Global Pulse

作者： admin

  • Trump says Gulf leaders asked him to ‘hold off’ on resuming Iran war

    Trump says Gulf leaders asked him to ‘hold off’ on resuming Iran war

    In a sudden announcement that has reshaped the trajectory of escalating tensions across the Persian Gulf, former US President Donald Trump revealed on Monday that Washington has scrapped plans to launch a full, large-scale military offensive against Iran, set to begin Tuesday. The decision came following a formal request from the top leaders of three key Gulf Arab allies to delay the attack amid ongoing diplomatic negotiations.

    Trump made the announcement via his TruthSocial platform, stating that the Emir of Qatar Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, and United Arab Emirates President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan all urged the US to hold off on its planned military strike. The leaders argued that serious diplomatic talks were already underway, and their assessment as close US allies was that a mutually acceptable negotiated agreement could be reached, according to Trump’s post.

    The outgoing president added that any prospective final deal would be very favorable to US interests, with one critical non-negotiable provision: Iran will permanently be barred from developing nuclear weapons. Trump emphasized that his deep respect for the three Gulf leaders guided his choice to accommodate their request, but made clear that the pause on military action is not permanent. He warned that US military forces remain fully postured to launch the full-scale large-scale assault against Iran at a moment’s notice if a viable, acceptable agreement fails to materialize through negotiations.

    This latest development comes on the heels of nearly two months of open conflict across the region, triggered by a joint US-Israeli strike on Iran on February 28. Iran retaliated immediately, launching thousands of missiles and drones targeting Gulf Arab states, with the UAE bearing the brunt of the attack after normalizing relations with Israel in 2020 under the Abraham Accords. Almost 3,000 Iranian projectiles struck UAE territory, according to regional reports.

    In mid-April, Pakistan brokered a fragile ceasefire that has paused large-scale open fighting, though low-level tensions and limited military action have continued. On Friday, Bloomberg reported that the UAE had recently attempted to rally Saudi Arabia and Qatar to back a coordinated joint military offensive against Iran in response to Tehran’s attacks, but the bid ultimately failed.

    Shortly after the February 28 US-Israeli strike, Mohamed bin Zayed held a series of urgent calls with fellow Gulf leaders to push for the coordinated military response. But Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and other Gulf leaders rejected the proposal, sources confirmed. Despite the rebuff of the joint offensive plan, both Saudi Arabia and the UAE have launched independent retaliatory strikes against Iranian targets, recent reporting confirms.

    The Wall Street Journal reported that the UAE targeted key Iranian energy infrastructure, carrying out a strike on Iran’s Lavan Island, a major Persian Gulf oil export hub, in early April around the time the ceasefire was announced. Saudi Arabia, by contrast, carried out limited, measured retaliatory strikes before quickly shifting its focus to supporting Pakistan’s mediation efforts, regional analysts note.

    Last week, the Financial Times reported that Saudi Arabia has also circulated a proposal for a region-wide non-aggression pact between Iran and other Middle Eastern states, modeled on the 1970s Helsinki Accords that de-escalated Cold War tensions in Europe. The Saudi initiative has already earned backing from major European capitals and EU institutions, though it remains unclear whether the US and Israel will support the proposed framework.

    Parallel to shifting regional diplomatic efforts, the conflict has drawn Israel and the UAE even closer strategically. Middle East Eye reported on Monday that the two countries have launched a joint defense acquisition fund to jointly purchase and develop next-generation weapons systems, deepening their security cooperation amid rising regional tensions.

  • Asian markets cautious, oil dips after Trump holds off on Iran attack

    Asian markets cautious, oil dips after Trump holds off on Iran attack

    Geopolitical tensions in the Middle East continued to shape global financial trading on Tuesday, as Asian equity markets traded mixed and crude oil pulled back from recent elevated levels after former U.S. President Donald Trump announced he would delay a planned military strike on Iran to allow for diplomatic negotiations. The pullback in oil prices came amid glimmers of hope for de-escalation, but ongoing uncertainty over the Strait of Hormuz kept energy markets volatile and investor risk appetite in check.

    The regional conflict that began in late February between the U.S.-Israel bloc and opposing forces has resulted in a de facto blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, the critical chokepoint that carries roughly 20 percent of the world’s global oil exports during peacetime. In a post to his Truth Social platform Tuesday, Trump revealed that the leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates had requested he hold off the scheduled military strike to open space for negotiations. He wrote that he had granted the request, as “serious negotiations are now taking place.”

    Despite pausing offensive action, Trump stressed that U.S. military forces remain on high alert, ready to launch a full-scale large-scale assault on Iran at a moment’s notice if negotiations fail to reach an acceptable outcome. Speaking at a subsequent White House event, he framed the current diplomatic push as a “very positive development,” noting that key Arab regional allies believe a final deal is within reach that would see Iran abandon its nuclear program — a goal Tehran has long denied pursuing.

    “There seems to be a very good chance that they can work something out. If we can do that without bombing the hell out of them, I’d be very happy,” Trump told reporters, while reiterating his warning that military action remains on the table if talks collapse. This dual messaging underscored the continued fragility of security in one of the world’s most energy-rich regions.

    The prospect of a diplomatic breakthrough sent oil prices lower, though the decline provided only limited relief after weeks of extreme volatility driven by the ongoing Middle East conflict. At the time of reporting, global benchmark Brent crude hovered around $109 per barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate traded near $107. Official data as of 0230 GMT recorded Brent down 2.1 percent at $109.75 per barrel, while WTI bucked the broader trend to gain 1.2 percent, hitting $107.40 a barrel.

    Across Asian equity markets, performance was uneven as investors balanced cautious optimism over diplomacy with lingering anxiety over geopolitical and economic risks. Japan’s Nikkei 225 opened and closed 0.5 percent lower at 60,537.87, as broader geopolitical jitters offset a better-than-expected first-quarter GDP report that showed the Japanese economy expanding 0.5 percent, exceeding analyst forecasts of 0.4 percent growth. South Korea’s Kospi index fell more than four percent, dragged down by steep losses in the technology sector that tracked downward movement on Wall Street a day earlier. Markets in Shanghai, Taipei, and Jakarta also closed lower, while the Hang Seng Index in Hong Kong gained 0.3 percent to hit 25,740.60, and benchmarks in Sydney and Wellington also finished in positive territory.

    Safe-haven assets edged higher on Tuesday, with gold and silver posting small gains, a signal that investor caution remains elevated despite the diplomatic opening. All market eyes are now turning to Wednesday, when U.S. semiconductor giant Nvidia is set to release its quarterly earnings results. The report is widely anticipated as investors seek clarity on whether massive current investments in artificial intelligence data center infrastructure will deliver the strong returns market participants have priced in.

    Other global market moves were muted. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed up 0.3 percent at 49,686.12 in New York’s previous session, while London’s FTSE 100 gained 1.3 percent to close at 10,323.75. Currency markets saw minor shifts: the pound dipped to $1.3416 from $1.3422 on Monday, the euro edged up against sterling to 86.80 pence, fell slightly against the dollar to $1.1645, and the dollar gained marginally against the yen to reach 158.98 yen.

  • Japan’s economy expands at a 2.1% annual pace, boosted by consumer spending

    Japan’s economy expands at a 2.1% annual pace, boosted by consumer spending

    TOKYO – In a surprising show of economic resilience against global energy market turmoil triggered by the war in Iran, Japan’s economy expanded at an annualized rate of 2.1% in the first three months of 2024, government data released Tuesday confirms. This marks the second consecutive quarter of positive growth for the world’s third-largest economy, defying analyst forecasts that had predicted a much slower expansion amid soaring energy costs.

    Seasonally adjusted real gross domestic product (GDP), the broad measure of all goods and services produced in the country, grew 0.5% quarter-over-quarter, following a 0.2% moderate gain in the final quarter of 2023. The economy had contracted in the third quarter of last year, making back-to-back growth a welcome milestone for Japanese policymakers. The annualized figure represents what full-year growth would be if the current quarterly pace of expansion sustained across all four quarters.

    Preliminary Cabinet Office data shows that broad-based spending gains across consumer, business, and public sectors drove the stronger-than-expected results. Private consumption, which makes up a large share of Japan’s GDP, rose 0.3% from the previous quarter, equal to an annualized growth rate of 1.1%. Public demand from government spending projects and initiatives also climbed 0.3% quarter-over-quarter, providing additional support to overall economic output.

    On the trade front, the latest quarter saw exports grow 1.7% outpacing a 0.5% increase in total imports, a net positive that further lifted GDP growth.

    For resource-scarce Japan, the fallout from the Iran war has created significant headwinds, most notably in the form of skyrocketing global oil prices. Before the conflict began, Brent crude traded around $70 per barrel; current prices have surged to nearly $110 per barrel. The spike stems from effective disruptions to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for Persian Gulf oil exports bound for Asian markets including Japan. In response, Tokyo has already released portions of its national oil reserves and is actively developing alternative shipping routes to stabilize supply.

    The energy supply squeeze has already begun to ripple through domestic Japanese industries, with shortages of naphtha — a versatile oil-based product used in manufacturing everything from plastic goods to construction materials — drawing widespread media attention in recent weeks. Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has pledged to take decisive action to secure adequate supplies and sustain ongoing economic expansion, a commitment that will likely require substantial new government spending.

    Most economic analysts remain cautiously optimistic about Japan’s growth trajectory in the coming quarters. A recent report from the Japan Center for Economic Research projected that the country will continue to log moderate growth, supported by rising corporate investment in artificial intelligence and increased government defense spending.

    “The breadth of ongoing demand expansion points to a high-quality growth trajectory, which may reinforce evidence that inflationary pressures are broadening across the Japanese economy,” noted Naomi Fink, chief global strategist at Amova Asset Management.

    Rising energy costs are already pushing domestic prices higher, and the stronger-than-expected first quarter growth could push the Bank of Japan to move forward with an interest rate hike. The central bank has spent years holding interest rates near or below zero to stimulate stagnant growth and weak inflation, but shifting economic conditions have sparked expectations of a policy pivot. While Japan’s current inflation rate remains lower than that of the United States, Japanese workers have yet to see wage gains keep pace with rising living costs.

    Financial markets reacted modestly to the new GDP data on Tuesday. Tokyo’s benchmark Nikkei 225 index, which has hit repeated record highs in recent trading sessions, dipped 0.6% during morning trading following the data release.

  • Trump told Taiwan not to ‘go independent’ – but does it want to?

    Trump told Taiwan not to ‘go independent’ – but does it want to?

    Weeks after his high-profile meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, former and current U.S. President Donald Trump has delivered an unprecedented public warning to Taiwan against moving toward formal independence, triggering immediate reactions from Taipei and sparking widespread debate over the future of U.S. policy in the Indo-Pacific.

    In an interview with Fox News that aired Friday, Trump made his stance clear: “I’m not looking to have somebody go independent. And, you know, we’re supposed to travel 9,500 miles to fight a war. I’m not looking for that. I want them to cool down. I want China to cool down.” These remarks mark the most direct public pressure a sitting U.S. president has ever placed on Taiwan regarding its sovereignty status, leading to a quick response from Taipei.

    Taiwanese officials reiterated their long-held position that the island sees no need for a formal declaration of independence, a stance that aligns with mainstream public sentiment on the self-governing island. To understand the stakes of this exchange, it is necessary to contextualize the decades-long historical and geopolitical backdrop of the Taiwan issue.

    Following the 1949 conclusion of China’s civil war, the defeated Kuomintang government relocated to Taiwan, while the Chinese Communist Party established control over the mainland. Beijing has claimed the island as an inalienable part of its territory ever since, and Taiwan independence has stood as the most sensitive red line for Chinese leadership. Since President Xi Jinping took office, Beijing has ramped up its efforts to suppress perceived separatist activity, framing unification with Taiwan as an “unstoppable” historical priority. In recent years, this pressure has translated into regular military drills near the island, diplomatic campaigns to cut Taiwan’s global recognition, and persistent greyzone incursions into Taiwan’s airspace and territorial waters.

    During his recent summit with Trump, Xi emphasized that the Taiwan question is the single most critical issue shaping U.S.-China relations, warning that mishandling the topic could lead to direct conflict. For decades, global observers have warned that any Chinese military move against Taiwan would likely draw in the U.S., which is legally bound by the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act to provide the island with defensive military capabilities. Under China’s 2005 Anti-Secession Law, Beijing retains the right to use “non-peaceful means” to assert its territorial claims if Taiwan formally declares independence or all options for peaceful unification are exhausted, making any move toward formal independence a potential trigger for regional war.

    Today, most Taiwan residents, who live under a thriving democratic system distinct from mainland China’s increasingly authoritarian rule, support maintaining the status quo—neither formal independence nor unification with Beijing. This position is reflected in the official policy of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which has governed Taiwan since 2016. Current President Lai Ching-te, like his predecessor Tsai Ing-wen, has argued that Taiwan already functions as an independent sovereign state, so no formal declaration is necessary—a carefully calibrated approach designed to assert Taiwanese autonomy without crossing Beijing’s explicit red line. A formal declaration of independence would also require constitutional amendment approved by Taiwan’s legislature and a majority public vote in a referendum, making it logistically difficult for any administration to pursue even if it wanted to. Even so, Beijing remains deeply suspicious of the DPP, which historically advocated for formal sovereignty, and has repeatedly labeled Lai a dangerous separatist, accusing his administration of hijacking public opinion to push an independence agenda and building up military capabilities for confrontation. Lai has pushed back on these claims, noting that military strengthening is only a defensive measure in response to growing Chinese pressure.

    Trump’s recent comments have upended long-standing expectations around U.S. policy on Taiwan. No U.S. administration has ever explicitly supported Taiwanese independence, and for decades Washington has maintained a carefully calibrated “strategic ambiguity” policy, neither confirming nor denying whether it would intervene militarily to defend the island. This policy emerged after 1979, when the U.S. severed formal diplomatic ties with Taiwan to establish relations with Beijing, acknowledging the one-China principle, while passing the Taiwan Relations Act to enshrine U.S. commitments to Taiwan’s defense. The act authorizes ongoing arms sales to Taiwan to support its self-defense capabilities.

    Trump’s remarks have left analysts divided. During his summit, Trump noted that Xi “doesn’t want a movement for independence” in Taiwan, adding that he “heard him out” but did not offer a formal response. While Trump later stressed that “nothing’s changed” in U.S. policy and expressed openness to speaking directly with Lai— a move that would almost certainly draw fierce condemnation from Beijing, as it did when Trump spoke with a Taiwanese president early in his first term—many observers see his warning to Taiwan as an unusual break from past U.S. framing. Ryan Hass, a senior analyst at the Brookings Institution, argues that Trump’s “visible sympathy for Xi’s framing on Taiwan will embolden Beijing to increase pressure on Taipei, and elevated the risk of confrontation.”

    All eyes are now turning to a pending $14 billion U.S. arms package for Taiwan, which follows an $11 billion weapons sale approved in December. After the Beijing summit, Trump declined to commit to finalizing the new package, telling Fox News the decision “depends on China” and that the proposal “is a very good negotiating chip for us frankly.” He later added that he would make a decision “over the next fairly short period.” This is not the first time a U.S. president has shaken up long-standing Taiwan policy rhetoric: former President Joe Biden twice publicly stated the U.S. would defend Taiwan if attacked, appearing to move away from strategic ambiguity, only for his administration to walk back the comments and clarify that official policy had not changed. For decades, U.S. policy on Taiwan has remained fundamentally consistent despite shifts in rhetoric. Now, regional and global powers are closely watching Trump’s next moves to see if the long-standing U.S. balancing act on the Taiwan issue is finally shifting.

  • Trump administration plans to admit more white South Africans as refugees this year

    Trump administration plans to admit more white South Africans as refugees this year

    In a sudden policy shift that has reignited a high-stakes diplomatic dispute between Washington and Pretoria, the Trump administration announced Monday it will nearly double the number of white South African Afrikaner refugees admitted to the United States by the end of the current fiscal year in September, allowing up to 10,000 additional arrivals beyond an initial cap.

    The emergency adjustment, outlined in a classified State Department notice to Congress obtained by The Associated Press and first reported by CNN, brings the total planned resettlement of Afrikaners to 17,500 for the 2025 fiscal year. The administration initially set a total cap of 7,500 for mostly Afrikaner refugees last year, a figure that already stood as the lowest annual refugee admissions target in U.S. history dating back to the program’s launch in 1980.

    The White House has framed the expansion as a response to an urgent humanitarian crisis, claiming the white Afrikaner minority — descendants of 17th-century Dutch settlers in South Africa — faces systemic, state-backed racial discrimination and targeted violence, particularly against members of the country’s white farming community. President Trump has repeatedly amplified these claims, turning the issue into a major flashpoint in bilateral relations over the past year. The dispute has already led the Trump administration to cut bilateral aid to South Africa, sparked a heated face-to-face confrontation between Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office last year, and prompted Trump to boycott the 2024 Group of 20 summit hosted in Johannesburg.

    In its Monday notice, the State Department argued that escalating tensions from South African government pushback against the resettlement program has created a new emergency that puts Afrikaners at greater risk. “This escalating hostility heightens the risks to Afrikaners in South Africa, who are already subject to far-reaching government-sponsored race-based discrimination,” the department wrote. Officials specifically pointed to public criticism of the U.S. resettlement plan from Ramaphosa and multiple South African political parties across the ideological spectrum, as well as a December 2024 raid by South African authorities on a U.S.-run refugee processing center operating inside the country — an action the U.S. previously labeled “unacceptable.”

    The South African government has flatly rejected the Trump administration’s claims of systematic anti-white discrimination as entirely baseless. During his 2024 Oval Office visit, Ramaphosa pushed back forcefully against Trump’s allegations, telling the U.S. president that South African government policy explicitly condemns the violent rhetoric Trump highlighted, and that targeted persecution of white Afrikaners is not a reality in the country. Experts on South African crime and politics confirm there is no credible evidence to support the claim that white farmers are specifically targeted for violence because of their race. While South Africa faces a national crisis of violent crime that impacts farmers of all racial backgrounds consistently, analysts say there is no data to back up the narrative of systemic, state-tolerated anti-white violence pushed by the Trump administration.

    The additional 10,000 resettlement slots will carry an estimated $100 million price tag for relocation and integration support, according to State Department estimates. Under U.S. refugee law, the administration is required to notify and consult with congressional lawmakers before finalizing annual refugee admission levels. A anonymous congressional aide confirmed that administration officials are scheduled to hold a formal consultation meeting with congressional leaders later this week to review the new policy.

    The latest move on Afrikaner resettlement aligns with a broader restructuring of U.S. refugee policy under the Trump administration, which has drastically cut overall refugee admissions compared to prior Democratic and Republican administrations, while prioritizing certain groups aligned with the president’s political and policy priorities.

  • Hawthorn coach likens AFL’s Tasmania decision to being ‘kicked out of home’

    Hawthorn coach likens AFL’s Tasmania decision to being ‘kicked out of home’

    After more than two decades of calling northern Tasmania home, Australian Football League (AFL) side Hawthorn FC is facing an uncertain future for its Tasmanian membership and local staff, after the governing body ordered the club to cede all of its Tasmanian match rights to the newly admitted Tasmania Devils expansion team ahead of the Devils’ 2028 debut.

    For years, Hawthorn has hosted four annual home-and-away fixtures and one pre-season match in Launceston, building deep roots in the northern Tasmanian community and creating some of the club’s most iconic on-field memories – including Lance Franklin’s legendary 13-goal performance against North Melbourne in 2012. The club had argued to retain its Launceston matches after the Devils’ entry, noting the expansion side would base its operations out of southern Tasmania’s Hobart. But AFL confirmed in an official announcement Tuesday morning that the new franchise will receive exclusive rights to host matches across the entire state, ending Hawthorn’s long-standing Tasmanian partnership.

    Hawthorn president Andy Gowers confirmed the club has already entered discussions with AFL to relocate the five displaced matches, with the club’s top priority being securing four extra home games at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG), the league’s premier venue. Gowers also acknowledged the significant financial and community impact of the decision, noting that the Launceston games have long been a major contributor to the club’s bottom line. “I am not going to talk exact numbers (money lost), but what I will say is it is a significant factor in our bottom line and has been for a number of years. That’s part of our disappointment,” Gowers told reporters Tuesday.

    The biggest immediate concern for the club is the future of its 8,000 local members and full-time Tasmanian-based staff, who have been core to Hawthorn’s presence in the region for decades. “That is clearly one of our major considerations. Members down there on the ground but also staff, we’ve got full-time staff who work there. We feel for them and we’ll be communicating with every member, all of our staff, all of the people down there who have supported us and got involved in the football program down there – we feel for them,” Gowers said. When asked whether AFL would assist displaced Launceston-based staff with re-employment in Tasmania, Gowers said he could not confirm any support arrangements at this time.

    Hawthorn head coach Sam Mitchell echoed the club’s widespread disappointment, framing the decision as an unexpected loss of a second home for the club’s players and staff. “You know the people at the coffee shop, the hotels and go on the same sort of walks and around the same sort of people all the time. It feels like we’ve sort of been kicked out of a home and I understand, I guess, from the AFL’s perspective,” Mitchell said. “I mean it’s easy to group all of Tassie together, but we’ve spent the vast majority of our time in Launceston and we’ve loved our time there. We’re enormously disappointed we won’t get the opportunity to continue to be a part of that community.”

    Despite the disappointment, Mitchell noted the club remains focused on its remaining 2024 season fixtures, with the team set to play its next scheduled Launceston match this Thursday night. “Having said that, we’ve still got seven games to go, so we’ll do our best to show how much they mean to us on Thursday night,” Mitchell added.

  • AFL 2026: Hawthorn star Will Day will make his long-awaited return this weekend

    AFL 2026: Hawthorn star Will Day will make his long-awaited return this weekend

    After months of sidelined frustration and a years-long streak of cruel injury setbacks, the wait for Hawthorn Football Club and its star Will Day is finally drawing to a close. The talented 24-year-old is set to make his first competitive appearance of 2026 this Friday, stepping onto the field for the Box Hill Hawks in the Victorian Football League (VFL) as part of a carefully structured comeback plan, putting him in line for a potential return to the top-tier AFL squad as early as next week.

    Day’s path back to competitive football has been marked by repeated heartbreak. The young star has not seen a single minute of senior action in 2026, after damaging his shoulder during the club’s pre-season training camp. This latest injury blow follows a 2025 campaign cut short by a persistent foot injury, which itself came after a collarbone issue ended his 2024 season prematurely. Three straight years of season-interrupting injuries have kept one of the club’s most exciting prospects off the field far more than he has been on it, leaving fans hungry for his return.

    Hawthorn head coach Sam Mitchell confirmed the comeback news in an upbeat briefing this week, noting that Day has passed every fitness benchmark after two full weeks of full training with the senior squad. “He’ll play this week, he’ll play some limited minutes on Friday night with Box Hill,” Mitchell said. “It’s pretty exciting, pretty exciting for Will and I think for all of us. He’s obviously a very high-profile player to be getting back and playing some VFL time.”

    To protect Day from re-injury as he regains match sharpness, the club will manage his minutes very carefully in Friday’s outing. Mitchell outlined that the 24-year-old will start on the bench for each quarter to ease him back into the physical intensity of competitive play, and made clear that Day is not yet expected to be ready for full AFL-level action this weekend. “He certainly won’t be ready for AFL footy at this stage,” Mitchell added.

    The coach did, however, hint that Day could be recalled to the senior side much faster than most injured players, thanks to the nature of his recovery. Unlike lower-body injuries that force athletes to spend weeks building back cardiovascular fitness, a shoulder injury allowed Day to maintain his conditioning throughout his recovery. “He’s obviously coming back from a shoulder which means he’s fitter, you can get a lot more physical work in, your physical profile, they can work pretty hard. So he’s going to be ready for AFL footy at a high level straight away. Sometimes when you get back from a foot or a lower leg injury, it’s hard to get the fitness base needed,” Mitchell explained.

    Day’s potential comeback comes at a key juncture for Hawthorn, who are currently in the middle of their fixture run in Tasmania, with a match against Adelaide kicking off in Launceston this Thursday night, one of the club’s final seven scheduled games at the Apple Isle. Fans have long remembered Day’s standout performance in last year’s opening round, where he led the Hawks to a victory over Sydney at the Sydney Cricket Ground, a display that cemented his status as one of the club’s most promising young talents.

    Mitchell said the club will not push Day to replicate that electric form straight away, but he is confident the young star will be able to contribute from his first minutes back on the field. The timeline for his senior return will depend on how Day pulls up after Friday’s VFL outing, with assessments of his movement, fitness and confidence set to dictate next steps. “To be determined, we’ll see how he goes this week, see how his movement is, how his confidence is,” Mitchell said. “When he gets back, stay back. That’s the aim, it could be as early as next week or it could be longer than that.”

    For long-suffering Hawthorn fans who have followed Day’s injury battle over the past three seasons, Friday’s limited appearance will mark a small but incredibly exciting step forward for one of the club’s brightest stars.

  • IEA chief: Only weeks of oil inventories left thanks to Iran war

    IEA chief: Only weeks of oil inventories left thanks to Iran war

    As the ongoing crisis in the Strait of Hormuz—sparked by the United States’ conflict with Iran—shows no sign of de-escalation, top energy and economic officials are sounding the alarm over imminent threats to global energy security, spiraling inflation, and a potential worldwide recession.

    Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of this week’s G7 summit in Paris on Monday, International Energy Agency (IEA) Executive Director Fatih Birol warned that global oil reserves are dwindling at a dangerous pace, with only weeks of strategic and commercial inventories remaining to offset the current supply disruption. Birol noted that oil stockpiles are “declining rapidly,” and highlighted a critical misalignment between physical and financial energy markets: futures prices have not yet adjusted to reflect the impending supply crunch, leaving markets underprepared for sudden volatility.

    The supply disruption extends far beyond oil, Birol added, with fertilizer shortages—also rooted in the conflict—set to drive a fresh wave of food price hikes that will push global inflation even higher. “That might give a big push to inflation numbers,” he warned.

    His warnings echo a recent analysis from the *Financial Times*, which reported Sunday that global energy markets are nearing a critical “tipping point” that could trigger another sudden price surge, tipping the already fragile global economy into recession. Paul Diggle, chief economist at asset management firm Aberdeen, told the outlet his team is modeling the economic fallout of oil prices spiking to $180 per barrel—a scenario that would ignite a full-blown global inflation crisis. “We are taking that outcome very seriously,” Diggle said. “We are living on borrowed time.”

    The current standoff stems from Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint through which roughly 20% of global oil supplies pass, implemented in retaliation for US-Israeli military strikes on the country. A temporary ceasefire announced between Washington and Tehran last month briefly pulled oil prices lower, but the strait has remained closed throughout the truce, and tensions are now rapidly escalating as President Donald Trump has threatened to resume offensive operations if no deal to reopen the waterway is reached quickly.

    In a Sunday post on his Truth Social platform, Trump issued a stark new threat to Iran, promising the country would be completely destroyed if it did not meet his demands. “For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote. “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

    Last week, Trump rejected Iran’s latest peace proposal. Tehran has offered major concessions on uranium enrichment, but has demanded that broader nuclear negotiations be delayed until after a peace deal is reached and the Strait of Hormuz is reopened. Since the start of the conflict, Trump has demanded Iran fully dismantle both its missile program and its nuclear activities— which Iran insists are entirely peaceful—and cut all diplomatic and military ties to its regional allies. In a report Sunday, Iran’s state-owned Mehr News Agency argued that Washington has offered “no tangible concessions” in return for Iran’s proposed compromises, leaving negotiations deadlocked. “The United States wants to obtain concessions that it failed to obtain during the war, which will lead to an impasse in the negotiations,” the outlet noted.

    Speaking to Fox News during a visit to Beijing over the weekend, Trump defended his rejection of the proposal, claiming “the Iranians are crazy, and you know what? Because of that, they cannot have a nuclear weapon.” He added that he finds it unacceptable to delay nuclear talks until after a peace deal is finalized.

    Multiple reports confirm Trump spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday about resuming offensive strikes on Iran, a move that would end the month-long ceasefire. Security analysts say the only path to a diplomatic breakthrough requires Washington to compromise on Tehran’s core priorities. “Iran’s priorities remain consistent: ending what it views as economic siege conditions, reopening maritime access and reducing pressure in the Gulf, negotiating an end to the broader conflict, and only afterward addressing the nuclear issue,” explained Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. “At the present moment, it is difficult to see the Iranian leadership agreeing to any framework that does not meaningfully engage with those core demands.”

    Iranian officials have pushed back hard against Trump’s latest threats, which come after he previously declared in April that he would destroy Iran’s entire entire civilization “never to be brought back again,” and recently posted an image of himself on a military ship with the caption “It was the calm before the storm.” Abolfazl Shakarchi, a spokesperson for Iran’s armed forces, told Mehr that any new aggression to compensate for the US’s failure in the conflict will only result in harsher retaliation. “Repeating any folly to compensate for America’s disgrace in the Third Imposed War against Iran will result in nothing but receiving more crushing and severe blows,” he said.

    Almigdad Alruhaid, a correspondent for Al Jazeera reporting from Tehran, noted that Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric has only galvanized Iranian public defiance, even as observers acknowledge the window for diplomatic resolution is rapidly closing. “The kind of language displayed by Trump on Sunday is not acceptable here in Tehran. They are projecting defiance rather than [giving] an immediate response to this kind of rhetoric,” Alruhaid said. “Behind all of this rhetoric, there is awareness that the diplomatic window right now is narrowing.”

    Not all US voices are pushing for escalation. Senior Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina has publicly urged Trump to follow through on his threats to bomb Iran’s energy infrastructure, but foreign policy experts warn such a move would trigger catastrophic global consequences. Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, explained why Trump has so far refrained from launching such strikes: “Tehran would retaliate and take out the energy infrastructure in the [Gulf Cooperation Council] states. This would lead to a far worse oil crisis—one rooted in production problems, not just a bottleneck in the Persian Gulf. The global economy would be thrown into a deep recession. Fuel shortages would lead to food shortages worldwide. Trump’s presidency would be destroyed,” Parsi said. “None of this matters to Lindsey. He’ll burn the entire planet as long as he gets his war. Trump’s biggest mistake has been to listen to Lindsey and his allies.”

  • As bee population collapses, US apiarists fear research cuts

    As bee population collapses, US apiarists fear research cuts

    Nestled in a lot behind an abandoned gas station at the foot of Appalachia’s rolling mountains in West Virginia, a dozen apiarists gather around veteran commercial beekeeper Roy Funkhouser, the air thick with the low buzz of thousands of honeybees. What began as a regular monthly meeting for the group — a mix of casual hobbyists and full-time commercial operators — has shifted from a skill-sharing workshop to a forum for growing anxiety: as U.S. bee populations collapse to historic levels, a looming federal funding cut threatens to shutter the nation’s oldest bee research lab, a 100-year-old institution that has led global efforts to combat the threats facing honeybees.

    For Funkhouser, the crisis is not an abstract policy debate — it is a devastating collapse of the livelihood he has built over decades. Where he once tended roughly 1,200 hives, fewer than 200 remain active this year. “It’s a real struggle,” he told Agence France-Presse. “The parasites that we’ve got now, the mites and everything — more viruses and more pesticide exposures, more chemical exposures — everything is just more of a struggle today than what it was in the past.”

    Funkhouser’s experience is far from unique. The latest data from Apiary Inspectors of America shows that U.S. beekeepers lost more than half of all their managed colonies in the 12-month period ending April 2025, marking the worst annual loss rate since the organization began tracking colony health decades ago.

    At the top of the list of threats facing colonies is *Varroa destructor*, a tiny 1.5-millimeter parasitic mite that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recognizes as the single most damaging honeybee pest in the country, inflicting higher economic damage than all other apicultural diseases combined. The crab-like parasites feed on honeybee tissue and fat stores, and spread a debilitating, wing-deforming virus that can wipe out entire colonies in months. Beyond threatening apiculture, the mites put critical agricultural pollination at risk: commercial beekeepers like Funkhouser truck their colonies across the country to pollinate high-value crops, from California’s vast almond orchards to fruit farms across the Midwest. Without sufficient healthy bee populations, crop yields drop sharply, threatening food supplies and raising prices for consumers.

    For years, Funkhouser and his fellow beekeepers have turned to researchers at the USDA’s Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) — home to the nation’s oldest bee lab — for evidence-based guidance to fight the mite crisis. Zac Lamas, one of the lead entomologists at the BARC bee lab, has worked directly with West Virginia beekeepers to sample colonies, test for genetic markers of disease and pesticide exposure, and develop tailored mitigation strategies.

    “It’s not that we’re working with one beekeeper,” Lamas explained during a field training session with beekeepers. “We might be working with several million dollars’ worth of colonies, or several million dollars’ worth of pollination services that won’t exist because these colonies are at risk.”

    But that support is now at risk of disappearing entirely. As part of a cost-cutting plan driven by congressional funding cuts that reduced USDA agricultural research budgets by more than $32 million in key priority areas, the agency is moving forward with plans to close the entire BARC facility. While some research programs will be redistributed to other federal facilities across the country, the fate of the iconic bee lab remains unclear, and the USDA has not responded to questions about where or if bee research operations will be reestablished.

    Lamas, who has already accepted a new position at a local university after facing layoff from the lab, argues that the closure is a short-sighted decision that undermines decades of progress. The entire bee lab program costs just $3.2 million annually, he says, a tiny fraction of the $600 million in annual economic losses that bee colony collapse currently inflicts on U.S. agriculture. “The idea that we’re redundant and expensive isn’t a good way to generalize the value of this lab or the cost of this lab,” he noted.

    Beyond the direct funding gap, Lamas warns that breaking up the lab will erase irreplaceable institutional knowledge. For a century, BARC has assembled a team of specialists with overlapping skills focused entirely on protecting bee health and supporting national food security. “When we have a new problem, multiple people with complementary skills can work on it quickly,” he said. That collaborative capacity will be lost if the team is scattered, he added.

    For beekeepers already grappling with record losses, the impending closure comes as a devastating blow. Just as researchers are beginning to untangle the complex mix of parasites, viruses, and environmental stressors driving colony collapse, the cut threatens to halt progress. “We’ve got results from a lot of our testing and figured out a lot of the things that are going wrong,” Funkhouser said. “The unfortunate thing is, it seems like when you figure out one thing the next year, it’s something else. Without the lab, we’ll be flying blind.”

  • Putin visits China to reaffirm Russia ties as Xi also seeks stable US relations after Trump summit

    Putin visits China to reaffirm Russia ties as Xi also seeks stable US relations after Trump summit

    Just six days after former U.S. President Donald Trump concluded his high-stakes diplomatic trip to Beijing, Russian President Vladimir Putin is set to arrive in China for two days of bilateral talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, a diplomatic scheduling that has drawn close global attention to Beijing’s careful balancing act between major powers.

    Scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, Putin’s visit comes as Beijing pursues two parallel diplomatic goals: forging stable, constructive relations with Washington while cementing its decades-long strategic partnership with Moscow. Experts note these two policy tracks are not contradictory for Chinese diplomacy. This year also marks the 25th anniversary of the landmark 2001 Sino-Russian Treaty of Friendship, adding symbolic weight to the summit.

    The Kremlin has confirmed that the two leaders will cover a wide agenda, ranging from deepening bilateral economic and energy cooperation to addressing pressing global and regional security challenges. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov added that the trip will also create a critical opportunity for Russia to get direct, first-hand updates from China on recent U.S.-China talks, opening space for a frank exchange of views between Moscow and Beijing.

    This is not Putin’s first visit to China in recent years. In September 2025, he traveled to Tianjin to attend the annual Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, attended a military parade marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and held one-on-one talks with Xi. During that meeting, the two leaders openly referred to one another as friends: Xi called Putin an “old friend”, while Putin addressed Xi as “dear friend”. Just months earlier, in April 2025, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also traveled to Beijing for talks with Xi, who described the Sino-Russian bilateral relationship as “precious” amid the current fractured global context. Xi stressed at that time that Beijing and Moscow must strengthen strategic coordination to defend their shared legitimate interests and protect the collective unity of Global South nations.

    During Trump’s recent Beijing visit, Xi framed the U.S.-China bilateral relationship as the most consequential in the world, urging both sides to embrace a partner mindset rather than framing one another as rivals. By the close of the two-day summit, the two nations announced they would work toward a new framework to guide a “constructive China-U.S. relationship of strategic stability”.

    For observers, Putin’s trip serves as a clear reinforcement of the Sino-Russian partnership, which has grown significantly deeper since 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. China has maintained an official neutral stance on the conflict while continuing to expand trade ties with Moscow, despite sweeping economic and financial sanctions imposed on Russia by the U.S. and the European Union.

    Today, China stands as Russia’s largest single trading partner, and is the top buyer of Russian crude oil and natural gas. Moscow has projected that regional tensions stemming from the war in Iran will further boost demand for Russian energy exports to China. China has also rejected Western demands to halt exports of high-tech components to Russia’s defense sector, a move that has drawn criticism from Western capitals.

    Earlier this month, Putin highlighted that Moscow and Beijing have already made major progress in advancing energy cooperation. “We have reached agreement on practically all the key issues in the oil and gas sector,” Putin said. “If we can finalize the remaining details and conclude these agreements during my upcoming visit, I will be extremely pleased.”

    Putin has also framed the Sino-Russian relationship as a critical balancing force for global order. “Interaction between such large nations as China and Russia undoubtedly acts as a factor of deterrence and global stability,” he noted. The Russian leader added that Moscow welcomes the recent dialogue between Beijing and Washington, viewing it as an additional stabilizing force for the global economy. “We only stand to benefit from stability and constructive engagement between the U.S. and China,” he said.

    Wang Zichen, deputy secretary-general of the Beijing-based Center for China & Globalization, summed up Beijing’s diplomatic strategy: “The Trump visit focused on stabilizing the world’s most important bilateral relationship; the Putin visit is about reassuring a long-standing strategic partner. For China, these two tracks are not mutually exclusive. Beijing wants stable relations with the West, continued strategic trust with Moscow, and enough diplomatic space to position itself as an unbiased major power capable of engaging all sides.”