Prison, saying he had been escorted by metro police while carrying out official duties to interview Magaqa’s convicted killer. According to Adams, the hitman had provided a written statement alleging police involvement in the crime and was willing to testify without seeking any benefit.
Adams criticized Mkhwanazi, saying he had not sent officers to obtain the statement and had instead implied to Parliament that Adams had committed a crime. He said he had contacted acting Police Minister Firoz Cachalia and acting national police commissioner Major General Puleng Dimpane but had received no response.
Adams also shared emails he claimed were from Mkhwanazi regarding the warrant and communication with investigators, as well as a letter from the NCC outlining contact details for his legal representative.
Police have not publicly responded to Adams’ allegations.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has condemned the attack, saying the targeting of civilians and infrastructure was “unacceptable”
India has reacted to an Iranian drone strike on a petroleum industrial site in Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Monday.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a post on X on Tuesday that New Delhi “strongly condemns” the attacks on the UAE that injured three Indian nationals.“Targeting civilians and infrastruc
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has condemned the attack, saying the targeting of civilians and infrastructure was “unacceptable”
India has reacted to an Iranian drone strike on a petroleum industrial site in Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Monday.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a post on X on Tuesday that New Delhi “strongly condemns” the attacks on the UAE that injured three Indian nationals. “Targeting civilians and infrastructure is unacceptable,” he said in a strongly worded post, which did not name Iran.
The strike targeted the Fujairah Petroleum Industries Zone and caused a “major fire” at the site, the emirate’s media office said in a statement on Facebook on Monday. According to the authorities, the Indians hurt in the attack sustained slight injuries and were taken to the hospital.
Modi said India stands “in firm solidarity” with the UAE, and reiterated its support for the peaceful resolution of all issues “through dialogue and diplomacy.”
Strongly condemn the attacks on the UAE that resulted in injuries to three Indian nationals. Targeting civilians and infrastructure is unacceptable.
India stands in firm solidarity with the UAE and reiterates its support for the peaceful resolution of all issues through…
Ensuring safe and unimpeded navigation through the Strait of Hormuz is vital for enduring regional peace, stability, and global energy security, he added.
Separately, India’s foreign ministry spokesperson called for an “immediate cessation of these hostilities and the targeting of civilian infrastructure and innocent civilians.” The ministry reiterated New Delhi’s call for “free and unimpeded” navigation and commerce through the Strait of Hormuz.
The UAE had said the attack was the first since a ceasefire was announced on April 8. The UAE Defense Ministry said earlier on Monday that three Iranian cruise missiles were successfully shot down over the Arab nation’s territorial waters. Iranian officials cited by state-run IRIB news agency, however, stated that Tehran has no plan to target the UAE.
A ceasefire between Iran and the US is seen as increasingly shaky as the two countries continue exchanging words over the Strait of Hormuz after the US announced an operation to escort trapped vessels through the strategic choke point. US President Donald Trump has decided to maintain a naval blockade of Iranian ports to pressure Tehran to agree to a peace settlement. Iranian officials term the blockade an “act of war” that violates the ceasefire.
The disruption of the key waterway, which accounted for around 20% of global seaborne oil trade before the conflict erupted, has led to soaring oil prices globally. Developing nations in the Global South, including India, have been hit severely.
London would gain access to defense contracts funded by the scheme but must help cover financing costs, Brussels says
The UK is considering joining an EU scheme providing €90 billion ($105 billion) to Ukraine to gain access to lucrative military contracts funded through the program. The plan was announced in a joint statement by European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Antonio Costa, and UK Prime Minister Keir S
London would gain access to defense contracts funded by the scheme but must help cover financing costs, Brussels says
The UK is considering joining an EU scheme providing €90 billion ($105 billion) to Ukraine to gain access to lucrative military contracts funded through the program. The plan was announced in a joint statement by European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, European Council President Antonio Costa, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer during the European Political Community summit in Armenia on Monday.
The so-called loan scheme, backed by joint EU borrowing, is structured on the assumption that it would be repaid if Kiev secures reparations from Russia, a prospect Moscow has dismissed as “unrealistic.” The scheme was floated after plans to seize Russia’s frozen sovereign assets failed, and was approved last month after a lengthy standoff with Hungary ended when pro-EU candidate Peter Magyar’s Tisza party won the Hungarian election. The program aims to prop up Ukraine’s collapsing economy amid battlefield setbacks, covering about two-thirds of its needs over the next two years, with most funds earmarked for military spending.
”Today marks the first high-level discussion on the UK’s potential participation in the €90 billion Ukraine Support Loan,” a European Commission spokesman told reporters.
According to the commission, UK firms could bid for defense contracts funded by the scheme if London joins. However, Britain would need to cover part of the interest on the EU’s borrowing, and in effect would contribute to financing the program in exchange for access to contracts. The commission said the UK’s contribution would be calculated based on the value of contracts awarded.
Starmer hailed the potential deal as “very good for the UK,” citing “capability that leads to jobs.” Both London and Brussels pitched it as “a major step forward in the EU-UK defense industrial relationship.”
The UK can reportedly take part on two conditions – if it maintains a Security and Defense Partnership with the EU, agreed last May, and if it continues significant financial and military support for Ukraine.
London has been one of Kiev’s main sponsors in the conflict with Russia, pledging £21.8 billion ($29.5 billion) since 2022, over half in military aid. UK officials, including Starmer, have repeatedly used claims that Russia poses a threat to Europe – a notion Moscow dismisses as “nonsense” – to justify aid and increased domestic defense spending.
Russia has long described Britain as a key force behind the Ukraine conflict, accusing it of direct involvement in Ukrainian long-range strikes on Russian cities using UK-supplied weapons. Russian officials argued systems such as British Storm Shadow missiles cannot be used effectively without direct UK participation. Last month, the Russian Defense Ministry also listed European countries hosting drone production facilities for Kiev’s forces, including sites in the UK.
Moscow has long described the conflict as a Western proxy war and condemned continued aid to Kiev, warning it undermines peace efforts. Commenting on the €90 billion scheme, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov accused the EU of “digging into the pockets of its own taxpayers” to prolong the conflict.
Concerns over availability will soon replace fears about price, according to Mike Wirth
Physical oil shortages could begin to emerge worldwide within weeks due to the Middle East war and continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth has warned.
Attacks on energy infrastructure and a dual shipping blockade in the critical waterway – which carries about a fifth of global seaborne oil and LNG – have sharply cut deliveries and pus
Concerns over availability will soon replace fears about price, according to Mike Wirth
Physical oil shortages could begin to emerge worldwide within weeks due to the Middle East war and continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth has warned.
Attacks on energy infrastructure and a dual shipping blockade in the critical waterway – which carries about a fifth of global seaborne oil and LNG – have sharply cut deliveries and pushed prices to multi-year highs. Multiple tankers have remained stranded in Hormuz since the initial US and Israeli strikes on Iran in late February. Washington and Tehran remain at odds over the strait’s future, with reports saying the US rejected Iran’s proposal for a new governance mechanism as part of peace talks.
Although active fighting paused under a fragile ceasefire last month, tensions flared again on Monday, when American and Iranian forces exchanged fire as the US military began escorting vessels through the strait.
Speaking at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles on Monday, Wirth said economies will begin slowing, first in Asia – the most dependent on Gulf oil – and then in Europe, as supply tightens.
“We will start to see physical shortages… Demand needs to move to meet supply. Economies are going to have to slow,” he said, as cited by Reuters, noting that commercial stockpiles, shadow tanker fleets, and strategic reserves are already being drawn down to delay shortages.
He warned the impact of the Hormuz closure could be “as big as in the 1970s,” when supply shocks triggered the oil crises of 1973 and 1979, sending prices soaring and causing widespread fuel shortages across the US, Europe, and Japan.
Wirth reiterated the warning in an interview with CNBC, saying physical availability – not just price – will soon become the main concern.
“As people look at the realities of very tight supplies, it’s not just a question of price, it’s actually can we get the fuel... Over the course of the next several weeks, we’ll see those effects begin to move throughout the system,” he said, noting that some European airlines are already restricting jet fuel use and cutting flights, while several Asian countries have introduced demand-reduction measures.
Wirth said the US, as a net crude exporter, would be less affected initially, though it will feel the impact through higher prices in the long run. Even once Hormuz reopens, he warned it would take months to stabilize supply routes.
The fallout is already visible, including in the US. Budget carrier Spirit Airlines said over the weekend it was going out of business, citing surging fuel costs. The crisis has also driven shifts in energy policy. The UAE last week said it would leave OPEC and the broader OPEC+ format, citing the need for greater flexibility over domestic output.
Wirth’s warning echoes recent assessments by the International Energy Agency and the World Bank. IEA head Fatih Birol said disruptions tied to Hormuz pose “the biggest energy security threat in history,” with some 13 million barrels per day lost.
Login
