Connect with us

Business

Iran edges closer to a revolution that would reshape the world

Published

on



As protesters pour into the streets of Iran night after night, leaders across the region and around the world are grappling with the possibility that the Islamic Republic could be overthrown — a seminal event that would transform global geopolitics and energy markets.

The regime of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has weathered bouts of protests many times, but demonstrations that began two weeks ago are spreading — by some accounts, hundreds of thousands of people defied authorities’ threats and a brutal crackdown to take to the streets over the weekend, from the capital Tehran to dozens of other cities across the nation of 90 million. They are being cheered on by President Donald Trump, fresh off the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, and the US leader has in recent days repeatedly threatened to strike Iran, suggesting that America is back in the regime change business.

World leaders and investors are watching closely. US commanders have briefed Trump on options for military strikes, according to a White House official. Brent crude surged more than 5% on Thursday and Friday to over $63 a barrel as investors priced in the possibility of supply disruptions in OPEC’s fourth-biggest producer.

“This is the biggest moment in Iran since 1979,” said William Usher, a former senior Middle East analyst at the Central Intelligence Agency, referring to the revolution that birthed the Islamic Republic, upended the balance of power in the region and led to decades of rancor between Tehran and the US and its allies. “The regime is in a very tough spot right now and the primary driver is the economy. I think they have a narrowing window to reassert control and a diminished toolset to do it.”

More than 500 protesters have been killed in the past two weeks, according to the AP, citing the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, and more than 10,000 have been arrested in demonstrations triggered by a currency crisis and economic collapse, but now also focused on the regime.

Authorities have tried to block the internet and telephone networks since Thursday, as they seek to quell Iranians’ growing outrage over government corruption, economic mismanagement and repression. Foreign airlines have canceled flights to the country.

Trump’s repeated warnings to Iran that the US will strike if it kills peaceful protesters come as the president escalates his assault on the post-World War II global order in a stunning assertion of American power that’s included claiming Venezuela’s oil after seizing Maduro, and threatening to take over Greenland from NATO ally Denmark.

Israel, which battered Iran during a US-assisted 12-day air war in June, is liaising closely with European governments about the situation on the ground, according to a senior European official, who asked not to be named discussing private talks. 

If the regime does fall, it would be a blow to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who would lose another foreign ally after Maduro this month and the overthrow of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad just over a year ago, the official added.

The stakes for oil traders are significant. But it’s unclear if Khuzestan, the main oil-pumping province, has seen unrest and so far there are no signs of reduced crude exports. On Saturday, Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former shah who’s exiled in the US and positioning himself as an opposition leader, urged petroleum workers to strike. Oil strikes in 1978 were one of the death knells of his father’s monarchy because of how they immediately hit the economy.

The market’s “focus has now shifted to Iran,” said Arne Lohmann Rasmussen, chief analyst at A/S Global Risk Management, which helps clients manage volatility in energy markets. “There is also growing concern in the market that the US, with Trump at the helm, could exploit the chaos to attempt to overthrow the regime, as we have seen in Venezuela.”

The White House is on a high after the tactical success of the operation against Maduro, as well as Trump’s decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities at the end of the 12-day war. American officials are also increasing pressure on Denmark to cede control of Greenland, signaling the administration has the appetite for more forays abroad.

Read More: Trump’s Ousting of Maduro Shows His New World Order Is Here

Trump may well be tempted, for all the risks, to try to topple a government that’s been an archenemy to the US and Israel for over 45 years. 

“The balance of power would change dramatically,” Mark Mobius, the veteran emerging markets investor, said of the downfall of the Islamic Republic. “The best outcome would be a complete change in the government. The worst outcome would be continued internal conflict and a continuing rule by the current regime.”

Trump at times ran against American adventurism in the region, where the ousting of longtime US enemy Saddam Hussein in Iraq unleashed a generation of chaos and terrorism, costing hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars.

It’s just that kind of potential power vacuum that’s worrying Arab leaders in the Gulf Cooperation Council, according to regional officials. While the group — which includes Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar — has often viewed Iran as an adversary, its members have sought to improve ties in recent years to ensure Tehran doesn’t lash out against any Israeli or US military action by attacking them. The specter of the Arab Spring, where dictators fell across the region only for chaos to follow, looms large.

Iran has warned that if it’s attacked, American assets in the region — where it has deep commercial ties and tens of thousands of troops stationed — and Israel will be “legitimate targets for us.”

Read More: How Sanctions and a Currency Crash Fueled Iran Unrest

The Islamic Republic has been severely weakened in the past two years, thanks to its stagnating economy, rampant inflation and Israel striking both it and its proxies. But it retains a large and sophisticated arsenal of ballistic missiles able to hit targets across the Middle East, from military bases to oil installations, and the regime still has the backing of the country’s myriad security forces, including the all-important Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

For the GCC and the likes of Turkey and Pakistan, the worst outcome would be chaos in Iran, said Ellie Geranmayeh, deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the European Council on Foreign Relations. It’s an eventuality made more possible by the sheer diversity of Iranian protesters, who include everyone from urban, secular elites to religious conservatives and lack a unifying leader.

“With the GCC reconciliation of the past few years with Tehran, there’s a sense of better the devil you know rather than complete chaos or an unknown power structure that is alien to them,” said Geranmayeh.

US and Israeli strikes might even strengthen the government and reduce the appeal of the protest movement. In June, there was a surge in nationalism as the Jewish state and Washington rained down bombs.

The Islamic Republic probably won’t survive in its current form by the end of 2026, according to Dina Esfandiary, a Middle East analyst at Bloomberg Economics. The most likely scenario, she said, is a leadership reshuffle that largely preserves the system or a coup by the IRGC, which could mean greater social freedom — the organization is run by generals rather than clerics — but less political liberty and a more militaristic foreign policy.

The chances of a revolution are still fairly low, she said.

“A collapse appears unlikely for now,” she said. “Iranians are frightened of chaos, having seen it wreak havoc in neighboring Iraq and Syria. More importantly, the government is cracking down hard.”

On Sunday, President Masoud Pezeshkian, a former heart surgeon and a moderate relative to others at the top of the Iranian government, struck a conciliatory note, offering condolences to families affected by the “tragic consequences.”

“Let’s sit down together, hand in hand, and solve the problems,” he said on state TV.

It’s unlikely many protesters will believe him. The supreme leader, a much more powerful figure, as well as members of the security forces, are increasingly bellicose, floating the death penalty and making clear they’re prepared to respond as they always have — with brutal force.

“I don’t think a collapse of the regime would be pretty,” said Usher, the former CIA analyst. “Short-term, I could imagine some fracturing of the country as ethnic minority groups and some provinces pursue autonomy from Tehran. The IRGC will fight vigorously to save the regime so I think there’d be strong possibility for large-scale violence.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Trump tones down escalating Greenland rhetoric in Davos

Published

on



President Donald Trump, in his own inimitable way, struck a bellicose and yet conciliatory tone with European leaders in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday, somewhat tempering rising trans-Atlantic tensions and stock market jitters over concerns the U.S. is considering a takeover of Greenland. 

The nearly 90-minute speech, in which Trump lectured and hectored the tech executives and government officials in the audience, many from Europe, before clarifying that he didn’t want to use force and ultimately wanted peace, could be summed up by Trump ribbing French President Emmanuel Macron, seemingly unaware of his eye injury. “I watched him yesterday with his beautiful sunglasses. I said, ‘What the hell happened?’” Trump later added, “I actually like him. I do.” 

And while the president ruled out using military force to acquire the Danish territory of Greenland, he did not back down from antagonistic rhetoric while repeating his contested claim of having stopped eight wars around the world. (Trump’s desire for a Nobel Peace Prize, one measure of his competitiveness with predecessor Barack Obama, has hung on this eight-war figure, which some countries such as India and Pakistan reject.)

Trump used his highly anticipated address at the World Economic Forum as a platform to reaffirm his critique of European nations and of the U.S.’s status as a global superpower, but clarified that he prefers a peaceful resolution to the question over Greenland’s ownership that has threatened to kneecap the 76-year-old NATO alliance.

“I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” he said.

Trump’s statement on having resolved multiple conflicts first emerged in a leaked text message the president sent to Norwegian prime minister Jonas Gahr Støre over the weekend in which he said, ominously, that he was no longer obliged to “think purely of Peace.” In that message, Trump linked his Greenland bombast to the Nobel committee deciding not to award him a Peace Prize last October, despite having “stopped 8 wars PLUS.” The committee that awards Nobel Prizes is based in Norway, although the Norwegian government does not have a say in allocating the prizes. 

Sigh of relief in the mountains

The statement assuaged the concerns of some European leaders about a possible military confrontation with the U.S. and seemed to reassure markets jittery about the onset of a new trade war, or the end of the western alliance. 

Markets responded positively after their big Tuesday sell-off. As of late morning, both the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average had risen over 1%, while the Nasdaq Composite index had advanced 1.3%. The 10-year Treasury yield turned lower, and the U.S. dollar stabilized after big losses Tuesday.

But Trump’s comments were an olive branch in text only, not in tone. Speaking for over an hour, the president reiterated his desire for Greenland, stating “that’s our territory” with regards to the island, while claiming he had “stopped eight wars.” (India has repeatedly rejected Trump’s claim that he stopped a war between the countries, while Pakistan has welcomed his involvement, nominating him for a Nobel.)

And while Trump toned down aggressive rhetoric of an impending military takeover of Greenland, he made clear to foreign leaders that it was a choice, even a favor: “We probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won’t do that,” he said.

Trump’s claim has been disputed. While the president did not specify which wars he was referring to, the U.S. has been involved in six ceasefires, although tensions have occasionally flared between Israel and Hamas and India and Pakistan. He may also be referring to agreements brokered during his first term.

Trump’s ruling out of military force on Wednesday soothed some European officials. Rasmus Jarlov, who chairs the defense committee in Denmark’s parliament, told The New York Times he “wasn’t too upset” with the president’s comments.

Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Denmark’s foreign minister, was encouraged as well: “It is positive that it is being said that military force will not be used,” he told local reporters Wednesday. “But that will not make this case go away,” he added.

While Trump reiterated his desire for a peaceful resolution during his speech, he challenged European leaders to remain opposed to him.

“You can say yes and we will be very appreciative, or you can say no and we will remember,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

One Trump proposal meant to prevent ‘nation of renters’ may make homeownership harder, experts say

Published

on



President Donald Trump said he is reestablishing the American dream of homeownership, but one of his most recent housing policy proposals may put the dream even more out of reach, experts say.

Speaking Wednesday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump touted his barrage of recent housing policy executive orders, including preventing institutional investors from buying single-family homes and attempting to lower mortgage rates by directing government-controlled mortgage finance firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities.

“It’s just not fair to the public [that] they’re not able to buy a house,” Trump said Wednesday of institutional homebuying. “And I’m calling on Congress to pass that ban into permanent law, and I think they will.” Trump has also asked Congress to cap credit-card interest rates at 10%, which he claimed Wednesday “will help millions of Americans save for a home.” 

Trump also spoke directly to Wall Street giants and institutional homebuyers at Davos, saying that “many of you are good friends of mine [and] many of you are supporters,” but “you’ve driven up housing prices by purchasing hundreds of thousands of single family homes.” 

“It’s been a great investment for them, often as much as 10% of houses on the market,” Trump said. “You know, the crazy thing is, a person can’t get depreciation on a house, but when a corporation buys it, they get depreciation.” 

One policy that went unmentioned during Trump’s Wednesday speech in Davos, and one experts say could carry potentially big risks and do little to address the root causes of high housing costs, is his proposal that would allow Americans tap their 401(k) savings for mortgage down payments, which now averages 19% of a home’s price. The current U.S. median home price is about $428,000, according to Redfin, meaning a down payment could amount to a whopping $81,000. Trump hasn’t put a dollar or percentage figure on the cap for the amount Americans could pull from their 401(k)s to use toward a down payment.

Trump’s final plan on allowing Americans to use their retirement savings for down payments would likely require congressional approval because it may involve changing the tax code. The proposal, announced Friday by Kevin Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, is Trump’s latest attempt to address growing concerns about affordability across the U.S. economy, especially in the housing market, and prevent America from becoming “a nation of renters,” as he said in his address at the World Economic Forum Wednesday.

Benefits of using 401(k) funds for a down payment

Trump’s idea has some benefits. The number of first time homebuyers has fallen to half of what it was about a decade ago, according to data from the National Association of Realtors. In addition, 22% of those who are able to buy their first home are already using either borrowed money or a gift from a friend or relative for their downpayment, according to the NAR.

While Americans can already withdraw up to $10,000 to pay for a home from individual retirement accounts (IRAs) without repaying it before age 59 ½ , this rule doesn’t apply to employer-sponsored 401(k)s, the most common retirement account, unless account holders pay a 10% penalty. 

Americans can withdraw money without a penalty from their retirement plans for some exempted purposes such as recovering from a natural disaster and some medical expenses, but still have to pay income taxes on their tax-deferred accounts. These “hardship withdrawals” increased to 4.8% of participants in Vanguard retirement plans in 2024, up from 3.6% in 2023.

Most employer-sponsored 401(k)s also allow Americans to borrow for a limited time from their retirement savings penalty-free before 59 ½, including for a home purchase, as long as they repay the amount borrowed to the account with interest.

Given the limited options for accessing retirement accounts, the president’s proposal could help Americans in need of cash to unlock liquidity for a down payment. This could be especially helpful for those who may struggle to repay an IRA loan, Robert Goldberg, a finance professor at Adelphi University in Garden City, N.Y., told Fortune.

Drawbacks of using 401(k) funds for a down payment

Still, Goldberg warned swapping out the diversified investments of a 401(k) and concentrating a large chunk of their investment into one asset is risky. While some believe home prices always go up, the housing market collapse of 2008 showed this isn’t always the case.

“Imagine home prices drop so much that the home price goes not just down to the mortgage level, but to below the mortgage level, wipes out your equity position,” he said. “You would have lost your equity, your 401(k) equity. Bad outcome.” 

Experts say Trump’s proposal also does little to address the supply side of the housing market, which has been largely frozen as homebuyers who bought in at lower interest rates prior to the pandemic have been hesitant to sell, Goldberg said. Giving more people the means to buy homes without adding more supply may inadvertently increase prices and lock more people out of the housing market, instead of making it more affordable, he argued. 

“Some people will benefit from [Trump’s plan], but overall it will just be more competition for homes,” Goldberg said. 

Yet, Trump’s proposal dealing with retirement savings is especially risky because it makes it easier for Americans to use crucial retirement savings meant for the future for non-retirement uses, said Jake Falcon, a chartered retirement planning counselor and the CEO of Falcon Wealth Advisors.

The median retirement savings for an American between the ages of 45 and 55 was $115,000 as of 2022, according to the Federal Reserve. Yet, this amount may not suffice for everyone, as some experts suggest the average person needs to have saved eight to 10 times their annual salary to retire comfortably.  

“People, generally speaking, are more than likely behind, and this will just make them further behind,” Falcon said.

Given the bleak data on American retirement savings, Falcon said the government should make dipping into a retirement account for other uses harder instead of easier.

“Allowing people to raid their 401(k) doesn’t solve the problem,” he said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

‘Let’s not be naive’: Ray Dalio warns the global rule-based order is already ‘gone,’ toppled by America’s debt crisis and raw power

Published

on



Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio, speaking to Fortune‘s Kamal Ahmed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, issued a stark warning to global leaders and business executives: Stop pretending the old rules still apply. In a candid assessment of the current geopolitical landscape, Dalio argued the fate of the post-World War II global order—much debated amid President Donald Trump’s pursuit of Greenland and unsettling of the NATO alliance—is a moot point.

“Let’s not be naive and say, ‘Oh, we’re breaking the rule-based system,’” Dalio said. “It’s gone.”

The billionaire founder of the largest hedge fund in history added that as a student of financial history, he pays close attention to the economic cycles of the last 500 years and sees cycles repeat themselves over time.

“And what I learned through that exercise is the same thing happens over and over again,” he said. “And it’s like a movie for me. It’s like watching the same movie happen.”

According to Dalio, five specific forces interact to drive the movie plot forward, with the “money-debt cycle” serving as the MacGuffin that kicks things off. The roots of the current instability, Dalio explained, lie in the monetary decisions made during the past several decades. Since 1971, when the U.S. under President Richard Nixon broke the dollar’s link to gold, Dalio notes, governments have consistently chosen to “print money” rather than allow debt crises to naturally play out. This behavior occurs when debt-service payments rise faster than incomes, squeezing spending. After more than half a century of this, he argued, repeating a consistent warning in his public remarks on the subject, the world is now witnessing a “breakdown of the monetary order,” evidenced by central banks altering their reserves and buying gold.

The previous day, Dalio had said in an appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” from the sidelines of the annual meeting in Davos, fiat currencies and debt as a storehouse of wealth were “not being held by central banks in the same way” anymore. He pointed to a decoupling in which the U.S. markets have underperformed foreign markets in specific metrics, a trend visible in the changing balance sheets of global central banks.

The core of Dalio’s concern lies in the transition from trade disputes to what he terms “capital wars.” He alluded to how U.S. Treasury bonds were the bedrock of global reserves for decades, but now, Dalio said the sheer supply of debt being produced by the U.S. is colliding with a shrinking global appetite to hold it.

“There’s a supply-demand issue,” Dalio noted, adding “you can’t ignore the possibility that … maybe there’s not the same inclination to buy U.S. debt.”

This reluctance is driven by geopolitical friction. According to Dalio, in times of international conflict, “even allies do not want to hold each other’s debt,” preferring instead to move capital into hard currencies. This shift forces the issuer of the debt to monetize it, a phenomenon Dalio summarized bluntly: “We’re increasingly buying our own money. That’s… the lesson of all this.”

As Dalio was speaking on Monday, markets weathered a global selloff as they digested the revelation that President Donald Trump was demanding U.S. possession of Greenland in revenge for not getting the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025. He had texted the Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Støre in anger about this, according to confirmed reports over the weekend, even though the Nobel Prize committee is separately operated from the government of Norway. But Dalio’s Tuesday remarks came amid calmer markets, as Trump reiterated his request for Greenland but clarified he would not authorize use of force to acquire it.

This economic instability feeds directly into the collapse of political norms, Dalio told Fortune on Wednesday. He argued the multilateral world order established in 1945—characterized by institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization—was arguably a “naive system” from the start, as it relied on representation without guaranteed enforcement.

“What happens when the leading power doesn’t want to abide by the vote?” Dalio asked. “Do you really expect that there’s going to be a United Nations vote or a World Court that’s going to resolve these things?”

The result, he argued, is a definitive shift from a multilateral system to a unilateral one. Dalio posited the central question of our time has become: “Who makes the rules, who enforces the rules, and how are you going to deal with that?”

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of Dalio’s analysis is the erosion of legal authority in favor of brute force. “Power matters more” than the law, he told Fortune, noting conflicts are increasingly decided by who controls the military, the police, and the National Guard. This trend is visible not only internationally but within nations, where democracy is threatened by populism and a growing belief the system is corrupt.

When asked if this rupture should strike fear into corporate boards and CEOs who have long relied on stable global rules, Dalio responded ignoring the truth is far more dangerous.

“I think what always scares me is the lack of realism,” he said.

Dalio advised leaders to stop relying on a dissolving rule-based system and instead focus on “jurisdiction questions,” seeking out places where people are “like-minded” and mutually supportive. Whether dealing with international boundaries or domestic regulations, Dalio insists businesses must now face the hard reality the era of assured legal protection is ending.

“Will law prevail?” Dalio asked. “Internationally, everybody is having to deal with that question.”

As confidence in institutions, the law itself, and fiat-denominated debt erodes, Dalio highlighted to CNBC the quiet but significant resurgence of gold. He emphasized gold should not be viewed merely as a speculative asset but as “the second-largest reserve currency” in the world. He noted in the previous year, gold was the “biggest market to move,” and it performed far better than tech stocks as central banks diversified their holdings. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon had similar remarks in an interview with Fortune at the Most Powerful Women conference in October, when he said for the first time in his life, it had become “semi-rational” to have gold in your portfolio.

However, Dalio’s outlook was not entirely defensive. He said he sees the current era as a bifurcation between the decaying monetary order and a “wonderful technological revolution,” echoing Trump’s remarks onstage earlier that day about the “economic miracle” taking place. In that regard, at least, might may end up making right.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.