President Donald Trump’s announcement that the United States launched airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites, including the Fordow facility, drew swift and wide-ranging reactions from leaders around the globe.
Calling the operation a “very successful attack,” Trump celebrated the strike as a turning point. “This is an HISTORIC MOMENT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ISRAEL, AND THE WORLD,” he posted on Truth Social. “IRAN MUST NOW AGREE TO END THIS WAR.”
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi condemned the assault, accusing Washington of violating international law and the UN Charter. He said Tehran “reserves all options” in defending its sovereignty and described the strike on what he called “peaceful nuclear installations” as an act of aggression.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump’s decision, calling it a bold move that could reshape history. “First comes strength, then comes peace,” he said in a televised address.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged restraint, warning of dire consequences if tensions spiral. “There is no military solution,” he stated. “The only hope is peace.”
China’s UN envoy Fu Cong denounced the attack, especially Israel’s involvement, and called for an immediate ceasefire. Leaders across the Asia-Pacific region echoed similar concerns. Japan urged calm, while Australia backed the U.S. operation. South Korea reviewed its response in a National Security Council meeting.
In Europe, U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer pushed for renewed dialogue, while EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas urged all parties to de-escalate and resume negotiations. Iran responded by rejecting the notion that it had abandoned talks.
Middle Eastern neighbors including Saudi Arabia and Qatar expressed alarm over rising tensions and called for diplomatic solutions. Iran’s regional allies, such as the Houthis in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon, issued statements condemning the strikes and warning of broader instability.
Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev criticized Trump’s leadership, casting doubt on his reputation as a peace advocate. Venezuela and Cuba also sharply rebuked the military action, calling it a breach of international norms.
Pope Leo, addressing the faithful in St. Peter’s Square, urged global leaders to choose diplomacy over destruction. “No armed victory can compensate for the pain of mothers or the fear of children,” he said.
As diplomatic fallout continues, world leaders remain divided over the strike’s implications for regional stability and the future of global security.
PETERSBURG, June 18 – The real fintech revolution is happening in the Global South, not Wall Street, Brazilian technology executive Thiago Ruediger told international business leaders at the opening of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on Tuesday, signaling a significant shift in global financial innovation from traditional Western centers to emerging markets.
“Forget Wall Street—the fintech revolution is happening in the Global South,” declared Ruediger, CEO of Tanssi Foundation, during the forum’s opening session, “Shaping a New Platform for Global Growth.”The Brazilian executive emphasised that blockchain technology is making money and assets programmable, and when combined with artificial intelligence, it provides a powerful catalyst for transforming the entire financial sector.
The four-day forum, running through June 21 in Russia’s cultural capital, has attracted global business leaders and policymakers to discuss pressing economic challenges amid a turbulent international landscape. The opening session, organised by the National Centre “Russia,”presented findings from the International Open Dialogue focusing on economic fragmentation, demographic shifts, breakthrough technologies, and growing social and technological divides within and between nations.
Ruediger’s bold assertion challenges conventional wisdom about financial innovation originating in established Western financial centres. “Fintech is changing the rules of the game, impacting traditional banks and opening new opportunities for millions of people,” he said, highlighting how emerging markets are leapfrogging traditional banking infrastructure through mobile and blockchain technologies.
The Brazilian executive expressed particular enthusiasm about the potential for reducing transaction costs in global financial markets. “I believe this will help people reduce costs for operations in global financial markets. I’m ready to discuss this with enthusiasm. I’m waiting for these processes to come to Brazil and the whole world,” Ruediger stated, noting that Brazil and Russia are actively sharing experiences in fintech development.
Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Administration Maxim Oreshkin, who moderated the session, placed these technological developments within a broader geopolitical context. “This year’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum is taking place against turbulent world events. This includes the situation in the Middle East and trade wars,” Oreshkin noted, emphasising that while current crises demand attention, long-term trends and fundamental challenges remain crucial.
Oreshkin stressed the importance of focusing on structural issues shaping the global economy. “We must not forget which long-term trends and challenges are basic and defining. It’s important to conduct open dialogue about how we build the world of the future, how to form a new platform for global growth,” he said.
The session explored critical questions about the geography and nature of future economic growth. “Which countries will drive this global growth, which technologies will it be built on, what principles and cultural codes will guide it—these are the fundamental questions we must address,” Oreshkin explained. He emphasised that progress must benefit people in all countries working toward the future, with open dialogue as the foundation for building shared understanding.
The discussion highlighted how emerging markets, particularly Latin America, Africa, and Asia, are pioneering financial technologies serving populations traditionally excluded from formal banking systems. This shift represents technological advancement and a fundamental restructuring of global economic power dynamics, with innovation increasingly flowing from South to North rather than following traditional patterns.
Speakers at the session also discussed the comprehensive report prepared by the Centre for Cross-Industry Expertise, “Third Rome”, following the Open Dialogue initiative. The session format featured sequential discussions examining economics, technology, and human factors in a rapidly changing world, providing a multifaceted analysis of contemporary challenges and opportunities.
The insights shared during this opening session will shape discussions throughout SPIEF-2025’s business program. The forum continues to serve as a crucial platform for international dialogue on economic development, with this year’s focus on how emerging markets are reshaping global financial systems through technological innovation.
The session’s proceedings underscore a significant shift in global economic dynamics, with the Global South emerging as a leader in financial innovation rather than a follower of Western models. This transformation has implications for financial services and broader questions of economic development, technological sovereignty, and international cooperation.
As SPIEF continues through June 21, participants will further explore these themes, examining how the fintech revolution in emerging markets might reshape global economic relationships and create new opportunities for inclusive growth. The complete recording of the “Shaping a New Platform for Global Growth” session is available on the National Centre “Russia” website for those seeking more profound insights into these transformative discussions.
All the photos in the article are provided by the company(s) mentioned in the article and are used with permission.
At the University of California, Irvine, the Human Resources office sits at the intersection of tradition and transformation. Ramona Agrela, Vice President, UCI Health, and Vice Chancellor, Human Resources, UC Irvine, is steering the HR team that supports this 34,000-employee institution through the early phases of generative AI (Gen AI) adoption with both pragmatism and hope. As she reflects on UC Irvine HR’s (UCI HR) journey in her interview with me, a clear picture emerges of how higher education’s distinct culture, constraints, and commitments are shaping its path forward.
Balancing Innovation With Infrastructure
Unlike nimble tech startups or resource-rich corporations, universities operate in layered bureaucracies. At UCI, this complexity is amplified by its unique structure: a main academic campus, a College of Health Sciences, and the sprawling UCI Health clinical enterprise. While many organizations are sprinting ahead with AI adoption, higher education often has to walk before it can run.
Rather than viewing AI as an isolated project, it is woven into the university’s broader goals.
Agrela describes UCI HR’s Gen AI initiative as being in its foundational stage, focused on improving operational efficiency. “It’s a lot of looking at self-service functions,” she explains. “How to take the mundane tasks—those routine, repetitive ones—and use Gen AI to support them, freeing up time and energy for more strategic HR work.”
These ambitions are measured not by traditional AI success metrics, but by UCI HR’s own “North Star” framework: employee engagement, talent destination positioning, and process effectiveness. Rather than viewing AI as an isolated project, it is woven into the university’s broader goals. If AI helps move the needle on these benchmarks, it’s considered a success.
Time and Training: The True Costs of AI
Despite the promise, Agrela is clear-eyed about the hurdles. Chief among them is time—an increasingly scarce commodity in a post-merger HR landscape now responsible for an additional 4,200 employees. “You don’t want to just throw in a tool and hope that it’s working,” she says. “It takes training, patience, and knowledge, and that’s a tough ask when everyone is already stretched thin.”
This perspective highlights a critical distinction between higher education and private sector AI adoption: the speed of execution. At UCI, just choosing the right tool is a slow, deliberative process, involving not only usability evaluations but cultural and strategic alignment assessments. For Agrela, deploying Gen AI is akin to onboarding a new employee—it must be oriented, trained, and integrated into the team. That metaphor, offered by a colleague, speaks volumes about the human-centric ethos of academic institutions.
Cost is another constraint. While some existing HR systems include AI functionalities as bolt-ons, budgetary limits often restrict experimentation with newer, standalone tools. As Agrela notes, “A lot of the things we just don’t have a budget for.”
Cultural Resistance and Ethical Guardrails
Resistance to Gen AI isn’t just logistical—it’s also cultural. In higher education, where faculty and staff value personal connection and intellectual rigor, the notion of outsourcing interactions to a machine often sparks discomfort. “People are used to picking up a phone and calling a person,” Agrela observes. “Talking to a computer isn’t something our long-term employees are necessarily comfortable with.”
This cautious approach extends to applicant screening, where AI tools capable of parsing resumes have been intentionally sidelined. “We’re not using AI in applicant screening right now because we haven’t had the time to ensure it won’t cause some form of discrimination,” she says. That decision speaks to a deeper concern about fairness, bias, and trust—issues that loom especially large in academic settings where equity is a guiding principle.
To navigate these ethical waters, UCI leans on a multi-tiered governance structure. A compliance and privacy committee vets every new technology to ensure it meets legal and institutional standards. A separate data governance committee ensures that AI tools integrate responsibly with existing systems. While some universities might form a single AI oversight body, UCI’s segmented approach reflects its caution and commitment to layered accountability.
Shifting From Transactional to Strategic
With universities like UCI facing ongoing financial pressures, AI offers a path to maintain service levels without expanding headcount.
Despite the early stage of adoption and the many hurdles ahead, Agrela is optimistic about Gen AI’s long-term impact. Her vision is not just about doing more with less, but about elevating the role of HR professionals. “I envision my teams becoming smaller over time,” she says. “AI can take over the transactional work—writing memos, processing leave paperwork, managing routine correspondence—so we can focus on workforce planning, employee development, and organizational strategy.”
In this way, Gen AI is not a threat but a tool for resilience. With universities like UCI facing ongoing financial pressures, AI offers a path to maintain service levels without expanding headcount. But this transformation will only be successful if handled thoughtfully. “You need deep, helpful thought partners to do this work,” Agrela insists. And if AI can help free up those human minds to think more deeply and act more strategically, then it will have truly earned its place on campus.
A Measured, Mission-Driven Evolution
UCI HR’s approach to Gen AI adoption is not one of explosive innovation, but of careful evolution. It’s a case study in how large, complex, and values-driven organizations can begin to integrate new technologies without losing sight of their mission. In higher education, change is often incremental and always contextual. Gen AI, for all its power, must adapt to that reality.
As Agrela puts it, “Higher ed is a unique animal.” In this ecosystem, the success of Gen AI won’t be measured by how fast it spreads, but by how well it supports the people and principles that define the institution. And in that respect, UCI is setting a thoughtful, responsible pace for others to follow.
As President Trump ordered the US to attack three major Iranian nuclear sites, a misguided concept of Israel’s national security morphed into an even more twisted view of US national security.
Ironically, Iran is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Israel shuns. As shown by The Fall of Israel (2025), the US/Israeli path to the carnage across the Middle East was paved almost 60 years ago.
Yom Kippur War
Israel first crossed the nuclear threshold on the eve of the Six-Day War in May 1967, when Prime Minister Levi Eshkol secretly ordered the nuclear reactor scientists in Dimona to assemble two crude nuclear devices. The crude atomic bombs “were readied for deployment on trucks that could race to the Egyptian border for detonation in the event Arab forces overwhelmed Israeli defenses.”
At the eve of Yom Kippur in 1973, despite advance intelligence about the impending attack, Prime Minister Golda Meir decided not to launch a pre-emptive strike fearing the U.S. response could prove adverse as it had in 1956. Mobilization proved grossly inadequate; for a few days, Israel faced an existential threat.
Even the normally sober Defense Minister Moshe Dayan was rattled enough to later tell Meir that “this is the end of the Third Temple.” It was a reference to the collapse of the state of Israel. But “Temple” was also the code word for nuclear weapons.
On the night of October 8, Meir and her kitchen cabinet had thirteen 20-kiloton atomic bombs assembled. Their destructive potential was higher than that of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima, with an explosive yield of the equivalent of about 15 kilotons of dynamite.
At the edge of a nuclear war
The Israelis planned to use the bombs against Egyptian and Syrian targets if Arab forces would advance too far. Leaks suggest that the primary purpose was strategic deterrent; but it also signaled a tentative “Samson Option”; that is, a massive potential Israeli retaliation as a “last resort” option.
The Israelis planned to use the bombs against Egyptian and Syrian targets if Arab forces would advance too far.
At the time, the implications of the devastating aftermath of even tactical nuclear strikes were not well-known. As the Soviets began to resupply Arab forces, particularly Syria, Meir requested Nixon for help with military supply.
After the full nuclear alert, Israelis began to load the warheads into waiting planes. Cognizant of the potential implications, Nixon ordered a full-scale strategic airlift operation to deliver weapons and supplies to Israel. By the time the aid arrived, Israel was gaining the upper hand in the war.
After those days on a nuclear edge, nothing would ever remain the same in the Middle East. American military aid to Israel contributed to the 1973 OPEC embargo against the United States, which was lifted in March 1974, and subsequently to the overthrow of the Shah in Iran 1979, followed by another oil crisis.
The twin crises and the postwar economic expansion ended with devastating stagflation, which led to record-high interest rates. As the Keynesian era faded away, monetarism coupled with Reagan’s rearmament drives ensued.
Nuclear stockpiles
The conventional estimate is that Israel’s nuclear stockpile comprises some 90 nuclear warheads, which makes the tiny country the world’s 9th largest nuclear power. However, unofficial estimates vary. The conventional estimate is at the lower end of a possible range that some analysts suggest could be as high as 200, up to 400 nuclear weapons.68 The latter would make it the world’s 4th largest nuclear power, right after Russia, the U.S., and China, and before France, the UK, India and Pakistan.
World Nuclear Forces
Source: SIPRI, author, January 2024
Most Israelis perceive Iran as the primary nuclear risk. Israel has a broad range of nuclear weapons, while Iran may have enriched enough nuclear material to build them but is thought not to have done so, as of yet. Such weapons, were they to exist, would be deeply underground, possibly inaccessible even by a nuclear strike. In such scenarios, large civilian hubs would not be collateral damage, but intended mass targets.
According to some projections, nuclear weapon detonations in Iran’s densely populated cities would likely result in millions of dead, with tens of millions of injured and without adequate medical care, a devastating loss of municipal infrastructure, long-term disruption of economic, educational, and other essential social activity, and a full breakdown in law and order. These nightmares include thermal burn and radiation patients who would have to suffer their extreme pains without any treatment.
Stated doctrine of “nuclear ambiguity”
Officially, Israel has a long-standing policy of nuclear ambiguity. While it has used psychological warfare leaks to signal its disproportionate nuclear deterrence, it neither officially confirms nor denies that it possesses nuclear weapons. In public, the standard statement has been that “Israel will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East.”
Yet effectively, the Israeli policy is more preemptive by nature.
The country first flirted with the nuclear option at the eve of the 1967 War, concerned that it might lose. Since the early 1960s, Israel has relied on what investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has described as the Samson Option. The term refers to the biblical figure of Samson who pushed apart the pillars of a Philistine temple bringing down the roof. In the process, he killed not just his enemy, the Philistines, but himself as well. It suggests an ultimate deterrence strategy of massive retaliation.
In October 1973, amid the Egyptian-Syrian invasion, Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan mobilized nuclear warheads for possible use, which led to president Nixon’s massive rearmament drive and the rapid deepening of the bilateral military ties – and eventually the symbiotic relationship that President Trump touted in his Sunday White House commentary, right after the US attacks against Iran’s nuclear enclaves.
The Begin Doctrine
In 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor Osirak as the Begin government initiated its war on Lebanon. Despite public criticism by the Reagan administration, the U.S. and Israel signed a strategic memorandum of understanding and began to deepen bilateral ties in defense. The Osirak attack gave rise to the Begin nuclear doctrine, which allows no “hostile” regional state to possess nuclear military capability.
Begin described the strike as an act of “anticipatory self-defense at its best.” He framed it as a long-term national commitment.
We chose this moment: now, not later, because later may be too late, perhaps forever…. Then, this country and this people would have been lost, after the Holocaust. Another Holocaust would have happened in the history of the Jewish people. Never again, never again! … We shall not allow any enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction turned against us.
In a sense, the Begin doctrine reflected the right-wing Likud party’s offensive view of national security. But it also represented continuity and can be dated to the early 1960s Operation Damocles, Mossad’s covert campaign to assassinate Nazi Germany’s rocket scientists working for Egypt to develop bombs using radioactive waste. The legendary head of Mossad, Isser Harel, recruited former Nazis to provide intelligence on Arab countries.
When I met Harel in the mid-1970s, he denied all such stories. But subsequently, he confirmed them. One of these hired hands was the legendary Waffen-SS commando Otto Skorzeny, who had served as adviser to Egypt’s President Nasser. There is a straight line from Operation Damocles to Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor and the subsequent targeted killings of Iranian nuclear scientists, particularly since 2010 – and up to the present.
The far-right Messianic dream to “nuke Gaza”
A month after the Hamas offensive of October 7, Netanyahu’s heritage minister Amichai Eliyahu suggested that one of Israel’s options in the war against Hamas was to drop a nuclear bomb on the Gaza Strip. As the story spread internationally, it was quickly disavowed by PM Netanyahu, but he did not fire his minister.
The far-right Eliyahu objected to allowing any humanitarian aid into Gaza, saying, “we wouldn’t hand the Nazis humanitarian aid because there is no such thing as uninvolved civilians in Gaza.”
In a way, Eliyahu got what he wished for. By late April 2024, Israel had dropped more than 70,000 tons of bombs over Gaza, surpassing the bombing of Dresden, Hamburg, and London combined during World War II. That amounts to more than 30 kilograms of explosives per individual on mainly women and children.
Reflecting extraordinary brutality and blind disregard to human life, it was a shocking war crime with no parallel in recent history.
Furthermore, the weight of the U.S. nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan was estimated at about 15,000 tons of explosives. Even before the Rafah offensive in May 2024, Gaza had been bombed almost five times more than that. Reflecting extraordinary brutality and blind disregard to human life, it was a shocking war crime with no parallel in recent history.
What made it all the more stunning was the Biden-Harris complicity coupled with the hollow assurances that “we are working 24 hours a day for peace” with the whole world watching the other way.
“Peace through strength”
According to US intelligence assessments, Iran was up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver a nuclear weapon. While Israel built its case for war, the US didn’t buy it. The problem is that President Trump did.
It is the notorious “peace through strength” premise that Trump relied on when US struck three major Iranian nuclear sites, joining overtly the Israeli air campaign against nuclear program that it had until then supported mainly covertly.
American diplomacy no longer exists. It has been replaced by diplomatic deception and historically unprecedent lethal force. All gloves are now off. The premise that the Iran attacks reflect a “mission accomplished” couldn’t be more off. The carnage hasn’t ended. It has begun.
The author of The Fall of Israel (2025),Dr. Dan Steinbockis an internationally-renowned visionary of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net
As financial services face mounting pressure to stay agile and cost-efficient, demand for interim legal talent is surging. But outdated, lengthy recruitment processes may be undermining access to the high-calibre interim lawyers they urgently need
In recent years, the financial services sector has seen a notable rise in the demand for interim lawyers. This trend is driven not only by the need to fill skill gaps within departments, cover parental leave, and support ongoing projects, but also by the increasing difficulty in securing secondees. Some banks try and tie their panel law firms into arrangements where they get a quota of free secondees, but only the large banks seem to profit from this arrangement with top-tier US and UK law firms. Even then, these free resources are in short supply and are often only available for 3 to 6 months.
With cost-containment the theme for 2025, financial services companies are also hiring interim lawyers in lieu of securing permanent budget (‘try-before-you-buy’). However, lengthy recruitment processes that might be deemed more suitable for permanent hires often prohibit a company’s ability to hire the best interim lawyers available in the market.
The talent tug-of-war
While the legal job market, both interim and permanent, may not be as active as it was post-Covid, the war to hire the most talented interim lawyers remains rife for certain skill sets. Derivatives (notably equity derivatives) and structured products lawyers are hot commodities, particularly those who have specialised experience that matches bespoke client requirements. A slow hiring process increases the risk that interim lawyers will accept a position at a competitor.
Hesitation may also lead interim lawyers to turn their attention to alternative employers. Agile resources often want to partner with decisive organisations that value their expertise. Investment banks are often a good example of this – once they meet a few interim lawyers, they hone in on a preferred option ordinarily after one interview. An offer may materialise or a request for a second round ‘meet and greet’, but often nothing more than this. The investment banks know what they want and move quickly to close out an efficient recruitment process.
Buy-side firms, principally private equity firms, tend to take a lot longer, and this is often attributed to the deal-oriented work the lawyers would be conducting and the fact that they need to meet several internal stakeholders (but even these processes can and should be streamlined).
Ultimately, the way a company coordinates an interview process can shape an interim lawyer’s overall impression, positively or negatively, of how the business operates more generally.
Move quickly, hire wisely
Depending on the reason for hiring an interim lawyer, making a swift hire could be crucial to the business. But a slow interview process could result in businesses having to spend more money outsourcing work to law firms, there could be increased legal and compliance risks, or, particularly if a legal team is stretched, be faced with attrition within the legal team due to negative work/life balance.
Processes should be streamlined. It is common for permanent processes to take several months to complete, but interim processes should take a week or two (with onboarding taking a few more weeks). Similarly, some companies like to conduct legal tests to ascertain technical ability for permanent headcount – this is time-consuming for an interim role and will often deter interim lawyers from the interview process. If companies are concerned about quality/cultural fit, they can improve hiring efficiency by leveraging networks of interim lawyers provided by specialist alternative legal service providers (ALSPs) and legal search firms. These interim lawyers are pre-vetted, and ALSPs/legal search firms can provide an honest commentary on suitability for roles.
The bottom line
It is important to keep in mind that the pool of candidates for interim lawyers is considerably smaller than that for permanent roles. If an interim lawyer meets your criteria, move quickly with an offer or risk the individual securing a new role with a competitor – there might not be another similar candidate available. There are very clear trends across the interim legal financial services market, with many investment banks looking for the same type of consultant (notably if there is a particular project or trend in the market). Take May/June of this year, for example – banks are going through transformation projects which include team restructures and redundancies. This has resulted in an uptick in the demand for interim employment lawyers. The best will get snapped up quickly (twinned with competitive day rates).
Streamline the process by limiting interviews to one or two rounds – ensure all decision makers are present in the interviews, or stack them back-to-back for efficiency. Get quality assurance by partnering with specialist interim providers who have access to pre-vetted interim lawyers that can be drafted in at short notice.
Christian Worthyis a Managing Director in the Interim Legal group at Major Lindsey & Africa, working across the EMEA region. Having cultivated deep, long-lasting relationships with the world’s largest banks, asset managers and trading houses, Christian is best placed to help financial services with their acquisition of interim legal talent by connecting opportunities with the right lawyers.
With its misguided tariff wars, the Trump administration is not only disrupting historical trade ties with the world’s largest economies, but waging war against economic development in the Global South.
After agreeing to suspend the “reciprocal” duties for 90 days — till early July — Trump threatened to set country-specific tariff rates. By making good his promise and imposing unilateral tariffs on imports from the US’ trading partners, Trump will severely disrupt export-led growth, which has fueled global growth for years, and shatter the development dreams and aspirations of emerging and developing economies.
China’s global trade engine is a case in point.
$3.6 trillion of exports to 230 countries
In 2024, US exports amounted to some $2.1 trillion. That’s significantly more than those by Germany ($1.7 tr) or the Netherlands ($0.7 tr), Europe’s two largest trading economies. Yet, today the value of US exports is less than 60% of those by China that amount to $3.6 trillion. Today, China contributes some 15% of all exports worldwide. That’s twice as much as the US (Figure 1).
Figure 1: China’s export partners worldwide
Source: Latest data (for 2024), ITC, June 2025
China’s exports have some 230 destinations. Most go to major economies in North America (US, Mexico, Canada), Western Europe (Germany, Netherlands, UK), East Asia (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan), Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand), India, Russia and Australia.
In 2018, before the first Trump administration’s tariff wars, the United States still accounted for over 19% of China’s total exports. In 2024, that figure was barely 16%; that is, less than Chinese exports to Europe and Southeast Asia, each. Ever since the US tariff wars, China has diversified its exports away from the US.
In the past decade, this trend has been greatly reinforced by Chinese trade with Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) countries. Nearly 54% of China’s imports came from BRI partner countries last year, with China’s huge marketplace providing development opportunities for nations around the world.
China’s trade is vital to the emerging and developing economies of the Global South, where the West’s exports often are prohibitively expensive. The West exports mainly to economies that share similar high living standards. Such trade is predicated on high purchasing power, which is the privilege of high-income economies.
Trump’s war against economic development
The first round of Trump tariffs built on traditional trade wars focusing mainly on Canada, Mexico and China. The second round began with “reciprocal tariffs”, which actually are unilateral, flawed as stated and mistakenly calculated. Those tariffs were followed by a slate of retaliatory tariffs.
The net effect has been a stunning downgrading of the economic prospects in the United States, its trading partners and the global economy. What is less understood is the likely long-term effect of Trump’s unilateral tariffs, which is to undermine the rise of the Global South.
The US administration’s original list of these tariff targets comprised almost 60 countries and regions. Except for the EU as a bloc and a few high-income countries, three of four of these targets represent emerging and developing economies; that is, the Global South. The Trump administration is at war against their economic development (Figure 2).
Since the late 20th century, most economies that have been able to industrialize and catch-up with the advanced economies of the West have done so on the back of export-led growth. It is what fueled the rise of Asian tigers in the postwar era (Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan), their subsequent successors (Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia).
They were followed by China – and today India and some Southeast Asian economies.
From Western domination to multipolarity
After World War II, the United States dominated half of the world economy. It was the “world’s factory,” the largest manufacturer and exporter. As the largest creditor, it also held huge leverage over the international economy. This dominance, in turn, was reflected by the mighty US dollar that had a virtual monopoly in international transactions.
All that is history today.
Of course, the United States remains the largest single economy in the world, but its relative share has shrunk to about a fourth or fifth of the world GDP. It hasn’t been the world’s largest export manufacturer since the postwar era. Starting in the 1970s, it has suffered from trade deficits and today it is the world’s largest debtor. Concurrently, the share of US dollar in international transactions has shrunk to less than 60%.
In the process, Washington has played itself into a dark corner: it cannot fully decouple from China without major economic turmoil. But thanks to its tariffs, it cannot any longer benefit from China’s affordable prices, which has long contributed to low inflation in the US.
Today any major threat to undermine Chinese trade poses a $6.2 trillion threat – that is, export plus imports combined – to its trading partners, particularly the Global South and the world at large.
The original version was published by China Daily on June 20, 2025.
Dr. Dan Steinbockis an internationally recognized strategist of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net
The Israel/US Iran offensive is not about nuclear weapons. It is about still another unwarranted proxy war. It aims at the restoration of the pre-1979 Iran.
Only days ago, President Trump reiterated that Iran will never have nuclear weapons. Yet, according to US intelligence assessments, Iran was up to three years away from being able to produce and deliver a nuclear weapon. While Israel built its case for war, the US didn’t buy it. The problem is that Trump did.
In the process, a misguided concept of Israel’s national security morphed into an even more twisted view of US national security. Ironically, Iran is a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which Israel shuns.
Only days ago, the leaders of the G7 countries issued a joint statement stating Iran should not have nuclear weapons and affirming Israel’s right to defend itself. After October 7, 2023, these countries resorted to a similar argument, which then paved the way to Israel’s genocidal atrocities in Gaza and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank.
Only days ago, the Trump administration insisted it was working for a peaceful resolution in the US-Iran talks, opposing the Netanyahu war cabinet’s unilateral military plans. Yet, by June 17, President Trump said the US demanded Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.” Threatening the life of Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he was considering “all options,” including a potential US strike against Iran.
Reminiscent of the West’s imperialist cartels in the late 19th century, this is what the much-touted international “rules-based order” looks like in the early 21st century, when the gloves are off and might makes right at the expense of the Global South.
The deception campaign
Not so long ago, the Iran-US negotiations still appeared to be promising. But expectations were revised almost overnight on Thursday June 12, when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said Iran wasn’t complying with its nuclear obligations. That triggered a slate of diplomatic efforts to restore the UN sanctions on Tehran later this year.
As international debate amounted on the IAEA compliance issues, Iranian media began releasing images of the documents related to Israel’s nuclear program obtained by Tehran, claiming collusion between the IAEA and Israel.
Oddly, only a week before, Iran’s state broadcaster IRIB reported Iranian intelligence services had obtained a large volume of sensitive material from Israel, including documents on its secretive nuclear and strategic facilities. As international debate amounted on the IAEA compliance issues, Iranian media began releasing images of the documents related to Israel’s nuclear program obtained by Tehran, claiming collusion between the IAEA and Israel.
On Friday June 13, Israel began a major military operation against Iran, including air strikes and reported covert action. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed to continue attacks for “as many days as it takes” presumably targeting “existential threats” posed by Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missiles.
In a letter to the United Nations, Iran’s foreign minister described Israel’s attack as a “declaration of war,” calling on the UN Security Council to immediately address the issue.
Concurrently, U.S. diplomacy, including Special Envoy Witkoff’s talks and President Trump’s personal reassurances, have served as a bilateral ploy, basically to cover for the Israeli surprise attack. Building on disinformation, the deception campaign has reaped extraordinary short-term benefits. By the same token, it is likely to undermine US’s international credibility for years to come.
Neutralizing the Axis of Resistance
Ever since the Islamic Revolution, when President Carter froze billions of dollars in Iranian assets, Washington has sought to restore the pre-1979 status quo ante in Iran. It was the Shah’s rule that made Iran safe to American capitalism in the postwar era, thanks to the US-UK coup in 1953, US military aid and SAVAK, Iran’s dreaded secret police, partly trained by Israel.
Nonetheless, US regime-change initiatives moved to a new stage during the Bush Jr. administration. Since 2003, US Army has conducted an analysis called TIRANNT (Theater Iran Near-Term) for a full-scale war with Iran.
At the turn of the 2010s, the US and Israel deployed the Stuxnet virus, the world’s first offensive cyber weapon, to destroy almost a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.
In 2015, years of challenging talks resulted in a nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPOA) between Iran, the US and a set of world powers. Despite Iran’s adherence to it, the Trump administration, in its anti-Obama zeal, pulled the US out of the deal in 2018.
The ultimate objective has been the obliteration of the Iran-led Axis of Resistance in the region. Hence, the Biden and Trump administrations’ tacit acceptance of Israel’s obliteration of Gaza, the destruction of Hezbollah’s footholds in Southern Lebanon, the efforts to rule-and-divide in Syria and Iraq, and the bombing of the Houthis in Yemen (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Western view: Iran’s Axis of Resistance
Source: Master Strategist/Axis of Resistance, CC BY-SA
US-led “normalization” vs. Chinese development
Following the first Trump administration, the Biden cabinet struggled to have Saudi leaders establish diplomatic ties with Israel. There was talk about a security deal with the US, modeled loosely on the US-Japan mutual defense pact, with cooperation in a civilian nuclear program.
Like most of the Middle East, Saudi Arabia seeks both US and Chinese benefits. It has joined the BRICS alliance, remains one of China’s largest oil suppliers and is selling oil in multiple currencies. It is also the world’s second-largest arms importer and 74 percent of those weapons come from the US. That’s the leverage the US administrations have tried to use to limit Riyadh’s cooperation with Beijing on trade, technology and military matters.
Unlike the US, Beijing has invested significantly in the Middle East, defused tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, unified Palestinian forces and launched a historic strategic partnership with Egypt.
Unlike the US, Beijing has invested significantly in the Middle East, defused tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia, unified Palestinian forces and launched a historic strategic partnership with Egypt. The launch of another Silk Road ensued after major Chinese investments in Saudi Arabian stocks and the signing of memorandums of understanding worth $50 billion with six major Chinese financial institutions.
The US seeks exclusive military partnerships, whereas China builds inclusive economic alliances. Iran is the latest flashpoint of these conflicting goals.
Iran’s huge untapped oil and gas reserves
In the White House, regime change in Iran is seen as tempting, due to Iran’s huge regional economic and geopolitical importance. Connecting the Persian Gulf with the Arabian Sea, the Strait of Hormuz, is one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints. Flows through the Strait make up over one-quarter of global seaborne traded oil. In addition, one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) trade transits the Strait annually. It is Iran’s insurance.
Iran is also the OPEC’s fourth-largest crude oil producer and the world’s third-largest dry natural gas producer. Most importantly, it holds some of the world’s largest deposits of proved oil and natural gas reserves. It is these lucrative resources that have paced the West’s external interventions in the country for a century (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Iran’s largest oil and natural gas fields
Source: EIA
China has exclusive rights to several Iranian oil and natural gas fields. As part of a 2016-2017 agreement, Beijing cautioned it would regard any foreign attack on these areas as attacks on its own sovereign territory. Two years later, Iran joined China’s Belt and Road (BRI) initiative. In March 2021, the two countries signed a 25-year and $400-billion strategic cooperation agreement.
Based on tanker tracking data, China imports nearly 90% of Iran’s crude oil and condensate exports, up from 25% in 2017, the year before US-led sanctions were re-imposed.
Dire, direr and direst scenarios
Three years ago, the escalation of the proxy war in Ukraine drove Brent oil prices to record levels. Except for a brief spike amid Israel’s Gaza offensive, oil prices had halved from $120 to $60 in early May, even as gold continues to soar. In the past week, Israel’s attacks against Iran fueled the prices up to $77 (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Dramatic gold rallies, mild oil spikes
Source: Tradingeconomics, author, June 17, 2025
Until recently, this status quo was in line with the investment banks’ base case, which is premised on a limited strike scenario. In this narrative, Iran’s response stays moderate, elevated Israel/US-Iran tensions will not explode and trade routes remain largely unaffected. Except for brief spikes, Brent oil won’t exceed $75 per barrel.
This status quo is now at crossroads. When President Trump left the G7 Summit prematurely, he suggested he wasn’t looking for just ceasefire in the Middle East, but “A real end.” With further escalation, the White House is now setting the stage for a new, direr status quo.
In an elevated scenario, Iran will engage in heavier than anticipated retaliation (which has not happened), but Israel will continue its offensive and the Trump administration flirts with escalation. However, all actors still seek to avoid a full-scale regional conflict, which will become challenging as human and economic costs climb and if oil prices exceed $100.
Ignoring the sober advice of his own head of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, Trump has single-handedly dragged the conflict closer to a broad and protracted conflict scenario. That has potential to involve not just Israel and Iran but the US, as evidenced by the Pentagon’s ongoing huge asset transfers into the region. In the absence of restraints, the consequent damage of regional energy infrastructure could prove extensive and result in blockages of chokepoints, such as the Strait of Hormuz. In such a scenario, oil prices could trade around $100-$150, with spikes even above $150.
It is still another unwarranted proxy war, but one in which global economic prospects would not be unaffected.
The original version was published by China-US Focus on June 19, 2025.
The author of The Fall of Israel (2025),Dr. Dan Steinbockis an internationally-renowned visionary of the multipolar world and the founder of Difference Group. He has served at the India, China and America Institute (USA), Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China) and the EU Center (Singapore). For more, see https://www.differencegroup.net
President Donald Trump has suggested Iran is nearing the capability to build a nuclear weapon, a claim that puts him at odds with his top intelligence adviser and deepens internal divisions over whether the United States should join Israel’s military campaign.
On board Air Force One following his early departure from the G7 summit in Canada, Trump dismissed the view of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that Iran had not resumed its long-dormant nuclear weapons program.
“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters. “I believe they’re very close.”
Gabbard later responded by highlighting Iran’s rising uranium enrichment levels, claiming she and the president both recognize the danger. But the exchange reveals a growing divide within Trump’s administration and the broader “America First” movement over how the U.S. should respond.
Officials aligned with more aggressive policies, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and hawks in Congress, point to a recent International Atomic Energy Agency report accusing Iran of violating its nuclear commitments for the first time in two decades. They argue that military pressure is needed to halt Tehran’s progress.
Others, like Vice-President JD Vance and conservative voices including Tucker Carlson, urge caution. They warn that overstating Iran’s threat could drag the U.S. into another costly conflict, similar to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which was justified using flawed intelligence.
“The real divide isn’t over Israel or Iran,” Carlson said on X. “It’s between those who casually promote war and those trying to stop it.”
Trump, who rose to power as a critic of foreign entanglements, now faces pressure from both sides. While some Republicans call for regime change in Tehran, few within the White House appear eager to replicate the sweeping military intervention of the early 2000s.
As debate grows, the president’s decision to dismiss his intelligence chief’s sworn testimony raises questions about how he weighs advice — and whose judgment will shape the next major U.S. move in the region.
Silver mining faces significant challenges as rich deposits become increasingly difficult to find and extract. With industrial demand growing for this critical metal, innovative recycling methods are emerging as vital solutions to potential supply shortages.
Mining limitations driving innovation
According to precious metals experts, the mining industry has reached a critical juncture at which traditional extraction alone may struggle to meet future demand.
“I just see the evidence for this is getting more and more dire as far as not being able to find new big deposits of gold and the time it takes to get a mine up and running,” says Everett Millman, precious metals specialist at Gainesville Coins.
These constraints come as industrial uses for silver continue to expand, particularly in green technologies like solar panels and electric vehicles.
Recycling revolution underway
Technological innovations in metal recovery are developing rapidly to address these supply challenges. Gainesville Coins identifies three key areas showing promise:
Electronics recycling advances
One of the most established recycling streams involves recovering precious metals from discarded electronics.
“We’ve gotten more and more efficient at getting the gold out of those electronics, where, yes, only a small portion of the components are gold,” explains Millman. “The rest of it is basically waste.”
These improved extraction methods make recycling increasingly economically viable despite the relatively small amounts of precious metals in each device.
Mining waste reprocessing
Mining operations typically generate substantial waste material containing trace amounts of valuable metals. New technologies target these previously overlooked resources.
“They have these big tailings that are basically just waste. They’re just toxic sludge. But there are small amounts of gold and silver and the other valuable metals still in there,” says Millman.
Advanced filtering and processing technologies now make it possible to extract these remaining metals, effectively mining the waste from previous mining operations.
Roadway metal recovery
Perhaps the most surprising innovation involves recovering microscopic precious metal particles from highways and roads.
“Catalytic converters and the exhaust of automobiles are always imperceptibly releasing small microscopic amounts of metals like palladium, platinum, gold, and silver onto the surfaces of highways and roads,” Millman notes.
Specialized street sweeping equipment can now collect these previously lost metals in economically meaningful quantities.
“There are sophisticated, highly efficient ways of kind of street sweeping now that are yielding some recycled metals, like a significant amount that makes economic sense for us to go and do it,” according to Gainesville Coins.
Economic viability improving
The economic case for these recycling methods strengthens as primary mining becomes more challenging and costly.
Traditional silver mining faces declining ore grades, making each new ounce more expensive. Mexico and Peru, the world’s largest silver producers, have reported declining output in recent years.
This reality shifts the financial equation toward recycling technologies that would have been uneconomical previously.
“We’re obviously going to have to ramp up these efforts to more effectively and efficiently recover little bits of precious metal that are already here if there are less new discoveries and less newly mined metal forthcoming,” Millman says.
Investment implications
These supply dynamics create challenges and opportunities for investors in the silver market.
Physical silver remains an accessible investment, with Gainesville Coins noting that anyone can begin investing with less than $100. However, the growing gap between industrial demand and primary mining capacity may support higher prices in the long term.
Recycling innovations, while promising, are unlikely to fully offset mining constraints in the near term, potentially creating a favorable environment for silver prices.
As technology continues to advance, the precious metals industry appears increasingly focused on maximizing recovery from existing materials rather than solely pursuing new mining discoveries—a transformation that may fundamentally alter how silver supply meets growing global demand.
Attorneys play a key role in boosting compensation after a Missouri crash. As the best Missouri car accident lawyers, Beck & Beck Attorneys ensure timely medical documentation, persuasive negotiation, and protection under Missouri’s pure comparative-fault rules, maximizing your legal claim.
In 85% of cases, claimants are contacted by lawyers—and those who hire them typically secure higher settlements. In Missouri, moderate injury settlements average around $22,400, while severe cases can reach $209,000. With legal counsel, 91% of plaintiffs receive payouts, compared to just 50% without it.
Experiencing a car crash can be a life-altering event, and most people feel overwhelmed in the aftermath. To qualify for the best medical help and otherwise deal with the situation, they need to understand their rights, work with insurers, and protect themselves legally.
Attorneys can assist in all of these aspects and more to ensure that their clients receive the full extent to which they are entitled. This post explains how lawyers come in handy in such tough situations.
Understanding Rights and Options
Attorneys explain to their clients what they are legally entitled to and their options. They help the persons involved in the crash understand how the personal injury law functions to make an informed decision. Such a situation is complicated and confusing, and knowing one’s rights and having a plan of action greatly simplifies things.
Gathering Essential Evidence
To create a winning argument, one needs a wealth of evidence. Attorneys know the necessary documentation and have the skills to obtain and organize it. In many cases, they gather and organize information about the victims’ treatment, accident reports, and witnesses’ testimonies and analyze them. If necessary, they hire experts to help them reconstruct the events properly. This results in stronger support for their case, which, in turn, leads to larger compensations.
Negotiating with Insurers
Insurance companies’ adjusters work hard to lower compensation for accidents, so they rely on victims’ ignorance in most cases. Attorneys, however, understand how they work and can negotiate more forcefully. They make sure that all conceivable factors, such as medical bills, lost wages, and emotional suffering, are considered when determining compensation value. Only then do they settle, and, in most cases, compensations end up substantially larger.
Calculating True Compensation Value
When it comes to medical bills, people often forget about several factors that should be considered when calculating losses due to a crash. Attorneys consider future treatment, long-term consequences for victims’ carriers, and emotional suffering. It is not a simple sum. Compensation should be calculated based on a person’s so-called baseline, a net of all factors, and predictions for the future. Attorneys understand that completely and never miss a detail.
Guiding Through Legal Procedures
It can be difficult for those outside of the legal system to understand legal procedures. Attorneys consistently voted as the best auto accident lawyers in Missouri provide clients with invaluable assistance in completing paperwork and ensuring it is completed on time.
With their experience in the field, everything becomes significantly less stressful for a person who has already had to deal with the aftermath of the crash. Clients can be secure in knowing that they will deal with the complexities of the law, all the while concentrating on their well-being.
Representing in Court
Sometimes, these issues will end up being taken to court, and the attorneys are the ones who will offer recommendations on these points. Moreover, experienced legal professionals will be able to present the case well, which will usually lead to a favorable judgment. The fact that there is someone to represent the point of view of another person in court makes them feel secure.
Maintaining Communication
Throughout the entire process, effective communication is essential. Attorneys keep in touch with the clients, letting them know the news concerning the situation. The transparency of communication is mission-critical; hence, great professionals ensure open dialogue with their clients.
This way, attorneys make sure that the clients are part of the process and can share their opinions whenever they want to do so. In addition, frequently updating the clients on what is happening in their cases helps attorneys to have more information.
Conclusion
Attorneys play a vital role in the path to receiving the highest compensation after car accidents. Their knowledge, persistence, and kind approach help people to feel safe and make the right choices. They educate regarding the law, gather as much information as possible, and communicate effectively. Attorneys’ roles rely on providing legal assistance, emotional relief, and various resources. After crashes, attorneys provide help and support to the victims, facilitating the auto injury claim process. Thus, with professional attorneys, people are more likely to get the fairest possible compensation and find the necessary peace of mind.
By Terence Tse
CFOs are evolving into AI-driven transformation orchestrators, balancing finance, technology, and strategy while upskilling teams, managing risks, and driving measurable business value.
A key insight from this year’s AI for CFOs event, organized...
The World Financial Review uses cookies to improve site functionality, provide you with a better browsing experience, and to enable our partners to advertise to you. Detailed information on the use of cookies on this Site, and how you can decline them, is provided in our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. By clicking on the accept button and using this Site, you consent to our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions. ACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Dr. Gleb Tsipursky
The author of The Fall of Israel (2025),
Christian Worthy
