Nearpay Becomes First Saudi Payments Fintech to Expand Into the US
Jul 01, 2025
Saudi-based payments infrastructure company Nearpay has officially launched operations in the United States, becoming the first Saudi fintech to establish a presence in the American market.
The move is being led by co-founder Ali Mroueh with technical oversight from partner Hamzah Al Ghamdi. Nearpay plans to bring its 'tap-to-phone' technology - software that turns any smartphone into a contactless point-of-sale - into a market where more than 80% of in-store card payments are already contactless.
'Our goal is to deliver the highest local and global technological value,' co-founder Mohammad Aleban said on X, adding that the company will leverage its Saudi-built tech stack to meet US demand for streamlined, hardware-light payment solutions.
Nearpay's expansion follows a string of regional milestones: the company processed over 40 million transactions in 2024 and secured Payment Card Industry (PCI CPoC) certification, allowing merchants to accept Visa, Mastercard, and American Express payments without traditional terminals. In December 2023, Nearpay raised $14 million in a series A funding round led by Sanabil Investments.
By entering the US, Nearpay joins a competitive field that includes Square and SoftPOS providers like Stripe Terminal and Fiserv's Clover. Management says the company will target small retailers and service businesses looking to cut hardware costs while adding multi-currency acceptance.
Nearpay's US launch underscores a broader trend of Gulf fintechs looking to export home-grown solutions. It also aligns with Saudi Arabia's Vision 2030 goal of boosting non-oil exports and positioning local tech champions on the global stage.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Egypt Independent
an hour ago
- Egypt Independent
Iranian hackers could target American defense companies working in Israel, US agencies warn
CNN — US defense companies doing business in Israel are at increased risk of cyberattacks from Iran despite an US defense companies doing business in Israel are at increased risk of cyberattacks from Iran despite an Israel-Iran ceasefire , American cybersecurity and defense agencies warned Monday. 'Based on the current geopolitical environment, Iranian-affiliated cyber actors may target U.S. devices and networks for near-term cyber operations,' said the advisory from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, FBI, National Security Agency and the Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center. US defense contractors, 'particularly those possessing holdings or relationships with Israeli research and defense firms, are at increased risk,' the agencies said. Iran and Israel have for years conducted intense cyber operations against each other. US officials are increasingly concerned that US organizations with ties to Israel could be caught in the crosshairs. Iran was allegedly behind destructive cyberattacks in 2023 against organizations in the Israeli education and technology sectors. Earlier this month, a pro-Israel hacking group stole $90 million from Iran's largest cryptocurrency exchange, claiming it was revenge against the IRGC. After the US military dropped massive bombs on Iranian nuclear sites over a week ago, US critical infrastructure such as hospitals and water plants have been on high alert for any Iranian retaliation in cyberspace. There haven't been any high-impact Iranian hacks of US organizations reported yet, but Iran's history of aggressive and unpredictable cyber operations has senior US officials paying close attention. CNN has requested comment on the new US advisory from Iran's permanent mission to the United Nations. After the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel in October 2023, hackers linked with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps scanned the internet for Israeli-made industrial software installed at water plants and other facilities across the US, according to US officials. The global hacking campaign included dozens of US victims in the water, energy, food and beverage and health sectors, the new advisory says. That alleged pro-Iranian hacking spree, which did not take advanced skill and exploited weak US defenses, affected people who never expected to be the target of someone allegedly sitting in Tehran. In one case, the hackers forced a water utility in a small town outside of Pittsburgh to operate pump stations manually. 'That was maybe the furthest thing from my mind,' Robert J. Bible, the general manager of the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa, told CNN in November 2023, referring to being caught up in cyberattacks related to the Israel-Gaza war. 'Especially for a community. We only serve 15,000 people. You wouldn't put two and two together.' An overriding goal of Iranian hacking operations is psychological, according to experts. The hackers use online personas to exaggerate their exploits, and they have aggressively tried to get journalists to write about their activity. Those personas have been active online in recent days, claiming successful cyberattacks on a variety of targets after Israel attacked Iran more than two weeks ago. 'If it's there, and vulnerable, they have a higher likelihood of targeting it,' one US official, who was monitoring potential Iranian hacking threats to critical infrastructure, previously told CNN
Egypt Independent
an hour ago
- Egypt Independent
Trump's omnipotence in the GOP means Musk's political threats ring hollow
CNN — Politics isn't rocket science. If it were, President Donald Trump might have something more to worry about in his reignited feud with his estranged 'first buddy' Elon Musk. But nothing in the explosive and now-soured flirtation of the world's richest man with politics suggests he has the magic touch to spark the kind of creative disruption in the Republican Party that he set off in the orbital and electric vehicle industries. Musk's first-among-equals status as head of the Department of Government Efficiency at the start of Trump's second administration is now a memory. He's so livid over Trump's debt- and deficit-inflating 'big, beautiful bill,' which passed the Senate on Tuesday, that he's threatening to primary every GOP lawmaker who votes for it and to set up a new political party. Musk does wield considerable political weaponry. His enormous fortune means he can spend vast sums on favored candidates and issues. Trump knows this well, as a prime beneficiary of the nearly $300 million Musk threw at the 2024 election. And as the owner and an obsessive user of X, Musk can call up online mobs against lawmakers and even Trump himself – though he's been careful, this time, not to single out the president directly over the bill. Musk is the dominant force in the American space program. If Americans reach Mars, they'll probably get there on one of Musk's Starships. And technologies such as Musk's Starlink are vital on the battlefield – as the war in Ukraine shows. Yet for all his enormous power, Musk has not shown much political dexterity, nor, apparently, created his own base of support that could dominate the GOP. The chainsaw he wielded on stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference this year was meant to symbolize his slashing of costs in the US government. Looking back, it's a better metaphor for the severing of his relationship with the president over Trump's MAGA megabill. Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), speaks during a Cabinet meeting held by President Donald Trump at the White House on February 26, 2025 in Washington, big, bad move Once, Musk's alliance with Trump seemed a master stroke – opening an inside track that promised even greater benefits for his firms than his already vast array of federal contracts. Trump even did a stunning sales pitch for Tesla on the South Lawn of the White House – and bought one of the electric vehicles himself. So perhaps it's no surprise that falling out with Trump – and then goading him into a social media war of words – turned out to be a political and financial loser for Musk. Their new antagonism may expose his empire to presidential retribution. Trump on Tuesday warned darkly that 'DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon.' This is a staggering statement for several reasons. First, it highlights the extent of the fracture between the patron and the man who he made the most powerful private citizen in the country only months ago. Second, it's a snapshot of an extraordinary time. Here is a president threatening to use executive power to ruin a private citizen and businessman. This would seem to fit most definitions of an impeachable offense, but it feels almost unremarkable in an administration that has shattered every norm of presidential behavior. Musk's dalliance with Trump also hurt him in other ways. It alienated many of his most enthusiastic customers, including in Europe, where his electric vehicles were popular and the market value of his companies plunged. And Musk's most prominent individual foray into electoral politics, aside from his alliance with Trump in 2024, was a disaster. His vehement rhetorical and enormous financial support for a conservative candidate in a Wisconsin Supreme Court race backfired: the more liberal candidate won by 10 points. The race might have been closer had Musk and his political baggage stayed at home. And the contest became an unexpected lesson that sometimes money isn't everything in American politics. Then-Sen. JD Vance and Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk attend a Trump rally at the site of the July assassination attempt against Trump, in Butler, Pennsylvania, on October 5, 2024. Carlos Barria/Reuters Trump's GOP power base is impregnable But here's the biggest impediment to Musk becoming a political power player: Trump is indisputably the most significant figure in American political life in the first quarter of the 21st century. The president has dominated the GOP for 10 years. He's squelched the political aspirations of pretenders to his crown. Trump has a decadelong bond with the party base. He's already pulled off the kind of disruptive transformation of the GOP that Musk seems to be envisioning. 'My feeling is that Donald Trump is the one that has the huge following,' Lee Carter, a strategist and pollster who studies voters' emotional reactions to candidates, said on 'CNN News Central' on Tuesday. 'And Elon Musk certainly helped Donald Trump in the election,' Carter continued. 'There's no question about it. It gave him credibility. It gave him some voters that were on the fence – but it wasn't Elon Musk who was center-stage and I don't think that we're going to see people follow Elon Musk in the same way that we saw (with) the MAGA movement.' Musk is a recent convert to Trumpism, and while his star shined with blinding intensity late in last year's election and he was ubiquitous during the early months of the new administration, his break from Trump has shown that almost all power in the MAGA movement is reflected off its figurehead. Vice President JD Vance was the most visible barometer of this power dynamic. When the big break-up happened, he was forced to choose between Trump, who is responsible for his current prominence, and Musk, who could be a useful ally in a future presidential primary campaign. He picked the president. Elon Musk wields a chainsaw as he leaves the stage alongside Newsmax anchor Rob Schmitt at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel and Convention Center on February 20, 2025, in Oxon Hill, is Musk's base? Another key question is whether Musk has his own political base. CNN's Aaron Blake assessed polling earlier last month that showed surprisingly comparative polling data among Republicans for Musk and Trump – at least before their latest bust-up. But beyond the tech world, where he used his rock star status to funnel young, disaffected male voters toward Trump, it's not clear that Musk has a broader constituency. By siding with the Republican Party's anti-debt wing, Musk now seems a natural ally of libertarians such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who voted against the president's bill. But fiscal hawkishness and breaking with the GOP spending crowd isn't a reliable route to power – as the failed presidential campaigns of Sen. Paul and his father, former Rep. Ron Paul, demonstrated. Still, Musk's pledge to support Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who was lambasted by the president for his opposition to the bill and who may now face a primary challenge, could be significant. In a single race, Musk's wealth could be important, individual campaign contribution limits notwithstanding. It would be harder for the Tesla tycoon to go national. For one thing, he'd have to recruit primary candidates willing to take on lawmakers supported by Trump, the most powerful major party leader in generations. But Musk has grand ambitions. He promised that if the 'insane spending bill passes, the America Party will be formed the next day.' He wrote on X, 'Our country needs an alternative to the Democrat-Republican uniparty so that the people actually have a VOICE.' Barriers to creating a third political force are daunting. For one thing, it would require shattering the emotional and historical allegiances of millions of voters. Musk's best bet may be to wait out Trump – after all, he's a much younger man. If conservatives end up disillusioned with the president's legacy and politics more broadly, the CEO may find fertile ground for a third way. It's happened before. In the 1992 election, Ross Perot's on-again-off-again-on-again candidacy rooted in a populist call to balance the budget won 19% of the vote, even though the Texas tycoon didn't win a single state. At the time, Republicans blamed Perot for eating into President George H.W. Bush's support and helping to elect Bill Clinton. Three decades on, political scientists are still arguing about what really happened. Musk would need a surrogate. Unlike Perot, he can't run for president, since he is a naturalized foreign-born citizen. But if he could somehow break the stranglehold of the two major parties on US elections, he'd accomplish something like the political equivalent of his improbable invention of a rocket booster that scorches a spacecraft into orbit and then returns to the launchpad to be captured by two giant mechanical arms. Even Trump thought that was amazing. 'Did you see the way that sucker landed today?' Trump said at an October campaign rally. But that was in the first blush of his Musk bromance. On Tuesday, a senior White House official told CNN's Kristen Holmes: 'No one really cares what he says anymore.'
Al-Ahram Weekly
5 hours ago
- Al-Ahram Weekly
Illusions of a US-Iran reset - World - Al-Ahram Weekly
The clash of national narratives — resistance versus containment, sovereignty versus hegemony — renders a grand bargain between the US and Iran all but impossible For decades, the spectre of a transformative agreement between the US and Iran has loomed over the geopolitical landscape like a mirage, enticing yet perpetually out of reach. The idea of a 'grand bargain' that could reshape the Middle East, end enduring hostilities, and integrate Iran into the regional and global order has re-emerged following the recent 12-day war involving Iran, Israel, and the US. Despite sporadic signals suggesting diplomatic momentum, the structural and ideological divides between Tehran and Washington remain too vast. Recent events have only reaffirmed the deep-seated barriers that have consistently thwarted meaningful engagement. Last week, while announcing the ceasefire between Iran and Israel, US President Donald Trump struck an unusually conciliatory tone: 'On the assumption that everything works as it should, which it will, I would like to congratulate both Countries, Israel and Iran, on having the Stamina, Courage, and Intelligence to end what should be called 'THE 12 DAY WAR,'' he posted on social media. Trump claimed US strikes had 'completely obliterated' three of Iran's nuclear sites, effectively neutralising its nuclear ambitions. However, intelligence from both American and European sources contradicted this claim. According to US officials, the strikes may have delayed Iran's programme by a few months, falling short of any strategic setback. The US network CNN later reported, citing anonymous officials, that the Trump administration was considering a proposal to entice Iran back to the negotiating table. The plan involved facilitating access to up to $30 billion for developing a civilian nuclear programme, easing select sanctions, and releasing $6 billion in frozen Iranian assets. Quiet negotiations reportedly occurred between US, Middle Eastern, and Iranian officials even as Israeli military operations were ongoing. Officials stressed the preliminary nature of the discussions, which centred on one non-negotiable US demand: a complete halt to uranium enrichment. Tehran has consistently rejected this condition. The US also stipulated that the proposed funds would not be provided directly by Washington, but rather by Arab allies in the Gulf. This apparent thaw in relations was fleeting. Days later, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei adopted a defiant tone in a televised address. 'The Islamic Republic slapped America in the face… It did not manage to do anything important to our nuclear facilities,' he declared, accusing Trump of exaggerating the impact of the strikes. Khamenei went further, claiming 'total victory' over Israel and suggesting that the US intervention stemmed from fear that 'the Zionist regime would be totally annihilated' otherwise. Trump responded with characteristic bluntness. 'You're a man of great faith. A man who's highly respected in his country. You have to tell the truth. You got beat to hell,' he said during a White House press conference. When asked whether the US would strike again if Iran resumed nuclear activity, he replied, 'sure, without question. Absolutely.' He added that any plans to lift sanctions were immediately shelved following Khamenei's remarks. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi fired back, urging Trump to 'abandon his disrespectful tone' if he hoped to reach any sort of agreement. 'The great and powerful Iranian people, who showed the world that the Israeli regime had to run to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened by our missiles, do not take kindly to threats and insults,' he said. Several factors contributed to the swift collapse of the diplomatic momentum. Chief among them is mutual mistrust hardened by decades of hostility. Tehran views US proposals as fundamentally unreliable, especially after Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) despite Iran's verified compliance by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). For Iran, that betrayal underscored the belief that Washington cannot be trusted to honour its commitments. 'A person would have to be willfully blind to the last half-century of regional history to believe that the US and Israel are sincerely prepared to turn the page on their enmity towards the Islamic Republic,' a reformist Iranian politician with close ties to President Masoud Pezeshkian told Al-Ahram Weekly. From Washington's perspective, Iran is a duplicitous actor using diplomacy to buy time while advancing covert nuclear and ballistic missile programmes. Tehran's recent decision to bar IAEA inspectors only deepened US suspicions. Hardliners in the Trump administration interpret Iran's refusal to forgo enrichment as undeniable evidence of bad faith. Reflecting these internal divisions, Senator Lindsey Graham emphasised in the newspaper Israel Hayom that future talks must rest on three core demands: Iran must renounce nuclear weapons, end all enrichment, even for civilian use, and overhaul its regional policies, including support for proxy forces in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. Graham also insisted that Iran recognise Israel's right to exist. Graham suggested that the recent strikes strengthened Israel's position, arguing that the Gulf states were now better positioned to push for a broader peace. He even speculated that Lebanon and Syria could soon join the normalisation wave with Israel. However, Iran and the US remain at odds on what regional stability should look like. Washington insists that Iran scale back its missile programme and withdraw support for regional proxies. Iran, conversely, sees these as pillars of national defence and strategic deterrence. These are not tactical disputes: they are diametrically opposed worldviews on power, legitimacy, and sovereignty in the region. 'We have received indirect messages from Washington, conveyed through regional intermediaries,' the Iranian politician said, 'outlining a clear set of conditions: if Iran renounces its nuclear ambitions, halts enrichment, restricts its missile programme, and changes its regional posture, then sanctions might be lifted.' But he criticised the imbalance in expectations. 'These demands are met with deafening silence regarding Israel's own obligations. There is no mention of a Palestinian state, no end to the genocide in Gaza, and no talk of Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese and Syrian lands or of Israel's own nuclear arsenal.' 'It feels less like an invitation to peace,' he concluded, 'and more like a demand for surrender, an arrangement devoid of mutual respect or any shared vision for collective security.' Domestic politics on both sides further inhibit diplomacy. In Iran, the postwar climate has bolstered hardliners. Parliament swiftly passed legislation suspending all nuclear cooperation with the IAEA, reinforcing the belief that engagement with the West only leads to betrayal. In the US, Trump's foreign policy continues to be shaped less by strategic planning and more by his desire to project strength. His flirtation with outreach to Iran may have been a trial balloon quickly grounded by backlash from within his administration and base. The path to improved relations is precarious. Iran is reportedly rebuilding its centrifuge infrastructure, with satellite imagery showing renewed activity at Fordow and Natanz. Still, scenarios for limited diplomacy persist. Iran could permit conditional IAEA access under revised terms, while the US might offer phased sanctions relief tied to verifiable enrichment limits. A stricter successor to the JCPOA remains possible though unlikely. The European nations, particularly France, Germany, and the UK, are actively seeking a diplomatic compromise, worried that any failure to do so could reignite full-scale conflict among Iran, Israel, and the US within months. In Israel, officials interpret the ceasefire not as a conclusion but as the start of a more dangerous chapter. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has portrayed what he sees as a 'victory' over Iran as a launching point for expanding peace agreements with the Arab states. As part of this regional initiative, US Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy to Syria Thomas Barak is reportedly working to normalise relations between Israel and Syria, now under Interim President Ahmad Al-Sharaa. Barak has voiced cautious optimism about a potential breakthrough. However, Israeli officials led by Defence Minister Israel Katz and Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar remain firm on maintaining sovereignty over the Golan Heights, buffer zones in Daraa and Quneitra, and the strategic Mount Hermon. These positions have triggered anger in Tehran, which views them as a ploy to extract sweeping political concessions after a military stalemate. 'How can such a disruption of the regional equilibrium be tolerated,' the Iranian politician asked. 'The American-Israeli vision demands absolute Israeli dominance across the Middle East. It implies the permanent annexation of Syrian and Lebanese lands, the erasure of Palestinian statehood, the mass displacement of Palestinians, and the dismantling of Iran's strategic deterrence. And in exchange, what does Israel offer? Nothing.' As it stands, the ideological divide between the US and Iran – resistance versus containment, sovereignty versus hegemony – remains unbridgeable. Any grand bargain, however enticing in theory, is stymied by entrenched narratives, regional rivalries, domestic pressures, and a deep mistrust that diplomacy alone cannot dissolve. The road ahead is littered with obstacles: crippling sanctions that fuel Iranian defiance, a maze of proxy wars, and fundamentally opposed visions of the future of the Middle East. The stakes are high. The urgency is undeniable. And yet, the elusive 'grand bargain' that could redefine the region remains little more than a mirage glimmering on the diplomatic horizon and always just out of reach. * A version of this article appears in print in the 3 July, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly Follow us on: Facebook Instagram Whatsapp Short link:
