Latest news with #geopolitics
The National
2 hours ago
- Business
- The National
Rare earths and real risk: Why the global supply chain needs a rethink
They are buried in our smartphones, embedded in EV motors, and essential to jet engines and wind turbines. Yet most people could not name a single rare earth element. This quiet invisibility belies their strategic importance. As the world accelerates towards a more digital and electrified future, rare earths have become indispensable – and increasingly, a source of geopolitical friction. The global supply chain behind these elements is under pressure. China currently produces nearly 70 per cent of rare earth ores and holds more than 95 per cent of global refining and separation capacity. For heavy rare earths, that number is closer to total control. This concentration gives China significant influence over price, availability and access to materials that power the energy transition and advanced defence technologies. In short, it is not just an economic advantage. It is a position of systemic control. But the challenges do not end with geographic concentration. The industry also struggles with what is known as the 'balance problem'. Not all rare earths are created equal. High-demand elements like neodymium and praseodymium, crucial for permanent magnets in electric vehicles and wind turbines, are co-mined with lower-demand elements such as cerium and lanthanum. Producers must extract and process everything, regardless of market demand. That creates inefficiencies, price distortions and sustainability concerns. This imbalance has strategic consequences. Without careful co-ordination, demand for magnet rare earths could outpace supply within the next decade. That does not mean catastrophe, but it does mean rising costs, tighter margins, and a squeeze on industries that depend on long-term stability. Momentum is finally shifting. As the urgency to diversify supply chains intensifies, ion adsorption clay (IAC) deposits have come into focus – and not just in China and Myanmar, where they have long been tapped. Exploration efforts are under way in countries like Brazil, Uganda and South-east Asia, offering new access to heavy rare earths. Unlike traditional hard-rock mines, IAC operations can reach production in just four to seven years, giving them a distinct strategic and commercial advantage. Refining is the next major hurdle. Mining rare earths without the ability to refine them only shifts the bottleneck, it does not solve it. Today, the vast majority of REE concentrates – even those mined outside China – are still sent back for processing. But that is beginning to change. Companies like Lynas in Malaysia, MP Materials in the US, and Neo Performance Materials in Estonia are building local refining capacity. These efforts mark early steps towards a more regionally balanced and secure supply chain. Innovation is also reshaping what's possible across the value chain. Manufacturing techniques like grain boundary diffusion allow for the reduction of dysprosium and terbium usage without compromising performance – a potential game changer given their sensitivity to supply shocks. Meanwhile, magnet recycling and by-product recovery from sources like phosphogypsum offer alternative streams of material with lower environmental impact. A co-ordinated, multinational response is essential. The US, Japan and Australia have launched public-private initiatives to diversify rare earth supply chains and strengthen refining capabilities. It is not just about securing raw materials. It is about ensuring that economic resilience and national security are not tied to a single point of failure. For those deeply involved in the rare earth ecosystem, from miners and refiners to end users and policymakers, the issues at stake go well beyond geology or engineering. They are a test of foresight and preparedness. The companies and countries that invest, innovate, and collaborate today will be the ones best positioned to thrive in the next era of industrial transformation. The 20th century was powered by oil. The 21st will be driven by rare earths. Those who recognise this early and act decisively will shape the future.
Associated Press
10 hours ago
- Business
- Associated Press
Trump Management 101: World leaders adapt to his erratic diplomacy with flattery and patience
LONDON (AP) — If world leaders were teaching a course on how to deal with U.S. President Donald Trump early in his second term, their lesson plan might go like this: Pile on the flattery. Don't chase the policy rabbits he sends running across the world stage. Wait out the threats to see what, specifically, he wants, and when possible, find a way to deliver it. With every Oval Office meeting and summit, the leaders of other countries are settling on tactics and strategy in their pursuit of a working relationship with the emboldened American leader who presides over the world's largest economy and commands its most powerful military. The results were there to see at NATO, where leaders heaped praise on Trump, shortened meetings and removed contentious subjects from the agenda. Given that Trump dominates geopolitics, foreign leaders are learning from each other's experiences dating to Trump's first term, when he reportedly threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the alliance. Among the learnable Trumpisms: He disdains traditional diplomacy. With him, it's ' America first,' it's superlative — and ' it's not even close. ' He goes with his gut, and the world goes along for the ride. They're finding, for example, that the sheer pace of Trump's orders, threats and social posts can send him pinging from the priority of one moment to another. He describes himself as 'flexible' in negotiations, such as those in which he threatened big tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China only to back down during talks. And while Trump claimed credit for the ceasefire in the Iran-Israel war, he also has yet to negotiate ending the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza as promised. Trump's threat this week to levy retaliatory tariffs on Spain, for example, 'is a mystery to everyone,' Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever told reporters Thursday during a summit in Brussels. If the tariffs never happen, he said, 'It won't be the first time that things don't turn out as bad as they seem at first glance. Or that he changes his mind. I'm not the kind of leader who jumps every time Mr. Trump says something.' Trump management 101: Discipline vs 'daddy diplomacy' Two summits this month, an ocean apart — the Group of Seven in Canada and NATO in The Netherlands — illustrate contrasting approaches to the American president on the brink of his 6th month back in office. Meeting in mid-June in Alberta, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney welcomed Trump at a press conference by wishing him a happy birthday and adding a smidgen of flattery: 'The G7 is nothing without U.S. leadership and your personal leadership of the United States.' But when Trump turned partisan, Carney cut off the event, saying: 'We actually have to start the meeting.' Trump appeared to nod in agreement. But later, on Monday, June 16, he abruptly departed the summit a day early as the conflict between Israel and Iran intensified. Trump ordered U.S. pilots to drop 30,000-pound bombs early Sunday on two key underground uranium enrichment plants in Iran, and by Wednesday announced on social media 'a Complete and Total ceasefire.' What followed was a 48-hour whirlwind during which Trump veered from elated to indignant to triumphant as his fragile Israel-Iran ceasefire agreement came together, teetered toward collapse and ultimately coalesced. Trump publicly harangued the Israelis and Iranians with a level of pique and profanity that was notable even for him. Chiding the two countries for attacking each other beyond a deadline, he dropped the f-word. Not finished, he then cast doubt on his support for NATO's mutual defense guarantee. Such was the president's mood as he winged toward a meeting of the trans-Atlantic alliance he had disparaged for years. NATO was ready for Trump with a summit set to please him NATO is essentially American, anyway. The Europeans and Canadians cannot function without American heavy lift, air refueling, logistics and more. Most of all, they rely on the United States for its range of nuclear weapons for deterrence. The June 25 summit was whittled down to a few hours, and one Trump-driven subject: Raising the amount of money the member nations spent on defense to lighten the load carried by the United States. Emphatically not on the agenda: Russia's ongoing war with Ukraine. Trump did, however, meet with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has climbed his own learning curve on Trump management since Trump berated him in the Oval Office in February. The Ukrainian leader has deployed a conciliatory approach and mirrored Trump's transactional style. The goal, widely reported, was to avoid doing anything that might cause Trump to blow up the event or leave. Trump was invited to stay at the royal palace in The Hague and dine with the royal family. It was expected that most members would endorse the plan to raise their spending targets for their one-for-all defense against Russia. The other NATO ambassadors had told Secretary-General Mark Rutte to deploy his Trump-whispering skills. He sent the president a private, presummit text predicting Trump would achieve 'BIG' success there, which Trump posted on his own socials for all to see. At the summit, Rutte likened Trump's role quieting the Iran-Israel war to a 'daddy' interdicting a schoolyard brawl. 'He likes me,' Trump explained. Backlash was stiff. Lithuania's former foreign minister called Rutte's approach 'the gushings of weakness and meekness.' 'The wording appears to have been stolen from the adult entertainment industry,' Gabrielius Landsbergis tweeted. 'It reduces Europe to the state of a beggar — pitiful before our Transatlantic friends and Eastern opponents alike.' It was the latest confirmation that complimenting is a favorite way for leaders to deal with him, if not a popular one in some circles. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been using the tactic since at least 2018, when he called Trump 'the greatest friend Israel has ever had,' and even named a settlement in the Golan Heights after him. The late Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe plied him with multiple rounds of golf. French President Emmanuel Macron invited Trump to be the guest of honor at Bastille Day in 2017, featuring an elaborate military parade. What Trump left behind Rutte found a way to make Trump's demand that member countries spend 5% of their gross domestic product on defense work. Their military support to Ukraine could count as a substantial slice of that money. But the agreement left big issues unresolved, including a U.S. troop reduction that is likely to be announced later in the year, and the potential for a resulting security vacuum. Posters on social media referred to NATO as the 'North Atlantic Trump Organization.' 'This summit has all been about managing him, and it's all been about trying to get him to say the right thing in the right moment,' Fiona Hill, a former senior White House national security adviser to three U.S. presidents, including Trump, told the BBC. By the end of the summit, participants were declaring it a success as much for what it prevented as for what was accomplished. Trump showed up. He did not blow it up, leave early or start fights. And critically, NATO survived — indeed, with Trump declaring himself a changed man where the alliance is concerned. And his night in the palace? He said he'd 'slept beautifully.' ___ Associated Press reporters Lorne Cook in Brussels and Samya Kullab in Kyiv, Ukraine, contributed to this story.
Arab News
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Arab News
Middle East must prioritize diplomacy over conflict
The Middle East stands at a crossroads as tensions between Iran and Israel escalate, marked by the recent Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran's retaliatory ballistic missile barrages. This exchange signaled more than a military skirmish; it heralds a transformative phase in regional geopolitics, challenging the balance of power and raising urgent questions about stability. This article explores the conflict's dynamics, its regional and global implications, and proposes a path toward diplomacy and coexistence, drawing on historical insights and balanced perspectives. The conflict's latest chapter began with Israel's targeted strike on Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, a move that signaled a bold escalation in its strategy against Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran's vast geography allows it to disperse strategic assets, complicating defense but enabling resilience. Israel, conversely, benefits from compact, fortified defenses but faces vulnerabilities due to its concentrated infrastructure. Iran's missile response showcased its capacity to project power, underscoring a rebalanced military equation. Such tit-for-tat attacks risks spiraling into broader conflict, with significant human and economic costs. Israel's economy, for instance, faces daily losses estimated at half a billion dollars during intense operations. While both sides demonstrate military prowess, escalation threatens regional stability, underscoring the need for de-escalation to prevent further devastation. The 12-day conflict exposed strategic disarray in Israel and the US. In Israel, public support for the military action against Iran was strong, with 82 percent of its Jewish citizens backing the operations, according to polls. Yet, 70 percent of respondents, including 88 percent of Palestinian citizens, expressed concern over the war's economic and social toll, reflecting a nuanced public sentiment. In the US, political divisions complicated the response. A CNN poll indicated 56 percent of Americans opposed its strikes on Iran, with 60 percent fearing heightened threats to US security. Democrats (88 percent) and independents (60 percent) largely opposed military action, while Republicans (82 percent) generally supported it. This lack of consensus weakens coordinated policy, amplifying regional uncertainty. Escalation threatens regional stability, underscoring the need for de-escalation to prevent further devastation Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed Saudi Arabia offers a counterpoint, advocating for stability through diplomacy. Recognizing that military solutions, such as destroying Iran's nuclear capabilities, could ignite further chaos, the Kingdom prioritizes regional alliances and dialogue. This approach contrasts with Israel's reliance on force under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose strategy intertwines national security with political survival amid domestic challenges. George Modelski's long cycle theory provides context, framing global leadership as cyclical, with hegemonic powers rising and declining over roughly 100-year periods. The US, the current hegemon arguably since 1914, faces declining influence as challengers emerge. This shift influences Middle Eastern dynamics, where Iran and Israel vie for regional dominance amid a multipolar global order. Similarly, Ibn Khaldun's 14th-century cyclical theory likens states to living organisms, rising through triumph and declining through internal decay. In this conflict, Iran's resilience and Israel's vulnerabilities reflect these cycles, suggesting that internal cohesion and strategic foresight will determine their trajectories. The strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities tested the regime's resilience. Bolstered by national identity and complex ethnic ties, Iran differs from Iraq's post-2003 collapse. The regime's durability suggests that external pressure alone is unlikely to topple it. Former CIA Director Leon Panetta has warned that targeting Iran risks a regional war, citing Iraq's invasion as a cautionary tale. Iran's response could ultimately escalate tensions, potentially unifying its factions around a nuclear agenda. Matthew Bunn, a nuclear expert at Harvard, notes that while Iran's conventional military was weakened by the sustained Israeli strikes, the nuclear program's long-term setback is limited. Hard-liners advocating for a bomb may now gain influence, diminishing prospects for negotiated enrichment limits. Samuel Huntington's clash of civilizations theory frames Western dominance as rooted in organized violence; a lens critics argue justifies aggression against the Islamic world. The West's history of colonial exploitation and modern conflicts, from Iraq to Palestine, fuels regional distrust. Media exposure of the limited Gaza aid and continued arms support for Israel despite global protests reinforces this narrative. While Western dissent exists, its impact remains limited, underscoring the challenge of altering entrenched policies. Saudi Arabia's model of coexistence offers a blueprint, emphasizing cooperative frameworks to ease tensions Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed In the Arab world, a nihilistic outlook attributing setbacks to external conspiracies often overshadows internal governance failures. Overcoming this requires embracing justice and strategic management to build resilient societies. The Middle East's future hinges on prioritizing diplomacy over conflict. Historical interventions, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, demonstrate that military victories are fleeting and destabilizing. Saudi Arabia's model of coexistence offers a blueprint, emphasizing cooperative frameworks to ease tensions. Addressing humanitarian crises, such as Gaza's plight, is critical to reducing regional friction. Israel must reassess its reliance on force, while Iran should engage in good-faith negotiations to reintegrate globally. A collective pause in hostilities on all fronts could pave the way for dialogue, fostering a new Middle Eastern order rooted in mutual respect. The Arab world must counter defeatist narratives by focusing on internal strengths, justice, governance and resource security. As the adage warns, 'when nations change, guard your head.' Strategic caution, including securing food, water and energy, is essential amid transformative shifts. The Iranian-Israeli conflict marks a pivotal moment for the Middle East, where competing visions of security and stability collide. While Israel and the US lean on military might, Saudi Arabia's diplomatic approach offers a viable alternative. History warns that wars complicate rather than resolve disputes. By embracing dialogue and addressing internal weaknesses, regional powers can forge a stable, cooperative future, break the cycle of conflict and build a new era of coexistence. • Dr. Turki Faisal Al-Rasheed is an adjunct professor at the University of Arizona's College of Agriculture, Life and Environmental Sciences, in the Department of Biosystems Engineering. He is the author of 'Agricultural Development Strategies: The Saudi Experience.' X: @TurkiFRasheed
Wall Street Journal
15 hours ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Oil Heads for Weekly Losses on Fading Geopolitical Risk
0907 ET – Oil futures are higher for a third session, yet on track for solid weekly losses after the Israel-Iran cease-fire caused prices to plunge early in the week. Much of the risk premium that had driven prices to multi-month highs was the idea of disruption to supplies through the Strait of Hormuz, says Jay Truesdale, CEO of risk consultancy TD International. But the likelihood of that happening was low as it was in the interest of the U.S., Iran itself, and other players in the region to keep the strait open. 'Most traders have now gone back to base cases anchored by supply and demand, especially given that the world has sufficient oil,' he says. Prices are likely to go back to where they were before the Israeli strikes, 'somewhere in the $60s.' WTI is up 0.5% at $65.54, and Brent is up 0.3% at $67.95. ( 0736 GMT – Oil prices edge higher in early trade, but remain on track for steep weekly losses as the geopolitical risk premium tied to Middle East tensions fades. Brent crude rises 0.8% to $67.21 a barrel, while WTI gains 0.8% to $65.77 a barrel. The benchmarks are down between 11% and 12% for the week after days of heightened volatility. 'The estimated geopolitical risk premium in the spot market has now fallen to below $1 a barrel from its Sunday peak of near $15,' analysts at Goldman Sachs say. Market focus has now shifted toward developments in U.S.-Iran nuclear talks and trade negotiations. Key decisions loom, with negotiations between Washington and Tehran expected to resume next week, OPEC+ set to decide on August production policy on July 6, and President Trump facing a decision on reciprocal tariffs. (
The Independent
16 hours ago
- Politics
- The Independent
Global aid is about more than money and charity – it helps us all
The 21st century began with an idea that now seems out of vogue: that a world with less poverty, fewer preventable diseases, cleaner air, and more peace was a world that was better for everyone. If you're reading this, you've been living through an age of miracles. In your lifetime, challenges that have plagued our species from the beginning have shifted dramatically. The number of parents burying a child before their fifth birthday has fallen by nearly 60 per cent. Women dying in childbirth has fallen by 40 per cent. Vaccines have reached hundreds of millions. HIV/AIDS, once a death sentence, is being beaten back. Poverty has declined at historic rates. But now, that vision has fractured. We live in a world dominated by insecurity. Geopolitics, technological disruption and economic vulnerabilities are all around us. Our societies are experiencing systemic stress resulting in reactions that are akin to a nervous system in survival mode. A lack of economic, political and personal security is leading to a politics of scarcity: one where societies are turning towards economic nationalism, to transactional international relations and an absence of international solidarity. Yet the world hasn't become any less interconnected. Pandemic threats, climate shocks, food insecurity and migration – these are not distant problems. They are shared risks. And they demand shared solutions. This is where the development community has failed. Conversations about development finance are dominated by inputs and institutions: How much should donors give? Through which institutions? At what cost? Is it value for money? Lost in this arithmetic is a simple, transformative idea: development isn't something 'we' do 'for them.' It's something we do with each other, because it makes all of us safer, stronger, and more resilient. The age of miracles in global health has happened because we didn't just fund systems — we have pursued missions, told stories about what's possible, and built political power to fight for those priorities. Ban smoking in public places. Get vaccines to every child. Tackle AIDS. Drop the Debt. These weren't abstract goals. They were visceral, focused, and urgent. And they rallied governments, civil society, and private actors around a common cause. This approach hasn't been without flaws. It was too focused on top-down approaches, assuming that the experts with the money had the answers. In a more complex, contested world, we can no longer afford to treat development finance as something rich countries "give" to poorer ones out of benevolence; or that "poorer" countries should be grateful recipients. Communities need investment at home and abroad. Yet treating this as a zero-sum game that considers only one side of the balance sheet (the costs, not the returns) is the kind of bean-counting that got us here. The truth is, when finance is well-placed, it helps communities withstand shocks, it prevents conflict, it creates jobs and opportunities. And those investments should be mutually reinforcing. Clean, cheap energy access in the north of England means fewer emissions and more economic dynamism. But that energy requires critical minerals and innovations that might just emerge from investments in Zambia or Kenya. A healthy, educated population in the Sahel contributes to global security meaning UK troops are less likely to be put in harm's way. An effective public health system in west Africa helps protect everyone from potential future pandemics and helps the NHS avoid being overwhelmed from its core caseload so it can focus on getting waiting lists down. And in a world of volatility, richer countries need humility to admit that learning is not a one-way street. The innovations that solve problems in Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland might just emerge from Nairobi's digital finance scene, from Bangladesh's community health systems and from those on the front line of the climate crisis who are solving problems as a matter of survival. As richer countries struggle with a collapse of trust and a decline in social cohesion, there is much they can learn from communities that might be cash-poor but are solidarity-rich. This is the vision that shaped what is arguably the world's most successful aid programme – the Marshall Plan - and gave birth to the world's most successful peace project – the European Union. A far-sighted vision combined aid for Europe's reconstruction with preferential trade rules that paved the way for the world's largest common market. Countries that used to fight were bound by common incentives to make each other more prosperous. This created international trading partners, allies, and an international rules-based order and the most peaceful era the world has ever seen. As the world's governments gather in Spain on Monday for the Fourth Financing for Development Conference, they should stop fixating on the plumbing of development finance and start asking what it's for. And the answer lies in the core universal values we all share – no matter where we live. The desire for economic, physical, and psychological security and freedom to fulfil our full potential. This depends on access to basic health care, nutritious food, economic opportunities, and the space to express ourselves. In the jargon of the development finance world, it means aligning concessional finance, policy reform, private capital, and multilateral institutions behind big, audacious goals: resilient health systems, thriving local economies, clean energy access, food security. This also requires a thriving civil society eco-system, focused on movement-building not service delivery. The progressive left needs to build a transnational solidarity movement, akin to what Steve Bannon has inspired on the political right. We have done extraordinary things when we've had a vision to match our resources. The tragedy today is not a lack of money (though we could do with more of it, and governments should stop cutting the very programmes that keep us safe). It's the loss of shared purpose and the mobilisation of communities to fight for the world that they want to live in. Not out of charity but because it's in our collective self-interest.
