Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Sole Russian Political Party Against Ukrainian Conflict Denied From Running In Parliamentary Election

• Scores Injured In 7.4 Mag. Earthquake In Colombia

• Kurdish Peace Prospects Advance In Turkey

Sole Russian Political Party Against Ukrainian Conflict Denied From Running In Parliamentary Election

Russia's liberal Yabloko party leader Nikolay Rybakov in Moscow on Aug. 10, 2026. (Igor Ivanko - AFP via Getty Images)

_{By: Atlas}

Russia's Supreme Court on Monday threw the liberal Yabloko party off the ballot for next month's parliamentary elections, removing the only registered party campaigning against the war in Ukraine just weeks after election officials had unexpectedly cleared it to run.

Judge Vyacheslav Kirillov granted a lawsuit brought by the nationalist, pro-Kremlin Rodina party, annulling the registration of Yabloko's federal candidate list for the September 18-20 vote for the 450-seat State Duma. Kirillov is the same judge who ruled the human rights group Memorial "extremist" earlier this year.

Hundreds of supporters, most of them young, stood outside the Moscow courthouse through the eight-hour hearing, singing songs, waving flags, and carrying apples — the party's name means "apple" in Russian. The party estimated about 500 people lined up to enter a courtroom that seats 150. When word of the ruling reached the crowd, chants of "Shame! Shame!" broke out, and security forces moved to clear the street. "You have two minutes to leave," a police officer warned through a loudspeaker in footage published by the RusNews outlet. "No one will come to get you out of the military enlistment offices afterward."

Party chairman Nikolai Rybakov said Yabloko would appeal within the five-day deadline. "We have a long way ahead and we have a big and important task: to stop deaths and bring the peace back," he told supporters afterward. "Everything we do should be dedicated to that."

The Case Against the Party

Rodina's suit accused Yabloko of receiving foreign funding, violating copyright law, and promoting extremism. The extremism claim rested on material published on the party's website in support of the "international LGBT movement," which the Supreme Court designated extremist in 2023. The copyright complaint stemmed from a senior party member quoting the lyrics of a Soviet-era song, "Let There Always Be Sunshine," in an interview. State prosecutors backed the lawsuit.

At the hearing, Central Election Commission officials said data from Rosfinmonitoring, the state financial watchdog, showed foreign transfers to several Yabloko candidates in 2025, including from Germany and the United States. Because the document was classified "for official use only," the judge briefly adjourned so Yabloko's lawyers could sign nondisclosure agreements before viewing the evidence against their own party.

Rybakov called the accusations "absurd" and told the court the party had taken no foreign money and broken no laws. "We're being funded by Russian citizens, and we answer to Russian citizens, as well as the Central Election Commission," he said. The party's social media campaign, he added, was made by unpaid volunteers. "The young people who make videos in support of us, who came to the Supreme Court today — we don't pay them anything. They support us simply because they want to live in Russia, and they don't want to be killed."

A Fringe Party That Suddenly Wasn't

Yabloko is Russia's oldest liberal party, founded after the Soviet collapse, and entered the Duma in 1993, 1995, and 1999. It has not cleared the 5% threshold since, and it won just 1.34% in 2021. The party expelled Alexei Navalny in 2007 and kept its distance from him, but it has been the country's most consistent anti-war voice, opposing the Chechnya wars, the 2014 annexation of Crimea, and the full-scale invasion.

That marginal record may explain why the Central Election Commission registered more than 400 of its candidates in late July — a decision some analysts read as a Kremlin attempt to demonstrate that anti-war sentiment holds little sway. The calculation appears to have changed as the party's numbers moved. The state pollster VTsIOM had put Yabloko at around 3% earlier this year, but recent surveys reported by the Moscow newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta suggested it could win 9% — comfortably enough for seats — as ruling party United Russia's rating sank to 33% amid inflation, internet blackouts, and Ukrainian drone strikes reaching deep into the country.

The party campaigned on what it called the shortest platform in its history: "For peace and freedom! For a life without fear! For a ceasefire agreement, diplomacy, and the achievement of peace!" On August 6, exiled opposition figures including Yulia Navalnaya urged Russians to vote for it. "We must view the upcoming elections — no matter how unfair they may be — as the only legitimate and safe opportunity to express our disagreement with the government," she said.

After Monday's ruling, Navalnaya wrote that "the Kremlin got frightened." "It was not even a matter of support for Yabloko," she said. "But the fact that millions of Russians would have the opportunity to say what they really think about Putin and the war." Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the former oligarch now in exile in London, put it in similar terms: "The Kremlin only tolerates opposition parties when it can control the outcome. Hundreds of people showing up at the courthouse today made sure Yabloko was not one of those cases."

Oleg Orlov, co-chair of Memorial, told Echo Moskvy the authorities had initially seen Yabloko as "a kind of punching bag" that would pull its usual 2%. "Then, suddenly — unexpectedly, for them — Yabloko has turned into a genuinely serious contender."

Pressure That Preceded the Ruling

The court decision capped months of narrowing. More than a dozen prominent Yabloko members had already been barred from the federal race after being charged with displaying "extremist symbols," mostly over social media posts about Navalny, who died in a Russian prison in 2024. Deputy leader Maxim Kruglov was sentenced in June to seven years in prison for posts about civilian deaths in Bucha, Mariupol, and other Ukrainian cities. Regional authorities blocked the party from several local ballots, and last week Yabloko reported a cyberattack shortly after launching a donation appeal for its campaign fund.

Boris Nadezhdin, the country's most visible anti-war politician, was barred separately last month after being declared a foreign agent and charged over a video containing an image of Navalny. He fled Russia and surfaced in Paris last week. Yabloko's Lev Shlosberg, one of the few anti-war critics still in the country, faces charges of spreading false information about the army, announced days before his house arrest was to end.

Grigory Yavlinsky, the party's founder, said the ruling revealed more than it removed. "The public demand for peace and freedom has turned out to be significantly stronger than the authorities anticipated," he wrote. "Excluding Yabloko from the election means refusing to engage in dialogue with people who ask questions that are uncomfortable for those in power."

What the Ballot Looks Like Now

All 10 remaining parties in the race either support the war or decline to criticize it. Independent polls show most Russians favor negotiations to end a conflict that has killed hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers, while President Vladimir Putin has rejected US and Ukrainian ceasefire proposals that would freeze the front lines, insisting Ukraine cede territory Russia has not captured.

Some analysts read the reversal on Yabloko as evidence of infighting between security hardliners and the Kremlin's political technocrats over who controls the system after the vote, rather than the vote itself. Others see simpler arithmetic. Without an anti-war option on the ballot, turnout among government opponents is likely to fall — and a low-turnout election favors the Kremlin, which retains the resources to produce the result it wants. Independent election monitors have been stripped of most of their ability to observe the process.

"The last time Yabloko crossed the 5 percent threshold was in 1999," wrote Brian Taylor, a Russia scholar at Syracuse University. "Yet Putin/the Kremlin is afraid of them now because they could attract a notable anti-war vote, despite vote rigging."

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• 25 States Sue Trump Gov Over Latest Global Tariffs

• Detained Former Leader Of Myanmar Meets With Red Cross

• Farage Aims For Military Use To Stop Border Crossings If Elected

25 States Sue Trump Gov Over Latest Global Tariffs

People in the Port of Los Angeles May 28, 2026 (Mario Tama - Getty Images)

_{By: Atlas}

A coalition of 25 states filed suit Thursday challenging President Donald Trump's newest round of tariffs, arguing the administration's shift to different statutory authorities after the Supreme Court curbed his emergency-powers levies suffers from the same constitutional defect: taxation imposed without Congress.

The complaint, filed in the US Court of International Trade in New York, targets the tariffs Trump rolled out this summer under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act and Section 301 of the Trade Act, which the administration adopted as workarounds after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize sweeping import taxes. The new duties cover a broad range of goods, and the states argue the administration stretched both statutes far beyond what Congress wrote them to do.

"The Supreme Court told the president he cannot use emergency powers to tax Americans," said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who is leading the coalition alongside Arizona's Kris Mayes. "The administration's response was to grab two different statutes and do the same thing. The Constitution doesn't allow a president to shop for authority until he finds a label that fits."

The suit asks the court to vacate the tariffs and enjoin their collection, and it seeks refunds of duties already paid — a remedy with substantial fiscal stakes given that importers have paid billions since the new levies took effect.

The Legal Theory After the IEEPA Ruling

The case builds directly on the Supreme Court's June decision, which held that IEEPA's grant of authority to "regulate" imports during a national emergency does not extend to imposing tariffs of unlimited scope and duration. The 6-3 ruling invalidated the "Liberation Day" reciprocal tariffs and the fentanyl-related levies on Canada, Mexico, and China, and left the government facing refund claims that the Treasury Department has estimated could approach $100 billion.

The administration responded within weeks by reissuing many of the same duties under alternative authorities. Section 232 allows tariffs on imports the Commerce Department finds threaten national security, historically applied to specific sectors like steel and aluminum. Section 301 permits duties against countries found to engage in unfair trade practices, the basis for the China tariffs dating to Trump's first term.

The states contend the new proclamations are pretextual — that the administration recycled economy-wide tariffs under sector-specific statutes without conducting the investigations, findings, and procedural steps each law requires. The complaint alleges Commerce compressed what are typically months-long Section 232 investigations into weeks, applied national security findings to consumer goods with no defense nexus, and used Section 301 determinations that were never updated to reflect current conditions.

"Congress wrote these statutes narrowly on purpose," the complaint states. "They are not blank checks, and they cannot be combined into the general tariff power the Supreme Court just held the president does not possess."

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to the filing. White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the tariffs' legality, saying the administration "is using authorities Congress expressly provided and that courts have upheld for decades," and accused the states of "asking judges to run American trade policy."

Familiar Coalition, Higher Stakes

The lineup largely mirrors the Democratic-led coalition that won the IEEPA case, expanded by governors and attorneys general who joined after the June ruling. The states argue they are injured both as importers themselves — purchasing equipment, vehicles, and supplies subject to the duties — and through harm to their economies and tax bases.

The filing cites state procurement data showing increased costs for road construction materials, medical supplies, and school technology purchases. It also points to the pass-through effects on residents, referencing Federal Reserve and academic estimates that the combined tariff regime costs typical households more than $2,000 annually.

Several states in the coalition are led by officials weighing or mounting 2026 campaigns, and Republican attorneys general criticized the suit as election-year positioning. But the case also drew support from business groups that stayed out of earlier rounds, with the National Retail Federation and a coalition of small importers filing parallel challenges. Trade attorneys note that Section 232 and 301 tariffs have generally survived judicial review in the past — though never, they add, when deployed at this scale or this fast.

What Courts Have Said So Far

The Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over tariff challenges, and its rulings appeal to the Federal Circuit — the same path the IEEPA litigation traveled before reaching the Supreme Court. Early district-level skirmishes over the reissued tariffs have produced mixed signals: one CIT panel declined to block the new steel duties pending litigation, while another ordered expedited briefing on whether the Commerce investigations satisfied statutory requirements.

Legal scholars are divided on the states' prospects. The Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling leaned on the major questions doctrine, reasoning that Congress does not delegate decisions of vast economic significance through vague language. The states argue that logic applies with equal force to stretching sector-specific statutes economy-wide; the government counters that Sections 232 and 301, unlike IEEPA, expressly authorize tariffs and prescribe procedures the administration followed.

The refund question adds urgency. Importers paid duties throughout the IEEPA litigation and are still navigating the reimbursement process the ruling triggered. A second round of invalidated tariffs would compound the administrative task and the fiscal exposure, a point the states press in seeking early resolution.

The Broader Trade Picture

The legal fight lands amid a trade agenda already in flux. The administration has continued negotiating bilateral deals — including partial tariff relief for Brazil on beef and coffee — while using the reissued duties as leverage. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said tariff revenue remains central to the administration's fiscal plans, projecting hundreds of billions annually, figures the pending litigation could unsettle.

Oral argument on the states' motion for a preliminary injunction has not been scheduled. Both sides have signaled they expect the dispute to reach the Supreme Court, likely on an expedited track given the sums involved. Whatever the outcome, the case will help define how far a president can go in repurposing decades-old trade statutes — a question the June ruling raised without fully answering.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• P.M. Burnham & Pres. Zelensky Reinforce Ties & Discuss Drone Partnership

• Trump Hails Progress In Talks With Iran Amid Drone Attacks In The Region

• UN Humans Rights Chief Warns Israel Against Occupation In Lebanon

P.M. Burnham & Pres. Zelensky Reinforce Ties & Discuss Drone Partnership

Britain's Prime Minister Andy Burnham (R) speaks with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky (L) on July 27, 2026. - (AFP)

_{By: Atlas}

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and new UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham met Monday at a British naval base, where they discussed joint drone projects and Ukraine's urgent need for ballistic missile interceptors to counter Russian attacks.

Zelensky's visit was the first by a foreign leader since Burnham took office a week ago, and the prime minister said it signaled the UK's "unwavering" support for Kyiv as it defends itself against Russia's four-year-old, full-scale invasion. Burnham is the fifth British prime minister Zelensky has dealt with since Russia launched the war in February 2022.

"You are the first leader I have welcomed in person since taking office, and that is no accident," Burnham told Zelensky. "It is intended to send a very clear message: we are with Ukraine 100%, I am personally with you 100%, and I will honor every commitment this country has made to Ukraine in full."

Zelensky said the two countries' relationship was "stronger than ever." The meeting, aboard the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth docked at Portsmouth on England's south coast, came a day before Zelensky is expected to visit President Donald Trump in Washington.

Burnham's predecessor, Keir Starmer, was in the Ukrainian capital less than two weeks ago in his last overseas trip before leaving office, and Burnham said he planned to visit soon. During that Kyiv trip, Starmer pledged fresh funding and was awarded Ukraine's Order of Freedom.

Stone Cloak Technology Transfer

The centerpiece of Monday's announcements was Burnham's decision to hand Ukraine the intellectual property behind the UK's new "Stone Cloak" electronic warfare system, enabling Kyiv to produce the technology at scale.

The tablet-sized, battle-tested jammers are designed to block Russian air defense systems from detecting the drones they are fitted to, providing Ukraine with more lethal long-distance strike capabilities. The Ministry of Defence has already given thousands of the devices to Ukrainian forces to bolster their drone operations.

"Stone Cloak is the best of homegrown British innovation and proven on the frontline, and it will be vital to protecting our security in both our countries," Burnham said. "It will help them to hit their targets and help save Ukrainian lives."

Following its deployment in Ukraine and potential mass production there, the technology is expected to be built into the UK's next generation of long-range strike weapons, including Project Brakestop, a government program to develop low-cost cruise missiles.

Zelensky wrote on X that he was "grateful" for the decision to provide Ukraine with electronic warfare technologies that would "certainly be useful on the battlefield." He said the leaders also discussed "joint defense production," adding: "Together, we can achieve even more in the field of drones and other technologies." Britain and Ukraine already have a deal to work together on new drones, and Zelensky told Sky News beforehand that he hoped to build a "big, big factory" in Britain.

Missile Defense and Winter Preparations

Burnham said the two leaders "talked at length" about Kyiv's need for more interceptors to shoot down Russian ballistic missiles, "particularly in terms of Ukraine protecting critical national infrastructure during the winters."

"We've taken away some things that we will now follow up with our partners," Burnham said after the meeting.

Russia has intensified strikes on gas stations, power facilities, and other infrastructure this year in a broad campaign to strain Ukraine's logistics and energy networks. Zelensky acknowledged the pressure in his Sky News interview, saying "we don't have enough missiles" to defend against Russia's air attacks. Moscow "can increase the production of ballistic missiles and that's why we need air defense as soon as possible," he said.

The leaders also met more than 200 Ukrainian military personnel who have spent the past three weeks in Britain participating in Exercise Sea Breeze, a maritime exercise aimed at strengthening warfighting capabilities and counter-mine measures for future operations in the Black Sea.

Downing Street said the UK's total support for Ukraine has reached 25 billion pounds ($33 billion) since 2022, including 16 billion pounds in direct military assistance. Burnham used his first major interview as prime minister to reiterate the UK's pledge to spend 3.5% of GDP on defense by 2035, telling the BBC that he and Chancellor John Healey were working to ensure the defense investment plan was "fully funded" before the autumn budget.

Overnight Attacks Continue on Both Sides

The visit unfolded as Russia and Ukraine traded another wave of long-range strikes. Russia attacked Ukraine overnight with 147 long-range drones, according to Ukraine's air force, which said it intercepted or jammed 123 of them.

In Zaporizhzhia, one person was killed and two injured in attacks that damaged a residential high-rise and several private homes. A Russian strike on the town of Balakliia in the Kharkiv region killed one person and wounded eight, while strikes in the Nikopol district of the Dnipropetrovsk region damaged a kindergarten, residential buildings, and infrastructure, injuring a woman and a 6-year-old boy. In the eastern Kharkiv region, a regional council member said Russian forces destroyed every gas station along the roughly 93-mile highway between Kharkiv and Poltava, a key supply route linking the country's second-largest city with central Ukraine.

Romania's Ministry of National Defense said a drone briefly entered its airspace before crossing the river border into Ukraine — the fourth such incident in as many days, after the NATO member shot down the three previous drones.

In Moscow, Russia's Defense Ministry said air defenses downed 276 Ukrainian drones overnight. Rostov regional Governor Yuri Slyusar said five people, including a child, were killed when a Ukrainian drone hit an apartment building in Rostov-on-Don, while Ukraine's military General Staff said its forces struck an export terminal in the city, setting it ablaze. Ukrainian strikes also targeted a drone control relay station in the Moscow-held part of the Kherson region and a bridge over the Henichesk Strait used for Russian military logistics.

Washington Ahead

From the UK, Zelensky travels to Washington for Tuesday's meeting with Trump, whose attention has been consumed by the US war with Iran. "I understand the United States is focusing on the Middle East," Zelensky said, adding that he would "try to manage it with some Europeans and with Americans and with some other countries."

Trump recently told Zelensky he was giving Ukraine permission to build US-designed Patriot air defense systems capable of downing ballistic missiles, and Congress has advanced bipartisan legislation targeting countries purchasing Russian energy. While in Washington, Zelensky is also expected to attend the funeral of Senator Lindsey Graham, a key proponent of US support for Ukraine who died unexpectedly earlier this month, a day after returning from Kyiv.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Trump Imposes Surprise 50% Tariff On Certain Canadian Goods

• Putin Meets With North Korean Foreign Minister To Deepen Ties

• Houthi’s Enact Red Sea Naval Blockade Against Saudi Arabia

Trump Imposes Surprise 50% Tariff On Certain Canadian Goods

US President Donald Trump (Saul Loeb - AFP - Getty Images)

_{By: Atlas}

President Trump signed three proclamations Monday imposing 50 percent tariffs on a broad list of Canadian goods, reaching for a provision of a 1930 trade law that, by most accounts, no president has ever used. The duties take effect August 19 and cover products from wine and hockey sticks to cement, wigs, swimming pools, and fishing rods.

The administration cast the move as a targeted correction rather than an opening salvo. "This is not a trade war with Canada," a senior official told reporters. "These are defensive measures by the United States taken to remedy discriminatory actions by Canada." Prime Minister Mark Carney called it a direct violation of the North American trade pact and said his government was ready to negotiate.

The Legal Vehicle

The authority is Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which lets a president impose duties of up to 50 percent on countries found to discriminate against American commerce. Attorneys who have studied the statute say no record exists of any president invoking it. Franklin Roosevelt considered it; researchers at the law firm Covington and Burling found no public record of its use since 1949.

That matters because Trump's earlier tariff regime collapsed in court. The Supreme Court ruled in February that he lacked authority to set tariffs by declaring an economic emergency under a 1977 law, forcing the administration to rebuild its trade wall on other statutory foundations, mostly sector-specific national security findings under Section 232.

Trade lawyers reacted sharply. John Veroneau, a trade official under George W. Bush who has researched the statute extensively, said the provision was written to ensure countries apply tariffs equally rather than granting preferential rates that disadvantage American exporters. "It is ironic, to say the least, to use this authority to impose tariffs to retaliate against tariffs that were imposed in response to actions taken by the U.S.," he said, adding that the move may be lawful but violates the spirit of the law.

Scott Lincicome of the libertarian Cato Institute was blunter. "We crossed the Rubicon," he said. "The invocation of 338 is the nuclear option for Trump tariffs." He warned the authority could be extended to other trading partners and inject uncertainty into the global economy. Several Democratic lawmakers proposed repealing the section last year for that reason.

What the Administration Says Canada Did

Each proclamation targets a different sector, and the White House laid out figures for all three.

On automobiles, the administration says Canada has maintained a 25 percent tariff since April 2025 on U.S. motor vehicles that do not qualify under the trade pact, while imposing no comparable levy on other countries, and administers quotas in a way that pressures American automakers to keep production in Canada. Canadian imports of U.S. vehicles fell roughly 22 percent over the past year, from $25.9 billion to $20.3 billion, while Mexican-made vehicle imports rose 23.6 percent and shipments from Japan, South Korea, and Germany climbed between 10 and 13.5 percent.

On alcohol, all but two provinces and territories halted the purchase, distribution, or retail sale of American alcoholic beverages beginning in 2025, without similar restrictions on other countries. Canadian imports of U.S. alcohol dropped about 81 percent, from $718 million to $137 million, while imports from elsewhere rose more than $170 million, with the European Union accounting for most of that.

On dairy, the White House says Canada's tariff-rate quotas on American cheese are far more restrictive than those it applies to European cheese, despite trade agreements with both.

Trade Representative Jamieson Greer framed it as a matter of who retaliated and who negotiated. "Canada, unlike other partners and allies, continues to retaliate against the United States for its efforts to rebalance trade and protect U.S. industry in national-security sensitive sectors," he said. The administration notes that only China and Canada answered Trump's tariffs with retaliation rather than deals.

Carney disputes the framing directly, saying Canada "as is its right, merely matched" U.S. auto tariffs that themselves violated the trade agreement.

Exemptions, Timing, and the Wildfire Question

The tariffs carve out energy, potash, fish, critical minerals, and goods already covered by Section 232 duties. What they do not carve out is the trade agreement itself: the levies apply regardless of whether a good qualifies for duty-free treatment under the USMCA, a departure from Trump's earlier tariffs, which generally exempted pact-covered goods. The three proclamations together cover close to $20 billion in products.

The 30-day delay drew immediate speculation that the announcement is a bargaining position. "The fact that it's delayed 30 days makes me think it's a negotiating tactic," said Ryan Majerus, a King & Spalding partner who served in the trade representative's office during Trump's first term. "It seems like leverage."

The timing invited another question. Trump spent last week attacking Canada over wildfire smoke from northern Ontario that fouled air across the Midwest and East Coast, writing that the cost "must of necessity be added to the TARIFFS Canada is currently paying." He raised the fires again Sunday while watching the World Cup final alongside Carney in New Jersey. Administration officials said flatly that Monday's action was unrelated. "These are not the so-called wildfire tariffs," one said. "The president has asked for options on that, and options are being shared with him." Officials also said the World Cup appearance was not a working meeting.

Reaction and Political Stakes

Ontario Premier Doug Ford called for matching retaliation. "If these tariffs proceed, Canada should respond tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar," he wrote. Carney struck a more conciliatory note, saying his government believes in "the benefits of free and fair trade" and has signed more than 20 new economic and security partnerships. "This trade dispute has raised costs for families, particularly in the U.S.," he said. "Canada stands ready to engage intensively."

Business groups on both sides urged talks. Candace Laing of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce called the move regrettable but pressed both governments to use the 30-day window. Chris Swonger of the Distilled Spirits Council said a negotiated solution was needed to restore market access for American spirits.

Not everyone in Canada was alarmed. Flavio Volpe, who heads the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, noted the White House was citing tariffs already in place. "I'm not panicked," he wrote. "Keep calm & carry on." Diamond Isinger, a former adviser to Justin Trudeau, pointed out a practical limit on any deal: Carney cannot order provinces to restock American liquor, since those decisions belong to the premiers.

The domestic politics are the harder problem. Tariffs are taxes on imports that firms can pass to consumers, and inflation has risen during Trump's term, driven partly by tariffs and partly by oil prices tied to the war with Iran. Ed Gresser of the Progressive Policy Institute said families hoping for relief this fall will not get it. Representative Suzan DelBene, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said the taxes will raise prices and invite retaliation against the industries Trump means to protect. The administration counters that tariffs will pull manufacturing back to the United States, citing manufacturing growth in May and June, though economists note little evidence of large-scale reshoring in the data.

Greer, meanwhile, travels to Mexico City on Wednesday for trade talks. Negotiations with Canada have not begun.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Trump Re-Ups Attacks Against Iran, Vows To Hit Hard

• E.U. Promotes $1 Billion Dollar Fund For Gaza Recovery

• Houthi’s Launch Attack Against Saudi Arabian Airport

Trump Re-Ups Attacks Against Iran, Vows To Hit Hard

A projectile fire by the US military against Iran on July 12, 2026 (Reuters)

_{By: Atlas}

American aircraft, warships, and drones hit Iran for a third consecutive night Monday, striking six coastal areas in a five-hour operation, while President Trump reinstated a naval blockade of Iranian ports and announced the United States would begin charging a 20 percent fee on cargo moving through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran answered by firing cruise missiles at two Emirati oil tankers, killing an Indian crewman, and by launching missiles and drones at Bahrain.

The interim deal signed in mid-June is, by both sides' accounting, in pieces. Iran's Foreign Ministry called the memorandum of understanding "in a crisis stage." Trump, asked what happened, said the agreement had been "built to test" Tehran and that "they didn't honor the test."

The Strikes

Central Command said the operation began at 4:45 p.m. Eastern at Trump's direction and ran until roughly 10:15 p.m. Forces struck military targets in Bushehr, Chah Bahar, Jask, Konarak, Abu Musa, and Bandar Abbas, using precision munitions against coastal defense systems, missile and drone sites, and what it called maritime capabilities. The aim, the command said, was to further degrade Iran's ability to attack commercial shipping.

Iranian outlets reported explosions on Kish, Qeshm, and Abu Musa islands, around Bandar Abbas, in the city of Jam in Bushehr province, and in Khuzestan, where a provincial official said two people were killed and three wounded near Abadan. Iran acknowledged the strikes but gave no overall casualty figures.

The night before, American forces had used one-way attack sea drones in combat for the first time, sending three Corsair unmanned surface vessels into Bandar Abbas Naval Base to destroy a submarine and ship maintenance facility. Central Command released black-and-white video of a small craft closing on a raised dock and detonating.

Trump spoke to reporters in the Oval Office moments after the strikes began. "We're hitting them very heavy tonight," he said. "We have tremendous amounts of ammunition. We have numbers that we haven't had in years... We're knocking out all of their offensive capability, and we're controlling the straits." He said the United States would "take out" Pickaxe Mountain, a deeply buried site near Natanz that analysts believe may be tied to Iran's nuclear program. "Tell the Iranians to be ready. Let them know we're coming, okay? There's not a damn thing they can do about it."

Iran's Answer

Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it hit and disabled two "offending supertankers" that had ignored warnings, switched off their navigation systems, and tried to pass through what it called a mined route. The United Arab Emirates identified the ships as the Mombasa and Al Bahiyah, struck by two cruise missiles in Omani territorial waters, in the southern lane. One Indian crewman was killed and eight wounded, six of them Indian and two Ukrainian. Fires broke out on both vessels and were later put out.

The Emirati Defense Ministry called it "a serious violation and a clear breach of international law" and said the country "reserves its full right to respond." Fighter jets were audible over Dubai on Tuesday morning. The U.S. Embassy in Abu Dhabi and consulate in Dubai canceled consular appointments through Wednesday.

Bahrain sounded its missile sirens twice overnight. Iran's Revolutionary Guard said it targeted weapons warehouses, a satellite communications center, and a residential building for American forces at the Juffair base, home to the Navy's Fifth Fleet. Bahrain said its air defenses intercepted the attacks and accused Iran of targeting civilians. Over the weekend and into Monday, Iranian missiles also flew at Jordan, Kuwait, and Oman. Jordan said it shot down four. Qatar condemned the strikes on its neighbors.

Blockade, Tolls, and a Reversal

The blockade is the sharpest reversal. Washington had lifted it in mid-April as part of the deal that ended the first phase of the war. On Monday, Trump put it back.

"We are reinstating the THE IRANIAN BLOCKADE, so named because it is only stopping Iran's ships or customers from entering or leaving," he wrote on Truth Social. "All other countries will have fair and open use of the Strait." Central Command said enforcement resumes Tuesday.

Then came the toll. Trump said the United States would henceforth be "the Guardian of the Hormuz Strait" and be "reimbursed, at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped." He told Fox News the country had "guarded it for nothing" for half a century and that "now we're going to get paid for guarding it, a lot of money." Later, on Newsmax: "They can make trouble, they can do things that are not nice, but we control it."

That upends a policy the U.S. Navy has held since the Barbary Wars. The International Maritime Organization said flatly there is "no legal basis through which to introduce mandatory tolls simply to transit through a strait," and its council reaffirmed that passage should remain free of charges.

Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, seized on the contradiction. "POTUS is absolutely right," he wrote. "Whoever provides secure and safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz should be compensated for this service." Then: "Iran has always been the GUARDIAN of the Strait and will remain so FOREVER. 20% is of course too much. We will be fair."

What's Actually Being Fought Over

The dispute is a map. Iran insists ships use a northern route hugging its coast and register with its Persian Gulf Strait Authority. The United States and the IMO have pushed a southern corridor along Oman. Iran has attacked vessels using it, and says the U.S. is violating the June 17 memorandum by pushing them there. On Sunday, Iran's Strait Authority declared the waterway closed until "stability and calm are restored." Washington and the Pentagon said Iran does not control it.

Traffic tells its own story. Kpler counted 14 transits Sunday, the lowest since June 13, half of them Iran-flagged. Only two non-Iranian vessels crossed with transponders on.

Iranian officials blame Washington for the collapse of Saturday's talks in Oman, which spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei attributed to "overt and covert" American pressure. "Lying has become part of the U.S. administration's behavioral pattern," he said. Iran also refused an IAEA request to resume nuclear inspections. Mediators from Qatar, Pakistan, and Oman are still working; Baqaei said Tehran would use diplomacy and military means as circumstances dictate.

Trump formally notified Congress on July 10 that hostilities resumed July 7, a filing that opens a fresh 60-day window under the War Powers Resolution, though both chambers passed a resolution last month seeking to limit him. Brent crude jumped 9.6 percent Monday, its largest daily gain since May 2020, and reached a one-month high above $84 on Tuesday. Gasoline in the United States averaged $3.87 a gallon, up from roughly $3 when the war began February 28.

Trump has scheduled a prime-time address to the nation for Thursday at 9 p.m. Eastern.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Hamas Cedes Governing Control In Gaza

• Macron Becomes First Major Western Leader To Visit Syria After Assad Fall

• Australia Inks Defense Pact With Fiji, Countering Chinese Influence In The Region

Hamas Cedes Governing Control In Gaza

Ismail al-Thawabta, general director of the Hamas-run government media office speaks at Al-Aqsa Hospital in Deir al-Balah, central Gaza Strip, Monday, July 6, 2026. (Jehad Alshrafi - AP)

_{By: Atlas}

Hamas said Sunday it had agreed to hand over the administration of Gaza to a committee of Palestinian technocrats, a concession that would end nearly two decades of the group's rule over the territory and clear one of the largest obstacles to a permanent ceasefire with Israel. The announcement, delivered by a senior official in Cairo, stopped short of the disarmament Israel and the United States have demanded, leaving the hardest question in the negotiations unresolved.

The move followed weeks of indirect talks mediated by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States, and it marks the clearest signal yet that Hamas is prepared to give up formal power in exchange for an end to the fighting. Whether it is enough to satisfy Israel, which has insisted the group surrender its weapons and leave Gaza entirely, remains far from certain.

What Hamas Agreed To

Under the framework, day-to-day governance of Gaza would pass to a committee of independent Palestinian technocrats, administrators unaffiliated with any faction, tasked with running civil affairs, public services, and the flow of humanitarian aid. Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya, who leads the group's negotiating team, said the committee would operate under the umbrella of the Palestinian Authority and be composed of figures agreed upon by Palestinian factions.

Al-Hayya framed the decision as a national one meant to spare Gaza further destruction and to preserve what remains of its institutions. He said Hamas was ready to relinquish the governing file immediately and without conditions, and that the group would support any arrangement that ended the war and allowed reconstruction to begin.

The concession applies to governance, not to the group's armed wing. Al-Hayya made no mention of surrendering weapons, and other Hamas officials have repeatedly described the group's arsenal as a red line tied to the broader question of Palestinian statehood. That distinction, between giving up political control and giving up the means to fight, sits at the center of what still divides the parties.

The Sticking Point on Weapons

Israel has said repeatedly that ceding administrative control is not enough. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has demanded the full demilitarization of Gaza and the removal of Hamas's leadership from the territory as conditions for any lasting agreement, and Israeli officials reacted coolly to Sunday's announcement.

An Israeli official, speaking on the terms of the talks, said handing civil administration to technocrats while keeping thousands of fighters and a stockpile of rockets underground would leave Hamas in effective control regardless of who managed the ministries. Israel has pointed to the group's continued military presence as proof that a governance handoff alone would not remove the threat along its southern border.

Hamas has resisted linking the two. The group's leaders argue that disarmament cannot be discussed outside a political process that guarantees a Palestinian state, and that laying down weapons under Israeli occupation would amount to surrender. That position has hardened over months of negotiation, even as the group has shown new flexibility on the question of who governs.

The United States has backed Israel's demand in principle while pressing both sides toward a deal. American officials involved in the mediation have described the governance agreement as a meaningful step, but have made clear that Washington views disarmament as essential to any final arrangement.

A Territory in Ruins

The negotiations unfold against the backdrop of a territory left devastated by nearly two years of war. The conflict, triggered by the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel in October 2023 that killed roughly 1,200 people and took some 250 hostages, has killed tens of thousands of Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities, and displaced the vast majority of the population.

Much of Gaza's housing, hospitals, water systems, and power infrastructure has been destroyed or badly damaged, and aid agencies have warned for months of famine conditions in parts of the strip. The scale of the destruction has lent urgency to the talks, with mediators arguing that only a functioning civil administration can manage reconstruction and the delivery of aid at the scale required.

Who pays for and oversees that rebuilding remains an open question. Gulf states have signaled willingness to fund reconstruction, but have conditioned their involvement on a credible governing structure and a political horizon for a two-state outcome. The proposed technocratic committee is meant in part to provide the kind of neutral administration those donors have said they require.

The Palestinian Authority's Role

Placing Gaza under the umbrella of the Palestinian Authority would, on paper, reunite the territory with the West Bank under a single Palestinian government for the first time since 2007, when Hamas seized Gaza from Fatah forces after winning legislative elections the year before. The authority, led by President Mahmoud Abbas, governs parts of the West Bank and has long sought to reassert control over Gaza.

That prospect carries its own complications. Israel has objected to a formal role for the Palestinian Authority in postwar Gaza, citing what it calls the body's failures on security and its payments to the families of prisoners. The authority, for its part, is weakened, unpopular among many Palestinians, and stretched thin in the territory it already administers.

The framework leaves unresolved how the technocratic committee would relate to Abbas's government in practice, and whether Israel would accept even an indirect authority presence. Egyptian mediators have proposed an interim period during which the committee would run Gaza with international support before any fuller transfer of power.

For now, the announcement shifts the negotiations onto new ground without settling them. Hamas has conceded the point it guarded for eighteen years, its hold on power, while holding firm on the weapons that make it a fighting force. Israel has what it long demanded on governance and none of what it demanded on disarmament. The mediators, having closed one gap, are left to bridge the one that has always been hardest.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• 91 Year Old Decision Overturned By SCOTUS, Allows Trump To Fire Executive Branch Employees At Will

• Afghan Officials: Pakistani Airstrike Kills Dozens Of Civilians In Afghanistan

• Australia Inks Pact With Vanuatu, Blocks China From Building Military Base

91 Year Old Decision Overturned By SCOTUS, Allows Trump To Fire Executive Branch Employees At Will

President Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on Monday, June 29, 2026. (MediaPunch - Backgrid)

_{By: Atlas}

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a nearly century-old precedent and granted President Donald Trump broad authority to fire the leaders of independent federal agencies at will, one of the largest shifts in the operation of the federal government in decades.

In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the justices upheld Trump's firing of Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter and overruled Humphrey's Executor v. United States, the 1935 ruling that had let Congress shield certain agency heads from removal except for cause. In a separate decision the same day, the court blocked Trump from removing Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, drawing a line at the central bank.

The FTC Ruling

The case centered on Slaughter, a Democrat Trump first appointed to the FTC in 2018 and whom President Joe Biden renominated in 2023. Trump fired her without cause in March 2025, telling her that keeping her on would be inconsistent with his administration's priorities rather than citing the inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance the FTC statute requires.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, held that the removal protection violated the Constitution's separation of powers. The president, he wrote, must have the assistance of officers he can trust, and neither Congress nor the courts may force him to keep subordinates with whom he cannot work. Only when those who wield the president's power are subject to removal by him, Roberts reasoned, can they remain accountable to the president and the president to the people.

The decision turned on whether the FTC exercises significant executive power. The court found that it does, noting the agency enforces some 80 statutes, conducts investigations, runs in-house adjudications, and files civil suits on behalf of the United States. Because of that, Roberts concluded, Slaughter served as the president's subordinate and could have her tenure cut short.

Roberts was blunt about the fate of the older precedent. Humphrey's Executor, he wrote, had been tethered to an almost fictional view of the FTC as exercising no executive power, and what remained of it the court was now discarding. The 1935 case had itself involved the FTC, when the court blocked President Franklin D. Roosevelt from firing a commissioner who opposed his New Deal agenda.

The Reach of the Decision

The ruling extends well beyond one commissioner. It affects roughly two dozen multimember agencies that Congress designed to operate with some independence from the White House, among them the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The decision effectively ratifies a series of firings Trump carried out after returning to office, when he removed Democratic appointees across the government and faced lawsuits arguing he lacked the authority. Lower courts, bound by Humphrey's Executor, had largely ruled against him, though the Supreme Court had repeatedly allowed the firings to proceed on its emergency docket while the cases continued.

Roberts took care to mark the limits of the ruling. Not every office created by Congress carries executive power, he wrote, and the decision did not resolve the status of officials not before the court, including federal judges without lifetime tenure. He also singled out the Federal Reserve as following a distinct historical tradition tied to the First and Second Banks of the United States, neither of which was subject to full presidential control.

Trump celebrated the outcome on Truth Social, calling it historic and describing it as the greatest increase in presidential power in the last 100 years. America First Legal, a pro-Trump group, said the decision reaffirmed that those who exercise executive power must answer to the president.

The Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote a lengthy dissent and read a summary of it from the bench, a step justices reserve for cases of strong disagreement. She argued the majority had discarded the democratic structure created by the Constitution in favor of a theory of total executive control, leaving a president with far greater power than ever before.

The majority, she wrote, had given the president a power unknown even to the English Crown against which the founders revolted, transforming the duty to faithfully execute the laws into a license to act in defiance of them. She warned the ruling would convert dozens of independent commissions into purely executive agencies, shifting authority over broad areas of American life into the president's hands. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in a concurrence, went the other way, urging the court to go further and restore legislative and judicial powers he said the agencies had absorbed.

The Fed Exception

The second ruling cut against Trump. By a 5-4 vote, with Roberts, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and the three liberals in the majority, the court blocked the president's attempt to remove Cook while her lawsuit proceeds. Trump had moved to fire her not over policy but for cause, citing allegations of mortgage fraud tied to applications she signed before joining the Fed. Cook has denied wrongdoing.

Roberts wrote that Cook was entitled to notice and some opportunity to respond before her termination, and that allowing her ouster now would turn for-cause protection into little more than at-will employment, out of step with the statute Congress enacted and the nation's tradition of insulating central banking from political interference. He added a footnote making clear that nothing prevents Trump from trying again, provided Cook receives proper notice and a chance to contest the charges.

The dissenters in the Cook case, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, with Gorsuch joining Alito, disagreed on separate grounds. Thomas argued Cook held no property interest in her office, while Alito criticized the court for deferring its ruling and leaving the lower-court proceedings at a standstill for months.

Trump downplayed the loss as strictly procedural and vowed to take action against Cook immediately. She, in turn, said the decision affirmed that the Federal Reserve must make its decisions on evidence and independent judgment, free from political pressure. The administration is appealing the lower-court ruling in her favor, and the dispute is being closely watched on Wall Street for its potential impact on interest rate policy.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• China Blocks U.S. Defense Firms From Rare Earth Materials

• South Korean Justice Minister Gets 25 Year Sentence For Martial Law Declaration

• U.K. PM Starmer Resigns, Sets Path For 7th PM In 10 Years

China Blocks U.S. Defense Firms From Rare Earth Materials

China's President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump taken in Beijing on May 14, 2026. (Brendan Smialowski - Reuters)

_{By: Atlas}

China blocked rare earth and other dual-use exports to ten American companies on Monday, including the two firms at the center of Washington's effort to build a domestic supply chain, retaliating for the Pentagon's decision earlier this month to add several Chinese tech giants to its list of military-linked businesses.

The Commerce Ministry named MP Materials, which runs the only operating rare earth mine in the United States, and USA Rare Earth, a developer of refining and magnet manufacturing capacity, alongside a cluster of drone, robotics, and aerospace firms. Chinese companies are now barred from shipping dual-use goods to any of the ten, and parties in third countries are prohibited from passing Chinese-origin material along to them. The order took effect immediately, with a narrow carve-out for cases Beijing deems "genuinely necessary."

A separate measure from the Finance Ministry barred Chinese government bodies from buying products made by 46 American companies, most of them defense contractors, including units of Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Boeing. U.S.-funded firms registered inside China are exempt.

What Beijing restricted

The export controls go further than the rules they replace. Some of the targeted firms previously needed only an export license to receive Chinese dual-use goods; the new order amounts to an outright ban.

The full list runs from rare earths into the hardware of modern warfare. Beyond MP Materials and USA Rare Earth, it covers Aveox, a California maker of motors for mission-critical uses; Red Cat Holdings and its subsidiary Teal Drones; the radar firm IMSAR; the underwater robotics company Jaia Robotics; Ball Aerospace, which builds satellites and sensors; Oshkosh Defense; and L3Harris Maritime Services.

The Commerce Ministry framed the action as a defense of national security and a fulfillment of China's non-proliferation obligations, casting it as a direct answer to what it called the U.S. government's "wrongful expansion" of its roster of Chinese military companies. Several of the listed firms had already drawn Chinese sanctions in 2024 and 2025 over U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, a package Secretary of State Marco Rubio said this month was under review at a proposed value of $14 billion.

The Pentagon list that set it off

The trigger came earlier in June, when the Defense Department updated its 1260H list, the congressionally mandated register of companies it identifies as Chinese military firms operating in the United States. The latest revision added Alibaba, Baidu, the electric vehicle makers BYD and NIO, and others, accusing them of supporting Beijing's military modernization through civil-military fusion. Baidu rejected the characterization as baseless.

The designation stops short of a sanction. It blocks the firms from direct Pentagon contracts starting June 30, with limits on indirect procurement to follow in 2027, though the label is widely expected to push other federal agencies and commercial partners away from the listed companies as well. Beijing had said at the time that the move cut against the understanding Xi Jinping and President Trump reached during Trump's visit to China in May, and it vowed to take "all necessary measures" in response.

A chokehold built on processing, not mining

China's leverage in this fight rests less on what it digs out of the ground than on what it refines. The country accounts for roughly 60 to 70 percent of global rare earth mining but processes close to 90 percent of the world's supply, the stage at which raw concentrate becomes the magnets and components inside drones, precision munitions, radar, electric motors, and data center hardware.

That imbalance is precisely what the two targeted American firms were built to address. MP Materials operates the Mountain Pass mine in California and last year signed a long-term agreement with the Defense Department tied to magnet purchases and price guarantees, a deal that left the Pentagon holding about a 15 percent stake and made it the company's largest shareholder. USA Rare Earth, which is standing up magnet manufacturing in the United States, reached a $1.6 billion arrangement with the administration in January that included federal funding and a loan through the Commerce Department's CHIPS program in exchange for an equity stake.

Neither can close the gap quickly. Mining is only the first step, and building out the refining, alloying, and fabrication that China already dominates would take years and heavy capital. Analysts cited in the trade press have put full diversification of rare earth supply chains as far off as two decades.

How much it actually bites

For all the symbolism, the immediate commercial damage may be modest. Analysts noted that most of the ten firms do little or no business in China to begin with, which blunts the practical effect of cutting them off. Han Shen Lin of The Asia Group described Beijing's countermeasures as largely symbolic rather than a substantive escalation, and Dan Wang of the Eurasia Group called them a model of how China intends to handle mild friction with Washington while keeping the broader relationship, reset at the May summit, intact.

The targeting still signals something larger. The Pentagon's net now stretches across artificial intelligence, consumer electronics, and biotech, and Beijing's reply shows a willingness to answer in the currency it controls best. Some designated Chinese firms are fighting back through the courts, a path that has worked before; Xiaomi won removal from a Pentagon list in 2021 after a legal challenge. On Capitol Hill, John Moolenaar, who chairs the House select committee on China, called the episode a warning to American business and government alike. Researchers at the Center for Strategic and International Studies have warned that the widening use of export controls by both sides risks an "arms race" in economic statecraft, with one survey finding that 56 percent of semiconductor and IT firms already faced license review times longer than 180 days. For now, the materials themselves have become the weapon, and the contest over who can make a magnet has moved to the center of the U.S.-China rivalry.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• G7 Summit Begins With Peace Deal Momentum

• United Nations: Drone Strikes Have Killed More Than 1,000 In 2026

• Bank Of Japan Raises Rates To Highest Level Since 1995

G7 Summit Begins With Peace Deal Momentum

US President Donald Trump arrives at the G7 summit in France (AFP)

_{By: Atlas}

President Trump landed in France on Monday for the start of the Group of Seven summit carrying a freshly announced Iran agreement, a development that reordered the opening conversation among the world's wealthy democracies even as the deeper disputes between Washington and its allies went unresolved.

For much of the prior week, European governments had braced for a gathering dominated by a widening Middle East war, climbing energy prices, and the threat of further escalation. Instead, Trump arrived in the spa town of Evian-les-Bains, near the Swiss border, having announced a deal a day earlier to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and extend a ceasefire while negotiators work toward a broader settlement.

The summit, hosted by President Emmanuel Macron and running through Wednesday, brings together the leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States, with France widening the guest list to include the European Union and officials from Brazil, India, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and others.

The deal he came to sell

Speaking alongside Macron, Trump made the Iran agreement the centerpiece of his message. "The main thing is that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," he said. "They fully agreed to that with strong policing powers." He contrasted it with the 2015 nuclear accord struck under President Obama, which he called "a horrible deal" that he said had put Iran on a path to a bomb while sending billions to Tehran, and he dismissed past U.S. cash transfers as a failed attempt to buy cooperation.

Trump stressed that any sanctions relief would be tied to Iran's behavior rather than granted for signing, and that Tehran would receive nothing up front. Vice President JD Vance spent Monday on a media circuit reinforcing the message, describing a two-step verification process, saying Israel would have a seat at the table, and arguing that if Iran honored its commitments it could be "reinvited into the world economy."

The agreement, which U.S. officials said had been signed electronically by Iran's parliament speaker, Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, is set to be formally signed Friday in Switzerland, with the full text to follow in the coming days. Trump said ships were already beginning to move through the strait, though a U.S. official cautioned that a full reopening would take time as naval mines are cleared, with traffic expected to build over one to two weeks. Hundreds of loaded tankers remain idle in the Persian Gulf awaiting the all-clear. Markets responded quickly, with stocks rising and oil falling to a three-month low, while the national average for gasoline eased to about $4.07 a gallon.

Old grievances that didn't go away

The deal changed the immediate focus but did little to erase the friction that has accumulated between the United States and several of its closest partners. Many European governments remain irritated that they were given little consultation before the military action against Iran, and concerns persist over the administration's moves to scale back some U.S. commitments in Europe and Trump's recurring criticism of NATO allies.

Trade is another sore point, as is artificial intelligence, where Washington and Brussels are heading in different directions on regulation. Trump also poured cold water on a proposed British-French naval mission to guarantee safe passage through the strait, saying the United States did not need "much help."

Ukraine moves to the front Tuesday

The summit's second day turns to Ukraine, with President Volodymyr Zelensky due to join a special morning session before a later meeting on Iran attended by Arab leaders, including Egypt's president and the leaders of Qatar and the UAE. Zelensky, who met the Swiss president in Geneva before traveling on, pressed the G7 for what he called a decisive and substantive response after a wave of Russian strikes killed at least 11 people and set fire to a landmark Kyiv cathedral. He said he had proposed meeting Vladimir Putin at the summit but that Moscow was "not ready."

Trump struck an optimistic note, saying "maybe we can do something" on Ukraine after speaking by phone with both Zelensky and Putin on his birthday. "They're both open to it," he said, citing "two very good conversations." European leaders, for their part, are expected to press him not to push Kyiv toward concessions. Britain's prime minister, Keir Starmer, said ahead of the talks that the United Kingdom would supply enriched uranium to Ukraine for its nuclear power plants and impose new sanctions on Russia, framing the steps as a way to choke off the revenue funding the war.

A host managing the optics

For Macron, the summit is partly an exercise in keeping his guest content. France moved the gathering back a day to accommodate Trump's schedule, and the French president has lined up a private dinner at the Palace of Versailles, an honor last extended to King Charles III. The two leaders, who struck up an early rapport in 2017, have clashed more recently over Greenland, Gaza, and the Iran war, with Macron often leading European pushback.

The choreography reflects lessons from last year's summit in Canada, where Trump grew impatient with the proceedings and left a day early. French officials built this year's agenda around economic security, technology, and global stability, but the early hours made clear that the Iran announcement would set the terms of the opening.

By the accounts of those around him, Trump arrived with a stronger hand than expected. One former national security official described the deal as resetting the strategic balance by taking the strait, the allies' chief economic worry, off the table, and predicted the president would press an ambitious agenda on trade, technology, and the Middle East. Whether that momentum survives contact with the summit's unresolved disputes, and with the implementation questions still hanging over the Iran framework, will become clearer as the leaders settle in for three days of talks.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• President Xi Bolsters Relationship With North Korea In Pyongyang

• Pentagon Furthers Scrutiny Of Several Heavyweight Chinese Companies

• Federal Judge Rules Against Trump On $100,000 H-1B Fee

President Xi Bolsters Relationship With North Korea In Pyongyang

(Yan Yan - Xinhua - Picture Alliance)

_{By: Atlas}

Xi Jinping landed in Pyongyang on Monday for a two-day state visit, his first trip to North Korea in nearly seven years and his first journey outside China this year. Kim Jong Un met him on the tarmac at Sunan airport, and what followed was a display North Korea reserves for guests it wants to flatter.

A red carpet, an honor guard, a 21-gun salute at Kim Il Sung Square, a military band, children with flowers, crowds with balloons. Banners along the avenues called the two countries' friendship unbreakable. Kim and his wife, Ri Sol Ju, escorted Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan, to the Kumsusan guesthouse, where the leaders sat down for talks. Xi brought a heavyweight delegation, including Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Defense Minister Dong Jun, and his de facto chief of staff, Cai Qi.

The warmth was the point. So was the timing.

What Xi came to offer

Xi framed the visit as a reset of a relationship that had drifted. China's support for North Korea would hold "no matter how the international situation changes," he told Kim, and Beijing's backing for Kim's leadership and for the two countries' shared interests would not waver.

Most of what Xi put on the table was economic. He called for expanding "pragmatic cooperation" in trade and pushed both sides to take advantage of reopened border crossings and the return of flights and passenger trains to move people back and forth again. Air China resumed service between the capitals in March. The cooperation he described stretched across agriculture, health, construction, and technology, alongside diplomacy, law enforcement, and the military.

That economic lever is China's strongest. North Korea relies on its neighbor for the bulk of its trade, by some estimates as much as 95 percent, and pandemic-era closures had frozen much of that exchange. Kim, for his part, called the visit proof of how "unbreakable" the relationship is and said consolidating the friendship was North Korea's "unchanging strategic choice."

The word nobody said

For all the talk of cooperation, one term was missing from the official summaries: denuclearization.

The omission was not an accident. China has avoided the word in its public statements on North Korea since the summer of 2023, and its absence here lands as a quiet signal that Beijing has stopped pressing Kim to give up his weapons. On Sunday, Kim's sister, Kim Yo Jong, made the North's position blunt, calling its status as a nuclear weapons state "the line of no retreat."

Kim spent the days before Xi's arrival reinforcing that message. He toured a newly opened plant for producing nuclear material, hinting at larger plans for the arsenal. He boarded a new destroyer and vowed to build a nuclear-armed navy. He visited a munitions factory and ordered missile output increased 2.5 times over the next five years. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated over the weekend that the North now holds roughly 60 warheads, up from about 50 a year ago, with material for at least 30 more.

Why now

The pull behind Xi's trip is Russia. Since Moscow's invasion of Ukraine, North Korea has supplied weapons and troops to the war, sending more than 10,000 soldiers and, by some counts, as many as 14,000. In return it has drawn money, battlefield experience, and military help. One South Korean government institute estimated Moscow has paid Pyongyang as much as $14.4 billion since 2023, much of it possibly in the form of sensitive military technology.

That tilt toward Moscow has unsettled Beijing, which long played senior partner to a dependent North Korea and now finds Kim negotiating from unfamiliar strength. Analysts read the visit as an effort to pull Pyongyang back toward China's orbit before Russia's influence sets too deeply. Kim has hosted a run of foreign officials and watched his economy recover from pandemic isolation, helped by tourism from China and Russia, and he received Xi accordingly, with pageantry but not deference.

The trip also coincides with the 65th anniversary of the 1961 friendship treaty between the two countries, still the only mutual defense pact China has ever signed.

The wider board

Beyond the bilateral relationship, the meeting touched the issues that animate Beijing's regional strategy. Kim pledged to "unswervingly adhere to the One China principle" and back China's claims over Taiwan, an unusually explicit endorsement from Pyongyang. Xi, without naming Japan, urged North Korea to oppose attempts to "revive militarism," echoing complaints he has aired about Tokyo's expanding defense posture.

Washington hovered over the visit as well. Xi traveled to Pyongyang weeks after hosting both Trump and Vladimir Putin in Beijing, and Trump has said he discussed North Korea with Xi and wants to meet Kim again. Talks between Trump and Kim collapsed in 2019 over sanctions, and Pyongyang has since rebuffed offers to restart them, insisting the United States first drop its demand for denuclearization. Kim Yo Jong dismissed as "false" any suggestion that Xi and Trump had discussed the subject.

Some in Seoul hope the trip nudges Kim toward dialogue; South Korea's Foreign Ministry said it hoped the visit would play a constructive role, and a senior official said he expected the two leaders to weigh a possible Kim-Trump meeting later this year. Whether Xi extracts anything concrete from a more confident Kim is another matter. The welcome was lavish. What North Korea is prepared to give in return remained, by the end of the first day, largely unstated.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Taiwan Opposition Leader Sets Off For Two Week U.S. Trip

• Trump: Cessation Of Fighting Between Hezbollah & Israel

• Florida Opens Lawsuit Against ChatGPT

Taiwan Opposition Leader Sets Off For Two Week U.S. Trip

Cheng Li-wun, leader of Taiwan's Chinese Nationalist Party or Kuomintang, speaks to members at KMT headquarters in Taipei on April 15, 2026 (Reuters)

_{By: Atlas}

Kuomintang chairwoman Cheng Li-wun left Taipei on Monday night for a 15-day tour of the United States, her first trip to Washington's most important security partner since taking the helm of Taiwan's main opposition party in November and a politically sensitive sequel to her April visit to Beijing, where she met Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Great Hall of the People.

Cheng's itinerary includes stops in San Francisco, Boston, New York, Washington, and Los Angeles before her return to Taiwan on June 16. She is scheduled to meet members of Congress, U.S. government officials, business leaders, academics, and members of overseas Taiwanese communities. In Washington, KMT officials have said her schedule includes meetings with officials from the State Department, the Department of War, and what Cheng described as the "Taiwan-related system" within the U.S. government, though she declined to identify any individual interlocutors before her departure.

Speaking at a press conference in Taipei before leaving, Cheng said the principal goal of the trip was to address what she described as years of "misinformation" about her party by Taiwan's ruling Democratic Progressive Party. "We hope to help our American friends once again understand that, from World War II to today, the KMT has been the most loyal and responsible force capable of maintaining cross-strait peace," she said. The trip, she said, could "help prevent the U.S. from being drawn into an avoidable war that would seriously harm its national interests."

The Beijing Backdrop

The trip is being watched closely because of what preceded it. Cheng visited Beijing from April 7 to 12, meeting Xi on April 10 in the first encounter between the leaders of the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party in nearly a decade. The two posed for photographs, held public remarks, and met privately. Cheng told reporters in Beijing that officials on both sides should work to "transcend political confrontation and mutual hostility" and described the Taiwan Strait as one that should "connect family ties, civilization, and hope." Days after the meeting, Beijing announced a package of ten measures aimed at promoting cross-strait exchanges that was widely interpreted as designed to lift Cheng's political profile.

Cheng has been consistent about the constitutional argument she intends to make in Washington. In a May 28 briefing to the KMT's Central Standing Committee, she said her purpose in the United States would be to persuade American officials that the Republic of China Constitution is a "one China" constitution and that the KMT's reading of cross-strait relations was a foundation for stability rather than concession. "We would not be troublemakers and drag the U.S. under," she told the committee.

Her rhetoric has at times gone further than many in her own party have been comfortable with. KMT lawmakers were reportedly uneasy with what they viewed as the over-prioritization of cross-strait engagement during her first months in office, and her comments in Beijing on Japan's history of militarism, which echoed Chinese talking points, surprised foreign partners including Tokyo.

The Defense Budget Question

The most concrete area of friction between the KMT and Washington concerns money. The KMT and its smaller ally, the Taiwan People's Party, hold a majority in Taiwan's legislature and last month passed a special defense budget of NT$780 billion, or roughly $25 billion. The figure was significantly below the NT$1.25 trillion sought by President Lai Ching-te's Democratic Progressive Party government, which had proposed spending nearly $40 billion on weapons including U.S. arms and domestically produced drones.

The cut effectively removed funding for the drone-production effort that U.S. officials have been pushing Taiwan to develop as a hedge against a Chinese invasion. American officials have repeatedly urged Taipei to increase defense outlays.

Peter Mattis, president of the Jamestown Foundation, told Nikkei Asia that Cheng's principal challenge in Washington would be persuading U.S. officials that the KMT should be "treated as a good faith actor and a normal part in Taiwanese politics, instead of Beijing's proxies like Hong Kong's elites." Mattis said the perception in Washington was that the KMT "often appears to be obstructing and offering excuses rather than trying to play a positive role."

Raymond Greene, the de facto U.S. envoy to Taipei, said in a May 21 interview with Taiwan's Central News Agency that many American lawmakers and scholars wanted to ask Cheng whether the KMT leadership "is fundamentally changing the party's political orientation," noting that international reporting had produced "the impression that the KMT has started to adopt or emulate CCP positions on key diplomatic and security issues."

The Trump Question

The most prominent unresolved question about the trip is whether Cheng will meet President Donald Trump. Cheng said at her pre-departure press conference she would be "very willing" to do so if the opportunity arose. "Anything that is helpful to peace, I am willing to do; anyone who is helpful to peace, I am willing to meet — let alone the most critical decision-maker and leader, which is the president of the United States," she said. She acknowledged, however, that no sitting U.S. president has met with a Taiwanese leader since Washington severed formal diplomatic relations with Taipei in 1979, and noted that her only official position is as KMT chairwoman, not as a Taiwan government official.

People close to the White House have indicated that Cheng should not expect meetings with senior administration officials, citing a policy framework under which the administration generally engages foreign opposition leaders only when they are seen as likely future heads of government. Trump's own posture on Taiwan has become harder to read since his May summit with Xi in Beijing. He has not approved the roughly $14 billion arms package long pending for Taiwan and has described the package as a "negotiating chip." Acting U.S. Navy chief Hung Cao recently said arms sales were on pause owing to munitions needs in the Iran war, a characterization that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore on Saturday, said was "decoupled" from the broader policy.

Cheng's trip will also unfold in parallel with separate reporting that Trump no longer expects to speak directly with Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te before Xi's anticipated visit to the United States this fall. That posture is consistent with longstanding U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity and formal acknowledgment of "One China," but it leaves the elected Taiwanese government without the open line of communication to the White House it had hoped to secure.

The Internal Stakes

Cheng's trip also carries implications for the KMT itself. Her elevation to the chairmanship in November came as a surprise to much of the party's old guard, most of whom opposed her in the leadership race. The U.S. trip follows a similar March visit by Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen, who had been widely regarded as the leading KMT contender for the 2028 presidential nomination.

If Cheng returns to Taipei having secured high-level meetings in Washington, she will have positioned herself as the party figure best equipped to manage both Beijing and the United States — a profile that would directly compete with Lu's. Whether the U.S. visit produces that result, or whether it produces the "far less pomp and far sharper questions" that Ryan Hass of the Brookings Institution predicted for Cheng's reception in Washington, will become clearer over the next two weeks.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• U.S. Initiates ‘Defensive’ Strikes On Iran

• Carney On Alberta Vote: A Dangerous Bluff

• Pope Calls For AI To Be ‘Disarmed’

U.S. Initiates ‘Defensive’ Strikes On Iran

U.S. Navy fighter jets (U.S. Navy - Navcent Public Affairs)

_{By: Atlas}

The U.S. military said Monday it had carried out a series of "self-defense" strikes in southern Iran, targeting missile launch sites and Iranian boats attempting to lay mines, even as President Donald Trump described the ongoing negotiations to end the war as "proceeding nicely."

U.S. Central Command announced the operation in a statement from spokesman Capt. Tim Hawkins. "U.S. forces conducted self-defense strikes in southern Iran today to protect our troops from threats posed by Iranian forces," Hawkins said. "Targets included missile launch sites and Iranian boats attempting to emplace mines. U.S. Central Command continues to defend our forces while using restraint during the ongoing ceasefire."

The strikes were carried out in the area of Bandar Abbas, the southern Iranian port that hosts the country's main naval base, a defense official said. A separate U.S. official described the scope as "very small." Semi-official Iranian media reported explosions in Bandar Abbas city and along the coastal areas near the Strait of Hormuz. Iran's Mehr News agency said the situation was under control and that there was no cause for concern.

The Pentagon did not announce any change to the ceasefire that has been in place between the two sides since April 7, and the State Department offered no public comment on whether the operation would affect the negotiating track.

Negotiations Continue in Parallel

The strikes came in the middle of a weekend of mediated talks aimed at extending the ceasefire and beginning the technical work of reopening the Strait of Hormuz. Trump said on Saturday that an agreement to end the war had been "largely negotiated" before walking the timeline back on Sunday, telling negotiators "not to rush into a deal" and saying "time is on our side." On Monday, the president returned to a more optimistic register, calling the emerging deal "a Great Deal for all."

The framework being discussed would extend the existing ceasefire by 60 days and require Iran to give up its stockpile of highly enriched uranium. The Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 percent of the world's seaborne oil flows, would gradually reopen as the United States ends its blockade of Iranian ports. The strait has been effectively closed since the war began on February 28, sending gasoline prices sharply higher in the United States. The national average for a gallon of regular unleaded sat at $4.50 on Monday.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei said earlier in the day that "no one" could call a deal imminent and described the framework as a "work in progress."

Trump Softens on Uranium Removal

In one of the more substantive policy shifts of the past week, Trump indicated Monday that he could accept the destruction of Iran's enriched uranium inside Iran itself, rather than insisting the material be physically removed to the United States. In a post on Truth Social, the president wrote that the stockpile "will either be immediately turned over to the United States to be brought home and destroyed or, preferably, in conjunction and coordination with the Islamic Republic of Iran, destroyed in place or, at another acceptable location, with the Atomic Energy Commission, or its equivalent, being witness to this process and event."

The phrasing marks a shift from earlier demands. In April, Trump said: "The U.S.A. will get all Nuclear 'Dust,' created by our great B2 Bombers — No money will exchange hands in any way, shape, or form." Last week, he said personal possession of the material was important "psychologically." A senior White House official said the new wording did not reflect a fresh demand that had not already been communicated to the Iranians.

Iran has not yet publicly accepted the conditions and continues to insist that it has a right to enrich uranium for what it says are peaceful purposes. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates Iran is holding 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity, a short technical step from weapons-grade.

Push to Expand the Abraham Accords

Separately on Monday, Trump opened a new diplomatic front by calling on a list of Muslim-majority countries to join the Abraham Accords as part of any settlement with Iran. The accords, brokered during Trump's first term, normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain in 2020, with Sudan, Morocco, and most recently Kazakhstan signing on later.

Trump wrote that Saudi Arabia and Qatar should sign first, with Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan following. Egypt and Jordan already formally recognize Israel and have long-standing peace treaties; Turkey first recognized Israel in 1949. "It should be mandatory that all of these Countries, at a minimum, simultaneously, sign onto the Abraham Accords," he wrote. He said the proposal had been raised with negotiating partners over the weekend and that he would accept "one or two" countries declining. The president added that Iran itself could eventually join if a deal is reached.

Riyadh has long maintained that any normalization requires first establishing a clear path to a Palestinian state, a position Pakistan also holds. Islamabad-based analyst Syed Mohammad Ali said Pakistan's stance on Israel remains unchanged despite the new proposal. Masood Khan, Pakistan's former ambassador to the United States, called the move a "new dimension to the diplomatic and mediatory processes" but said "the diplomatic track is still working."

Republican Pushback and Other Fronts

The emerging framework has drawn criticism from Republican hawks in the Senate. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina warned that an agreement now could make Iran "more powerful over time." Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has called the framework a "disastrous mistake." Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking on Sunday, defended the administration's approach and said no one has been stronger on Iran than the president.

The Lebanon front remained active. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a video message Monday that Israel would "intensify" its strikes against Hezbollah, instructing his military to "press the pedal even harder." The Israel Defense Forces said it had struck more than 70 Hezbollah infrastructure sites across Lebanon during the day. A separate U.S.-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon took effect on April 17, though fighting has continued in the south of the country.

Earlier in the day, Trump marked Memorial Day at Arlington National Cemetery, honoring the 13 American service members killed in the war with Iran. "In Operation Epic Fury, we lost 13 wonderful souls," the president said. Seven died in the opening wave of Iranian retaliatory strikes across the region, and six Air Force airmen were killed when a KC-135 refueling aircraft crashed in western Iraq.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Maduro Ally Deported, Faces U.S. Charges For Money Laundering

• Trump Gives Another Hold Off On Iran Attacks Due To Negotiation Progress

• $10 Billion IRS Lawsuit Dropped By Trump, $1.7 Billion Dollar Fund Setup For ‘Victims Fund’

Maduro Ally Deported, Faces U.S. Charges For Money Laundering

Alex Saab with Nicolas Maduro at the National Assembly in Caracas in 2024. (Bloomberg)

_{By: Atlas}

Alex Saab, the Colombian businessman who served as Nicolás Maduro's chief financial operator for years, appeared in federal court in Miami on Monday after being deported from Venezuela over the weekend and re-indicted on money laundering charges.

Saab, 54, arrived at Opa-locka Airport on Saturday and was held at the Federal Detention Center. Shackled and dressed in a beige prison uniform, he answered "Yes, ma'am" in English when Magistrate Judge Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein asked whether he understood the charge against him: a single count of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, carrying a maximum sentence of 20 years.

His defense attorneys, Neil and Joseph Shuster, told the court they expect to continue representing him. Federal prosecutors are led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Monique Botero of the Southern District of Florida and Deputy Chief Joseph Palazzo of the Justice Department's Money Laundering, Narcotics and Forfeiture Section.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Saab "will be prosecuted and held fully accountable under U.S. law." Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva of the Criminal Division said Saab "allegedly used American banks to launder hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from a Venezuelan food program meant for the poor and proceeds from the illegal sale of Venezuelan oil."

The CLAP Scheme and Stolen PDVSA Oil

The indictment accuses Saab of conspiring with others to bribe senior Venezuelan officials in order to secure contracts under the Comité Local de Abastecimiento y Producción, or CLAP — a state food program Maduro set up during the country's hyperinflation crisis to deliver subsidized rice, corn flour, and cooking oil to poor Venezuelans.

Prosecutors allege Saab and his co-conspirators used shell companies, fraudulent invoices, falsified shipping records, and kickback payments to misrepresent the source of the food, claiming imports from Colombia and Mexico while skimming hundreds of millions of dollars off the top. Portions of the proceeds moved through accounts at U.S. banks.

The Justice Department says the scheme expanded after 2019, as American sanctions choked Venezuelan exports and squeezed Caracas's ability to pay its foreign obligations — including payments to Saab. Exploiting their access inside the government, the indictment alleges, the conspirators tapped billions of dollars' worth of crude oil owned by state-run Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., or PDVSA, and sold it under false pretenses. The proceeds were then routed through U.S. accounts to keep the CLAP scheme running.

U.S. Attorney Jason A. Reding Quiñones said "the defendant used bribery, shell companies, and fraudulent documents to siphon hundreds of millions of dollars for personal gain," adding that Saab remains presumed innocent.

Cape Verde, the Biden Pardon, and a Cabinet Seat

Saab has been on the U.S. radar for the better part of a decade. He was first indicted in 2019, during the first Trump administration, over a separate scheme involving a Venezuelan low-income housing contract. He was detained in Cape Verde in June 2020 while his plane stopped to refuel en route to Iran on what Venezuela called a high-level humanitarian mission. After a lengthy legal battle, Cape Verdean courts approved his extradition, and he was transferred to Miami in October 2021.

In December 2023, President Joe Biden granted Saab clemency as part of a prisoner exchange that freed 30 detainees in Venezuela, including 10 Americans, along with a fugitive foreign defense contractor. The pardon was tied to that earlier housing case. Republicans and federal law enforcement officials criticized the deal, and investigators kept building separate cases over the CLAP program and other dealings.

Back in Caracas, Maduro embraced Saab publicly and, in October 2024, appointed him Minister of Industry and National Production. His political rehabilitation lasted until the early days of 2026.

On January 3, U.S. military forces captured Maduro in a raid in Caracas. Within weeks, then-Vice President Delcy Rodríguez took over as acting president. She stripped Saab of his cabinet seat, removed him from his role overseeing foreign investment, and dismissed his wife, Camilla Fabri, from her post as deputy minister for international communication. Saab was arrested in Caracas in February in a joint U.S.-Venezuelan operation.

Caracas Defends the Deportation

Venezuela's constitution prohibits the extradition of its citizens, so the Rodríguez government framed Saab's removal as a deportation of a foreign national. The Administrative Service for Identification, Migration and Foreigners Affairs, known as SAIME, said in a statement Saturday that Saab was being sent away because he was "involved in the commission of various crimes in the United States of America."

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello defended the move on Monday by arguing that Saab's Venezuelan identification card, issued in 2004, "is not legal" and that records do not show him as a Venezuelan citizen. "He presented himself with a fraudulent ID card," Cabello told reporters.

The framing is a sharp turn from Rodríguez's past statements. While Saab was held in U.S. custody between 2021 and 2023, she publicly described him as an "innocent Venezuelan diplomat" who had been "kidnapped" while on a humanitarian mission. Pro-government commentator Mario Silva, removed from state television shortly after Maduro's capture, said in a Sunday livestream that the deportation violated the constitution's extradition ban: "Nobody is safe right now."

The Trump administration has heaped praise on Rodríguez, who has reopened Venezuelan oil fields to U.S. investment at a time of high prices tied to the Iran war. In exchange, the White House has stopped pushing for the constitutionally required election that should have followed Maduro's removal.

A Possible Witness Against Maduro

U.S. officials have long described Saab as Maduro's "bag man" — the financial operator who managed payments, foreign contracts, and overseas investments for the regime. Court filings have previously revealed that Saab secretly met with the Drug Enforcement Administration before his 2020 arrest and helped American investigators map corruption inside Maduro's inner circle. He forfeited more than $12 million in illegal proceeds as part of that earlier cooperation.

He could now be useful again. Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, are in U.S. custody in New York awaiting trial on conspiracy to commit narcoterrorism and import cocaine. Both have pleaded not guilty. Ernesto Ackerman of the Independent Venezuelan American Citizens Organization said Saab "built the whole system" and is likely to bring additional Venezuelan officials into the frame if he cooperates.

The pressure also reaches figures still inside Venezuela. Cabello himself is under U.S. indictment, accused of ties to the Cartel de los Soles. Media businessman Raúl Gorrín, owner of Globovisión, was charged in 2024 with conspiring to launder $1.2 billion. For now, Saab will remain in federal custody. Prosecutors have not announced a date for his next court appearance.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Trump Floats Suspension Of Federal Gas Tax

• CA Mayor Pleads Guilty To DOJ Charge Of Being A Chinese Foreign Agent

• Supreme Court Voids Lower Court Ruling For Alabama Congressional Map

Trump Floats Suspension Of Federal Gas Tax

Energy Secretary Chris Wright (Ana Lopez - Getty Images)

_{By: Atlas}

President Donald Trump said Monday he supports suspending the federal gasoline tax, an acknowledgment that the war in Iran is unlikely to end soon enough to give American drivers near-term relief at the pump.

"I think it's a great idea," Trump told CBS News in a phone interview. "Yup, we're going to take off the gas tax for a period of time, and when gas goes down, we'll let it phase back in."

Speaking to reporters later in the Oval Office during an event on maternal health care, the president was asked how long he intended to halt the levy. "Until it's appropriate," he said. "It's a small percentage, but it's, you know, it's still money. As soon as this is over with Iran, as soon as it's over, you're going to see gasoline and oil drop like a rock."

The national average for a gallon of regular gasoline stood at $4.52 Monday, according to AAA, roughly 50 percent above where it stood when the war with Iran began on Feb. 28. The federal tax is 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline and 24.4 cents for diesel — figures last reset by the 1993 tax bill signed by President Bill Clinton and unchanged since.

What suspension would do — and what it requires

Trump cannot suspend the federal gas tax on his own. The levy is established by statute and any pause would require an act of Congress. No Congress has ever passed one.

The federal tax is collected at the refinery or terminal level, not at the pump. That structure means analysts cannot guarantee the savings would flow through to drivers. The Bipartisan Policy Center estimated last month that consumers would likely see 10 to 16 cents of relief per gallon if the full 18.4-cent tax were paused, with gasoline suppliers capturing the remainder. The Congressional Research Service has noted that enforcement of pass-through pricing would be administratively difficult, given that retail gas prices depend on crude prices, regional refining capacity, ethanol blends, transportation costs, and local taxes that vary widely from state to state.

The fiscal cost is also real. The federal gas tax generates roughly $23 billion a year in revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, which underwrites federal highway construction, road maintenance, and public transit. The fund has already been spending faster than it has been collecting, and the Congressional Budget Office projects it will run out of money by 2028. A five-month suspension would punch a roughly $17 billion hole in the fund, by the Bipartisan Policy Center's estimate.

For an average 16-gallon fill-up, the full 18.4-cent break translates to about $3 in savings — a figure Trump himself acknowledged was modest. "It's a small percentage, but it's, you know, it's still money," he repeated to reporters.

A bipartisan path on the Hill, but no clear majority yet

The legislative response built quickly through Monday afternoon. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., posted on X that he would introduce a bill suspending the federal tax on gasoline and diesel for 90 days, with authority for the president to extend it for another 90. "American workers and families deserve immediate relief and this legislation will do just that," he said.

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., said she would introduce a companion measure in the House "in light of Trump's recent remarks." Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., signaled he would do the same.

The Democratic side already had legislation on the table. Sens. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., and Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., introduced the Gas Prices Relief Act in March, proposing a suspension through Oct. 1 with general-fund offsets to backstop the Highway Trust Fund. A companion bill in the House was sponsored by Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H. The bills had not moved before Trump's comments. Pappas posted Monday: "This should have happened months ago. Let's pass it this week."

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., was noncommittal. "I've not in the past obviously been a fan of that idea. But you know I've got some colleagues out there who think it's a good idea and so we'll hear them out," he told reporters. Thune said his preferred path was reopening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial traffic. "Obviously, any time that you suspend the gas tax, that leaves a big hole in the Highway Trust Fund, which also has implications down the road."

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who is in a runoff race later this month, said he could "live with" a temporary suspension while opposing a permanent one. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., offered a sharper response: "Instead of suspending the tax, we should suspend the war."

Energy Secretary Chris Wright signaled the administration's openness on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday. "All measures that can be taken to lower the price at the pump and lower the prices for Americans, this administration is in support of," he said. Wright also said the administration had asked U.S. refiners to shorten spring maintenance windows in order to keep more product flowing.

State-level moves and the broader pressure on prices

A handful of states have already moved. Georgia suspended its 33-cent-per-gallon tax for 60 days; that pause expires May 19. Indiana halted its 36-cent-per-gallon excise tax for 30 days. Kentucky and Utah reduced their state levies. Several other states are weighing similar action.

The federal administration has cycled through most of the conventional tools available to a White House facing an oil supply shock. The U.S. and allied governments have released roughly 172 million barrels of crude from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve since the war began. Washington has temporarily lifted sanctions on Russian and Iranian crude already at sea, eased federal regulations on summer-blend gasoline to boost refining throughput, and lifted Jones Act restrictions on coastal fuel shipments.

Trump's "Project Freedom" — the Navy-escorted operation to guide commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz — was paused weeks ago after objections from Gulf partners. The president told CBS he could resume it. "We would have had it open under Operation Freedom, but we can easily go back to that." Asked whether the operation would restart, he replied, "I don't know — either that, or much more severe."

West Texas Intermediate crude was trading at about $98 a barrel Monday, up roughly 70 percent on the year. Brent crude remained above $100 in overseas trade. Crude accounts for about half the retail price of gasoline, which is why the pump number has stayed above $4.50 despite the SPR releases and sanctions waivers.

The political backdrop

The economic pressure is feeding into political pressure. The University of Michigan's May consumer sentiment index fell to an all-time low, with director Joanne Hsu attributing the drop primarily to pump prices. "Consumers continue to feel buffeted by cost pressures, led by soaring prices at the pump," she said. "Middle East developments are unlikely to meaningfully boost sentiment until supply disruptions have been fully resolved and energy prices fall."

A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll conducted in late April found that nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy — the highest disapproval mark of either of his terms. A separate NPR/Marist poll showed 62 percent of registered voters assigning the president a "great deal" or "good amount" of blame for the gas price increases.

Memorial Day road travel is projected to rise even with prices elevated, and the November midterm elections are roughly six months away. That timeline is part of why members of both parties — for very different political reasons — have suddenly found common ground on at least the framing of the question.

Trump himself rejected the idea Monday that any of this represented strategic difficulty. "There's no pressure at all," he told reporters. "We're going to have a complete victory."

Whether Congress agrees to give him the suspension, and whether refiners pass any savings on to drivers if it does, are the two questions that will determine whether the proposal turns into anything more than a talking point. The Highway Trust Fund's longer-term solvency is the third. None of those answers is likely to come before the Iran war does.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Iran Attacks UAE Oil Facility, U.S. Military Destroys Iranian Navy In Retaliation

• Venezuela Seeks Part Of Guyana Territory, Dispute Heads To UN Court

• Indian PM Modi Notches Party Win In Crucial District

Iran Attacks UAE Oil Facility, U.S. Military Destroys Iranian Navy In Retaliation

The United Arab Emirates’ Fujairah oil facility taking heavy damage from strike (AP)

_{By: Atlas}

A four-week-old ceasefire between the United States and Iran came under its most serious strain since it took hold in early April after Iran launched a barrage of missiles and drones at the United Arab Emirates, struck a tanker tied to Abu Dhabi's state oil company, and engaged U.S. and commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz on Monday — the first day of the Pentagon's effort to escort stranded ships out of the waterway.

The UAE Defense Ministry said its air defenses engaged 12 ballistic missiles, three cruise missiles, and four drones launched from Iran. One drone got through and started a fire at an oil installation in Fujairah, the emirate's main port and storage hub on the Gulf of Oman. Three Indian nationals were injured, the UAE Foreign Ministry said. Four missile alerts went out across the country during the day, the first since the ceasefire began. Commercial flights bound for Dubai and Abu Dhabi turned around midair, and the UAE moved to restrict its airspace for a full week.

Abu Dhabi called the strikes a "dangerous escalation and an unacceptable transgression" and said it reserved the right to a "full and legitimate response." Iranian state television, citing an unnamed military official, said Tehran had "no plan" to target the UAE. A separate post on a Telegram account associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps appeared to claim the operation, including imagery the account said showed the aftermath of the Fujairah drone attack.

The US response in the strait

Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, told reporters Monday afternoon that American forces had successfully opened a passage through the strait that was free of Iranian mines, and that two American-flagged merchant ships had transited successfully under U.S. military protection. Iran, he said, had launched "multiple cruise missiles, drones and small boats" at the civilian ships during the day. Each was defeated.

U.S. military helicopters sank six Iranian fast boats that tried to interfere with the passage, Cooper said. President Trump put the figure at seven in a Fox News interview later in the day, and warned Iran it would be "blown off the face of the earth" if it continued to target U.S. ships protecting commercial vessels. Iran's state outlets disputed the U.S. account, with the Tasnim news agency, citing a military source, claiming that two small cargo vessels had been hit instead and that five civilians had been killed. Iran's military separately said it had fired warning shots at a U.S. warship; U.S. Central Command denied that.

Maersk confirmed late Monday that one of its U.S.-flagged vessels, the Alliance Fairfax, had exited the Persian Gulf "accompanied by U.S. military assets" after being stranded since the U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran in late February. The transit, the company said, was "completed without incident, and all crew members are safe and unharmed."

The U.S.-led Joint Maritime Information Center had advised commercial captains earlier in the day to use Omani waters when transiting the strait, designating an "enhanced security area." Iran's Maj. Gen. Ali Abdollahi told state broadcaster IRIB that any foreign military vessel approaching the strait without coordinating with Iranian authorities would be targeted.

The Fujairah strike and the broader picture

Fujairah's significance is hard to overstate for the UAE's energy posture. The emirate sits on the Gulf of Oman — outside the Strait of Hormuz itself — and is the terminus of a pipeline running from Abu Dhabi's onshore oil fields. That pipeline has allowed the UAE to keep some volume of crude moving onto tankers and out to world markets even with the strait effectively closed. A direct hit on Fujairah's storage facilities is a hit on the UAE's only meaningful workaround.

The plant has been targeted before, with a major fire reported in March during an earlier round of the war. The UAE Foreign Ministry also said a tanker affiliated with Adnoc, the state oil company, had been struck by two drones in the strait. South Korea separately reported an explosion and fire aboard a South Korean-operated vessel anchored off the UAE; no injuries were reported. Two more cargo vessels off the UAE coast were reported on fire by the British military's United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center — one near Mina Saqr, the other roughly seven nautical miles north of Fujairah.

Trump posted on Truth Social that Iran had "taken some shots" at the South Korean ship, asking, "Perhaps it's time for South Korea to come and join the mission!"

The Sultanate of Oman also reported an incident across the strait. A residential building housing workers in the coastal town of Bukha was struck, leaving two foreign workers wounded, four vehicles damaged, and nearby windows shattered, according to Omani state media.

International condemnation of the UAE strikes followed quickly. French President Emmanuel Macron called them "unjustified and unacceptable." British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said London would continue to "support the defense of our partners in the Gulf." Qatar condemned the strike on the Adnoc-affiliated tanker and called for the strait's "unconditional reopening."

Markets and the ceasefire

Markets reacted quickly. Brent crude rose above $115 a barrel — up more than 5 percent on the day — after the Fujairah strike, and U.S. equity indexes closed sharply lower as investors absorbed the prospect of the war reigniting in earnest. The Iran war has already pushed gasoline prices in the United States to a national average of $4.45 per gallon, up roughly 35 cents in a week.

Despite the day's events, Trump avoided saying the ceasefire had been broken, ABC News journalist Jonathan Karl reported after speaking with the president by phone. Cooper, briefing on Monday afternoon, took the same line, characterizing the truce as still in effect even as Iranian fire continued to land on shipping vessels and U.S. forces engaged Iranian assets.

Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, framed the day's events more bluntly. "Project Freedom is Project Deadlock," he wrote on X, adding that the strait situation made clear "there's no military solution to a political crisis." Early Tuesday morning local time, he warned that both Washington and Abu Dhabi "should be wary of being dragged back into quagmire."

The U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports, in place since April 13, has now turned back at least 49 commercial ships, according to U.S. Central Command. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday that Iran had collected less than $1.3 million in transit tolls — a fraction of its prewar oil revenue — and that Iranian oil storage was filling up to the point that wells might have to be shut in within the week.

Diplomacy under pressure

Iran's 14-point proposal to end the war, delivered through Pakistani mediators over the weekend, calls for the United States to lift sanctions, end the naval blockade, withdraw forces from the region, and cease all hostilities, including Israel's continuing operations in Lebanon. Tehran has structured the plan in two phases: an initial agreement to end the war, followed by a 30-day window for resolving implementation details. Iranian officials have made a point of saying the proposal does not address the nuclear question — long the central tension between Tehran and Washington — and that issue would be deferred to a later stage.

Trump told reporters over the weekend he was reviewing the offer but expected to find it unacceptable. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said Monday that Iran was reviewing the U.S. response but that "changing demands" were making the diplomatic track difficult. Hegseth and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Dan Caine were scheduled to brief on the Strait of Hormuz operations Tuesday morning.

The picture by Monday night was a ceasefire that no one in Washington, Abu Dhabi, or Tehran was willing to formally declare dead, but one that had absorbed the heaviest single day of fire since it took effect — Iranian missiles and drones across the UAE, six Iranian boats sunk by U.S. helicopters, four ships on fire across the strait region, and a $115 oil price registering what the markets had concluded.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Merz: The U.S. Is Being ‘Humiliated’ By Iran

• Israeli Opposition Join Forces To Unseat Netanyahu

• Leader Of Mexican Cartel Arrested In Mexican Gov. Operation

Merz: The U.S. Is Being ‘Humiliated’ By Iran

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on April 27, 2026 (Friedemann Vogel - EPA)

_{By: Atlas}

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz delivered the sharpest public criticism yet from a major European leader of the Trump administration's handling of the Iran war on Monday, telling a group of high school students in his home region of Sauerland that "an entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership" and questioning whether Washington has any clear path out of the conflict.

Merz made the remarks during a panel discussion with students at the Carolus-Magnus-Gymnasium in Marsberg. The comments landed two days after President Donald Trump abruptly cancelled the second round of indirect U.S.-Iran talks in Islamabad, blocking Vice President JD Vance, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and senior adviser Jared Kushner from boarding flights to the Pakistani capital after Iran's foreign minister departed the country without engaging the American delegation.

"The Iranians are obviously very skilled at negotiating, or rather, very skillful at not negotiating, letting the Americans travel to Islamabad and then leave again without any result," Merz said.

He went further moments later. "An entire nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership, especially by these so-called Revolutionary Guards. And so I hope that this ends as quickly as possible."

Merz, a Christian Democrat who took office earlier this year, has previously avoided direct public criticism of Trump even as he has pushed back privately on the U.S.-Israeli decision to launch the war in late February without consulting European partners. His remarks Monday represent a clear public break.

Doubts about Washington's strategy

Beyond the question of negotiating posture, Merz raised a deeper concern: that the Trump administration has no exit plan.

"The Iranians are clearly stronger than expected and the Americans clearly have no truly convincing strategy in the negotiations either," Merz said. "The problem with conflicts like this is always you don't just have to get in — you have to get out again. We saw that very painfully in Afghanistan for 20 years. We saw it in Iraq."

The chancellor acknowledged that European leaders had been too restrained in their initial responses to the war's outbreak. "If I had known that it would continue like this for five or six weeks and get progressively worse, I would have told him even more emphatically," Merz said, referring to objections he had conveyed to Trump after Operation Epic Fury began on February 28.

Trump struck a markedly different tone in remarks to Fox News one day earlier. "We have all the cards," he told the network, adding that "if they want to talk, they can come to us, or they can call us. You know, there is a telephone."

White House spokesperson Olivia Wales, asked about Merz's remarks and the broader status of the negotiations, said only that "these are sensitive diplomatic discussions and the U.S. will not negotiate through the press." She added that Washington "holds the cards and will only make a deal that puts the American people first, never allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

The economic squeeze on Europe

Merz tied his criticism directly to the war's financial cost on the German economy, which is heavily exposed to higher energy prices and to disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly a fifth of the world's seaborne oil and natural gas normally moves.

"It is, at the moment, a pretty tangled situation," Merz said. "And it is costing us a great deal of money. This conflict, this war against Iran, has a direct impact on our economic output."

Germany has joined a coalition of more than 50 countries — led by France and the United Kingdom — to coordinate an international response to securing the strait once the active fighting between the U.S. and Iran ends. Merz said it was clear that the strait had been at least partially mined, and Berlin had offered to deploy German minesweepers to help clear the waterway. "We have offered, also as Europeans, to send German minesweepers to clear the strait, which has obviously been mined in part," he said. He stressed that any such deployment depended on a halt in hostilities.

The "Hormuz first" approach has gained traction in Tehran. Iranian negotiators on Monday transmitted a new proposal through Pakistani mediators offering to end the chokehold on the waterway and discuss broader issues, including the nuclear program, only at a later stage. Iran's parliament is also drafting a bill that would impose mandatory "service" fees on vessels transiting the strait — passage that was free before the war.

The U.N.'s International Maritime Organization rejected the toll concept on Monday. "There's no legal basis for the introduction of any tax, any customs, or any fees on straits for international navigation," said IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez.

Iran turns to Moscow

The diplomatic activity Monday was concentrated in Russia rather than Pakistan. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi flew from Islamabad to Moscow, where he met with President Vladimir Putin and a senior Russian delegation. Putin pledged that Russia "will do everything that serves [Iranian] interests, the interests of all the people of the region, so that peace can be achieved as soon as possible." Araghchi told reporters that "the world has now realized Iran's true power."

The visit was as much about the U.S. blockade as it was about diplomacy. Trump's counter-blockade of Iranian ports, in place since April 13, has compounded an already severe Iranian economic crisis. The International Monetary Fund forecasts a 6.1 percent contraction in Iran's GDP this year, with year-on-year inflation running near 70 percent. The blockade has also prevented Iran's empty tankers from returning to port to serve as additional storage, leaving Tehran with diminishing options to manage its crude output.

Russia is the most obvious alternative outlet. The Caspian Sea route and the overland link through Russian territory have become, in the words of Russian-Iranian relations analyst Nikita Smagin, "one of the few remaining routes for connecting Iran with world markets" if the U.S. blockade continues. The route remains a fraction of what the Strait of Hormuz handled before the war — the strait accounted for more than 90 percent of Iran's prewar trade — and Israel struck the Caspian port of Bandar Anzali in March, further complicating that channel.

The transatlantic strain widens

Merz's remarks are the latest sign of the deepening rift between Washington and its NATO partners over the war. Trump has alternated between criticizing Europe for declining to join the U.S.-led coalition and dismissing the need for European participation. Reports out of Washington this week indicate the administration is weighing options for "punishing" allies that have not contributed, including a potential reduction of U.S. troop deployments on European territory — a step that comes as European leaders continue to flag the threat from Russia in the context of the ongoing Ukraine war.

The Pentagon last week leaked an internal email floating the suspension of Spain from NATO over its position on the Iran conflict. Britain's Foreign Office, which is preparing for King Charles III's state visit to Washington this week, publicly clashed with reports that the administration was reviewing NATO's structure. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has already taken a colder posture toward the war than his predecessor, and France and Germany have moved in recent weeks to deepen their bilateral cooperation on nuclear deterrence — an unusual step that reflects mounting European concern over both Iran and the broader strategic environment.

Inside Iran, the political picture remains opaque. Trump has repeatedly cited "fractured" Iranian leadership in justifying his decisions to break off direct engagement. Reporting from Tehran indicates that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Ahmad Vahidi has consolidated influence over the negotiating process, with Foreign Minister Araghchi and parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf operating with constrained authority. The whereabouts of Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father after the senior Khamenei was killed in the war's opening hours, remain undisclosed.

For Merz, the absence of a clear American strategy is the central concern. "At the moment, I do not see what strategic exit the Americans will choose, especially since the Iranians are clearly negotiating very skillfully — or very skillfully not negotiating," he told the students.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Japan Scraps 1945 Ban On Lethal Weapon Exports

• Kuwait Announces Force Majeure On Oil Supplies Due To Iranian Conflict

• U.S. Labor Secretary Gives Sudden Resignation From Trump Cabinet

Japan Scraps 1945 Ban On Lethal Weapon Exports

Japan's Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Tokyo Monday, April 13, 2026 (Keisuke Hosojima- AP)

_{By: Atlas}

Japan's Cabinet on Tuesday endorsed the scrapping of its long-standing ban on the export of lethal weapons, the most significant rewrite of the country's arms trade rules since the end of the Second World War and a clear departure from the pacifist framework that has shaped its security posture since 1945.

The decision, approved by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi's government and the National Security Council, rewrites the "three principles on transfer of defense equipment and technology" and their implementation guidelines. It clears the final hurdle for sales of fighter jets, missiles, warships, and combat drones — categories that Tokyo has effectively walled off from export for generations.

"No single country can now protect its own peace and security alone, and partner countries that support each other in terms of defense equipment are necessary," Takaichi wrote on X after the decision was announced. She added that "there is absolutely no change in our commitment to upholding the path and fundamental principles we have followed as a peace-loving nation for over 80 years since the war."

Chief Cabinet Secretary Minoru Kihara, speaking at a press briefing, said the revised rules were designed to "strategically promote defense equipment transfer to create a security environment that is desirable for Japan and to build up the industrial base that can support fighting resilience."

What changes under the new rules

Until now, Japanese defense exports were confined to five non-combat categories — rescue, transport, warning, surveillance, and minesweeping. That narrow framework, anchored in Japan's postwar constitution, effectively kept the country's defense industry out of the global arms market for most of the last seven decades.

The revised guidelines discard those five categories outright. Defense goods will now be sorted into two buckets: "weapons," meaning equipment with lethal or destructive capability, and "non-weapons," such as warning and control radar systems. Non-weapons will face no transfer restrictions. Weapons sales will be limited to countries that have signed defense equipment and technology transfer agreements with Japan — a list that currently stands at 17 nations, including the United States and the United Kingdom.

A general prohibition on arms transfers to countries engaged in active conflict remains on the books. The new framework, however, carves out exceptions for "special circumstances" that account for Japan's security needs and U.S. military operations in the Indo-Pacific.

The National Security Council will decide whether to approve weapons exports, with parliament notified only after the fact. Opposition parties have already pushed back on that sequencing, arguing that lawmakers should weigh in before any lethal transfer is approved. The next-generation fighter jet being co-developed with Britain and Italy is singled out as an exception, requiring full Cabinet approval.

Tokyo said it will also dispatch government officials to recipient militaries for periodic checks on how equipment is being maintained and deployed, a monitoring framework designed to reduce the risk of diversion or misuse.

Political and strategic drivers

Takaichi, a national security hawk who took office in October 2025, has framed the defense sector as one of 17 strategic areas for growth. Her government sees the revised export regime as serving two goals at once: shoring up Japan's domestic industrial base while tightening security ties with partners across the Indo-Pacific and Europe.

Tokyo has already lifted its military spending to 2 percent of GDP, and further increases are expected. The government has pointed to a range of regional pressures — China's growing military activity near the Senkaku Islands and Taiwan, North Korean missile development, and Russia's war in Ukraine — as justification for the buildup.

The export easing builds on incremental steps that date back more than a decade. Takaichi's mentor, the late prime minister Shinzo Abe, first relaxed a near-blanket ban in 2014 to allow exports of some non-lethal supplies. In December 2023, the government opened the door for Japan to return licensed-manufactured U.S. components, including Patriot missiles, to Washington — a workaround that helped replenish American stockpiles drawn down by aid to Ukraine.

Three senior Japanese government officials told Reuters ahead of Tuesday's vote that one of the first major transactions under the new framework is likely to be a sale of used Japanese frigates to the Philippines, a country engaged in a sustained maritime standoff with China in the South China Sea. Missile defense systems may follow.

Successive U.S. administrations, including President Donald Trump's, have encouraged Tokyo to relax its export controls as part of broader pressure on allies to shoulder more of the burden for collective defense.

Industry response and international interest

Japan's defense industry, long marginalized inside the country's manufacturing base, is already moving to absorb anticipated demand. Air defense systems maker Toshiba plans to hire roughly 500 people over the next three years and is building new testing and manufacturing facilities. The company has also stood up a dedicated defense export department.

"Reputational risk is not what it used to be," Kenji Kobayashi, vice president of Toshiba's defense division, said in an interview with Reuters.

Mitsubishi Electric — whose consumer product lines sit alongside its missile and radar work — is adding staff in London and Singapore to support overseas sales. The company expects defense revenue to roughly triple to 600 billion yen, about $3.8 billion, by 2031. A recruitment listing reviewed by Reuters shows the firm hiring for a sales role covering fighter aircraft and other military exports.

"Offers are coming from everywhere," Masahiko Arai, senior vice president at Mitsubishi Electric's defense unit, said.

Foreign interest has been broad. Australia signed contracts over the weekend for the delivery of three Mogami-class frigates built by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, with eight more to be jointly produced in-country under a $6.5 billion agreement — the largest-ever Japanese defense contract. New Zealand has also signaled interest in the same class of ship.

Mariusz Boguszewski, deputy chief of mission at Poland's embassy in Tokyo, said the two countries can help fill gaps in each other's arsenals, particularly in anti-drone and electronic warfare systems. Poland's WB Group signed a tentative drone deal with Japanese aircraft maker ShinMaywa last year. Ukraine's chamber of commerce in Tokyo is preparing to launch a new industry group linking Ukrainian and Japanese drone firms, its head told Reuters, timed to the rule change.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has estimated that 95 percent of Japan's defense imports between 2021 and 2025 came from the United States — a dependency Tokyo now views as a strategic vulnerability amid questions about U.S. production capacity and political consistency.

Domestic and regional reaction

The decision has drawn opposition at home. A protest rally took place in front of the prime minister's office on April 16 as the Cabinet decision neared, with demonstrators arguing that lethal arms exports run counter to Article 9 of Japan's postwar constitution. Critics have also said the revised framework could draw Japan into foreign conflicts and undermine the country's long-standing identity as a "peace-loving nation."

Beijing has objected sharply. China's Foreign Ministry said governments should be aware "that blindly entrusting their own security to another country, or even tying themselves to another country's war chariot, will only end up backfiring." Chinese state media framed the change as a provocative departure from Japan's postwar commitments.

Japan's defense partners have taken a different view. Australian Defense Minister Richard Marles, speaking alongside his Japanese counterpart Shinjiro Koizumi at the frigate signing ceremony over the weekend, called the easing of controls "really important to developing the seamless defense industrial base."

A delegation of roughly 30 NATO representatives visited Japan last week to discuss deeper cooperation, touring a Mitsubishi Electric subsidiary involved in both the trilateral fighter jet program with Britain and Italy and satellite work.

Japan's defense industry remains a fraction of the size of the American sector — roughly 25 times smaller by revenue, according to SIPRI — but is comparable to those of South Korea, Germany, Italy, and Israel. Whether Tokyo can translate the policy shift into sustained export growth will depend on how quickly Japanese firms can scale production, how aggressively the National Security Council approves individual transactions, and whether the partner list expands beyond the current 17 countries in the months ahead.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Prime Minister Carney Clinches Majority In Special Election

• Pope Leo XIV Begins Africa Tour

• Analysis: Iran Has A Mine Problem

Prime Minister Carney Clinches Majority In Special Election

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (Andrej Ivanov - AFP via Getty Images)

_{By: Atlas}

Mark Carney clinched a parliamentary majority for his Liberal government on Monday night, completing one of the most unusual paths to consolidated power in Canadian political history. The rookie prime minister — a private citizen just 16 months ago — assembled his majority not through a single decisive election but through a combination of special election victories and an unprecedented wave of defections from rival parties.

Liberal candidate Danielle Martin claimed victory in the Toronto riding of University-Rosedale around 10 p.m., pushing the party to 172 seats in the 343-seat House of Commons and giving Carney command of Parliament. The Liberals subsequently won a second Toronto seat in Scarborough Southwest, bringing their total to 173 and providing a slightly more comfortable margin. Results in the Quebec riding of Terrebonne — where the Liberals won by a single vote in last year's federal election before the result was overturned by the Supreme Court — remained too close to call late Monday.

No modern Canadian government has ever built a majority this way. Carney fell three seats short of one when he won the federal election last spring, but five opposition lawmakers — four Conservatives and one New Democrat — crossed the floor to join his caucus in the months that followed. Monday's wins finished the job.

"This is not the time for politics as usual, for petty differences, for political point-scoring," Carney told party members at a Liberal convention in Montreal over the weekend. "United, we will build 'Canada strong,' a Canada for all."

What a Majority Means

The practical consequences are substantial. Carney can now pass legislation without negotiating with opposition parties, control the agenda on House committees, and govern without the constant threat of a confidence vote bringing down his government. Minority governments in Canada typically last less than two years. The majority means Carney does not have to call another election until 2029.

"He will be able to pass legislation without having to go to the opposition to secure enough votes," said Andrew McDougall, assistant professor in Canadian politics at the University of Toronto.

The Liberals had relied on selective Conservative support to move economic and trade-related bills through Parliament during the past year. That arrangement worked but was slow. The government introduced 26 bills in the House of Commons since taking office, but only 11 received royal assent — and five of those were routine spending authorizations.

The first move of the majority government, according to two senior officials who spoke on condition of anonymity, will be an announcement Tuesday morning on relief for Canadians facing surging gas and diesel prices driven by the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Carney has previously said he is considering removing the federal gas tax to "cushion the blow for Canadians."

The Defection Strategy

The floor crossings that brought Carney to the doorstep of a majority were without precedent in their scope and speed. Only the governments of John A. Macdonald, Canada's first prime minister, and Jean Chrétien saw more politicians defect to the ruling party.

The most recent was Marilyn Gladu, a longtime Conservative MP and former chemical engineer, who switched parties last Wednesday. "Canada needs a serious leader who can address the uncertainty that has arrived due to the unjustified American tariffs," she said, thanking Carney for inviting her into "the large Liberal tent."

Gladu's defection was not without controversy. She holds anti-abortion views that clash with longstanding Liberal orthodoxy — under Justin Trudeau, candidates were required to be pro-choice. She also previously supported the "freedom convoy" during the pandemic and opposed a ban on conversion therapy. Carney said Gladu had committed to voting with the government on reproductive rights and that the party's core values had not changed.

Not everyone in the party was satisfied. Supriya Dwivedi, a columnist and former Trudeau adviser, wrote on X: "Guys, maybe we should all re-read Values. It's possible we all missed the part where Carney said we don't need to actually have any."

Scott Reid, a political adviser and former communications director to Liberal prime minister Paul Martin, took a different view. He described the defections as a reflection of the Trump effect on Canadian politics — a desire for stability that has led lawmakers to set aside partisanship. "What we're watching is the quietest assembly of a union government we've ever witnessed," he said.

Poilievre's Problem

The results are a serious blow to Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who just over a year ago was projected to win a federal election by more than 20 points. He won the election narrowly, then watched four of his own MPs abandon his caucus for the Liberals.

Conservative vote share dropped significantly in all three Monday races. In Scarborough Southwest, the party was on pace for roughly 20 percent — down from 30 percent in the last general election. In University-Rosedale, the Conservative candidate fell from second to third place. In Terrebonne, the party's candidate pulled just 3 percent, compared to over 18 percent in 2025.

Poilievre survived a leadership review in January with strong caucus support, but no challenger has emerged and the losses continue to mount. Liberal MPs have been openly courting additional Conservative defectors. Conservative MP Billy Morin told reporters the Liberals were "trying to poach me."

Reid assessed Poilievre's position bluntly. "If you had said to me two years ago that Pierre Poilievre is going to lose a federal election despite having a 25-point lead, lose his home riding, and then lose four members of parliament and surrender the parliamentary majority to his chief rival — well, you've just described a political dead person."

Recent polling from Nanos shows more than half of Canadians prefer Carney as prime minister, with just 23 percent choosing Poilievre.

The Agenda Ahead

Carney won office on the argument that Donald Trump had upended the world order and that Canada needed to respond with bold economic and security measures. He has announced major increases in military spending, traveled to Asia and Europe seeking trade diversification, and set an ambitious target to double non-U.S. exports to 300 billion Canadian dollars by 2030.

With a majority, the legislative path for those plans clears considerably. Key items on the agenda include new trade agreements with India, Thailand, the Philippines, and Saudi Arabia — all of which could be implemented by year's end. A defense investment agency has been established to expedite procurement, with bids for a new submarine fleet due by the end of April. An AI bill designed to protect Canadian data from foreign tech companies, which the Trudeau government failed to pass for lack of opposition support, can now move forward.

The government also faces a looming NATO summit in Ankara in July, where Carney will need to demonstrate progress toward the alliance's new 5 percent of GDP defense spending target by 2035.

Domestically, the pressure shifts. With no opposition to blame for legislative gridlock, Carney owns the outcomes. Grocery prices are up more than 20 percent since 2022. Unemployment sits at 6.7 percent. Gas prices are climbing because of the Middle East conflict. Opposition parties have already begun arguing that Carney's rhetoric about economic transformation has not translated into relief for ordinary Canadians.

"What a majority does is, it actually gives you time to effectively plan," Liberal MP Jonathan Wilkinson said. "That's what this country needs right now, given what's going on globally."

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Acting President Of Venezuela Remains Despite 90 Day Limit

• Artemis II Crew Make History In Farthest Spaceflight

• South Korean Intel Suggests Kim Jong Un’s Daughter To Be Successor

Acting President Of Venezuela Remains Despite 90 Day Limit

Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez (AP)

_{By: Atlas}

Delcy Rodríguez continued to serve as Venezuela's acting president on Monday, three days after the expiration of the 90-day window that the country's Supreme Court set for her temporary tenure following the U.S. capture of Nicolás Maduro in January.

The National Assembly, which is controlled by Rodríguez's ruling party and presided over by her brother Jorge Rodríguez, has not taken a public vote to extend her term. Nor has the legislature moved to declare the presidency permanently vacant — a step that would trigger a snap election within 30 days under the Venezuelan constitution. The government's press office did not respond to requests for comment on the status of her appointment.

Rodríguez assumed the acting presidency on January 3, hours after a U.S. military operation seized Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, in Caracas. The couple were transported to New York, where they face narco-terrorism charges. Both have pleaded not guilty. At their second hearing last week, a federal judge rejected a defense motion to dismiss the case after Maduro's lawyers argued he could not pay for legal representation because the U.S. Treasury Department had frozen his assets.

The Legal Framework Holding It Together

In the immediate aftermath of the January operation, Venezuela's Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court — long seen as loyal to the ruling party — issued what it called an "urgent and preventive" injunction. The three-page ruling classified Maduro's removal as a "forced absence," a designation that legal scholars have noted does not appear in the Venezuelan constitution.

The court's order stopped short of categorizing the vacancy as either temporary or permanent, a distinction that carries significant constitutional consequences. Under Venezuela's governing charter, a temporary absence can be filled by the vice president — Rodríguez's former role — for up to 90 days. The National Assembly can then extend that period for an additional 90 days, bringing the absolute maximum to 180 days. A permanent vacancy, by contrast, requires elections within 30 days.

Juan Carlos Apitz, dean of the Faculty of Legal Sciences at the Central University of Venezuela, has described the ruling as deliberately evasive. He argues that a permanent vacancy already exists in practical terms, since there is no reasonable expectation that Maduro will return to the country while facing criminal prosecution in the United States.

The Venezuelan human rights organization Provea warned over the weekend that the Supreme Court's silence on Rodríguez's continued tenure beyond the initial 90 days is not a neutral omission but a political decision. The group noted that if the second 90-day period is allowed to run its course, it would expire on July 5, at which point the National Assembly would be constitutionally obligated to declare a permanent vacancy and call elections.

Washington's Role

The Trump administration's approach to post-Maduro Venezuela has defied expectations. Rather than working with the country's political opposition — which Washington had backed for years, including through its recognition of opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president from 2019 to 2023 — the administration chose to engage directly with Rodríguez.

That engagement has accelerated in recent weeks. The U.S. State Department last month recognized Rodríguez as the "sole Head of State" of Venezuela in an ongoing federal civil case. The U.S. Treasury Department followed last week by lifting the sanctions that had been imposed on her since 2018 during Trump's first term, when she and her brother were designated for their alleged role in undermining Venezuelan democracy. The delisting allows Rodríguez to work more freely with American companies and investors.

In a statement posted to her Telegram channel, Rodríguez expressed hope that the sanctions relief would lead to broader normalization. The White House called the move a sign of "progress" in bilateral efforts to promote stability and economic recovery.

The administration also formally reopened the U.S. Embassy in Caracas on March 30, the first time it has operated since 2019. Secretary of State Marco Rubio credited the interim authorities with progress but called for an eventual democratic transition, telling Al Jazeera that Venezuela needs "a stable, democratic government" to fulfill its economic potential.

A Familiar Playbook

Ronal Rodríguez, a researcher at the Venezuela Observatory at Colombia's Universidad del Rosario, said the ruling party has a history of using creative legal interpretations to maintain its grip on power. He predicted the government would likely offer an explanation for the lapsed deadline — perhaps citing the Good Friday holiday or disputing how the days were counted — and that any resolution would ultimately be rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, Rodríguez has moved to consolidate her position. She has reshuffled more than half of the cabinet she inherited from Maduro, replacing senior loyalists including his defense minister and attorney general. She approved an amnesty law and ordered the release of dozens of political prisoners, though the process remains incomplete. At a public event during Easter Week, she appeared alongside posters bearing the slogan "Delcy, move forward, you have my confidence" — displayed in blue and light tones rather than the red traditionally associated with the Chavismo movement.

The Treasury Department has also issued broad authorizations for Venezuela's state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela S.A., to sell crude directly to U.S. companies and on global markets, reversing years of restrictions on the country's energy sector. The opening has drawn interest from international investors and oil companies, though analysts note that meaningful capital commitments will likely require greater political and legal certainty than the current arrangement provides.

Elections Nowhere in Sight

Despite street protests by opposition parties demanding a new National Electoral Council and fresh elections, neither U.S. nor Venezuelan officials have publicly addressed a timeline for a vote. The question of when — or whether — elections will be called remains the central unresolved issue in a country whose institutional framework now rests on a three-page court ruling, the acquiescence of a party-controlled legislature, and the implicit backing of Washington.

Apitz, the legal scholar, put it bluntly: elections will happen when the United States decides they should. He noted that oil and mining companies are pushing for political certainty before making the large-scale investments Venezuela needs, and that those companies see a volatile social situation that could deteriorate without a democratic resolution. The constitutional clock, as Provea noted, is ticking — even if no one in power appears to be watching it.

Good morning everyone,

This is Atlas, and you’re reading the Bottom Line Up Front, where we cover the top geopolitical stories from around the world every Tuesday!

Today’s topics:

• Zelensky Hails Progress In Middle East Visit

• Israeli Gov Passes Death Penalty Law For Palestinians Who Killed Israelis

• Spain Closes Airspace To Any U.S. Military Aircraft

Zelensky Hails Progress In Middle East Visit

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (right) with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky in Jeddah on March 27, 2026. (Saudi Press Agency - AFP)

_{By: Atlas}

Volodymyr Zelensky flew back to Kyiv on Monday declaring his whirlwind tour of the Middle East a success — and with good reason. In four days, the Ukrainian president visited Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan, signing 10-year defense cooperation agreements with three Gulf states and opening discussions with at least three more. Ukraine, a country still fighting a ground war against Russia, has carved out an unexpected new role for itself: arms exporter and drone defense consultant to some of the wealthiest nations on earth.

"All agreements that will be legally formalized are extremely important for our country," Zelensky told reporters on Sunday. "Ukraine has never had such agreements with this region before."

The trip began Thursday in Saudi Arabia, where the kingdom's Ministry of Defense signed a memorandum of understanding covering defense procurement arrangements. Zelensky then flew to Abu Dhabi to meet UAE President Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, before continuing to Doha for meetings with Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani. In Qatar, defense ministers from both countries signed cooperation agreements covering defense industry projects and investment.

The tour concluded Sunday in Jordan, where Zelensky met with King Abdullah II. Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council Secretary, Rustem Umerov, remained in the region to continue negotiations, including fielding new requests from Bahrain and Oman.

What Ukraine Is Selling

The deals revolve around a specific Ukrainian advantage: cheap, battle-tested drone defense. Since Russia began deploying Iranian-designed Shahed drones against Ukrainian cities in 2022, Kyiv has developed a layered system of interceptor drones, electronic jamming equipment, and anti-aircraft guns that can neutralize incoming threats at a fraction of the cost of the Western air defense missiles that Gulf nations currently rely on.

Iran's retaliatory strikes against Gulf Arab states since the war began on February 28 created immediate demand for exactly these capabilities. Zelensky revealed last week that Ukrainian anti-drone specialists have already been deployed to five countries — the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and Jordan — to help counter Tehran's attacks. A Ukrainian team is also operating in Jordan.

Zelensky pitched the deals as more than simple arms sales. "Simple sales do not interest us," he said during a briefing with reporters. The agreements cover joint production facilities, technological partnerships, electronic warfare systems, software, and naval drones. Each deal runs for at least 10 years.

"We are exporting our defense system, the skills of our warriors, and the knowledge our state possesses," Zelensky said in his nightly video address Monday. "And from these countries — from our partners — we expect reciprocal security engagement."

The Hormuz Angle

Zelensky went further than drone defense, offering Ukrainian expertise on a problem that has rattled global energy markets for a month: the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has effectively shut down shipping through the waterway — which normally carries roughly 20 percent of the world's oil — in retaliation for the U.S.-Israeli air campaign.

Ukraine framed its experience keeping Black Sea shipping lanes open despite Russian attacks as directly relevant to the Gulf crisis. Zelensky said he discussed naval drone cooperation with Gulf partners and presented Ukraine's model for maintaining export corridors under fire.

"The experience of unblocking sea trade routes with the help of, among other things, sea drones — could this experience help unblock the Strait of Hormuz?" Zelensky said. "They know that they can count on our expertise in this area, and we spoke in detail about sharing our experience of the Black Sea corridor and how it functions."

Ukraine's Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha confirmed that Kyiv had received requests from partners specifically on maritime security and strait unblocking.

What Ukraine Wants in Return

The Gulf states possess large stockpiles of high-end Western air defense systems — the Patriot missiles and similar platforms that Ukraine desperately needs to counter Russian ballistic missile attacks. Zelensky has been explicit that the drone expertise going south is meant to bring missile defense capability back north.

Beyond hardware, the agreements include energy cooperation. Zelensky said he discussed diesel supplies with Gulf leaders, fuel that is critical for both Ukraine's military operations and its agriculture sector. "Without a doubt we are talking about energy support from the side of the leaders of Gulf nations," he said. "We are not just counting on this, we have agreements."

Zelensky also told reporters that Ukraine had received "no signals" from the United States about potential diversions of Western weapons from Ukraine to the Middle East — addressing weeks of speculation that the Iran war could drain NATO arsenals and reduce military support for Kyiv.

Russia is already benefiting from the Middle Eastern conflict. Global energy prices have surged since Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz, filling Moscow's coffers even as its war in Ukraine continues. Russia launched more than 270 drones and an Iskander ballistic missile at Ukraine over the weekend alone, killing at least five civilians.

The Bigger Picture

The Middle East tour positions Ukraine as something it has not been before: a defense partner to Gulf monarchies with resources and influence that Kyiv needs. The agreements give Ukraine revenue, diplomatic leverage, and potential access to energy supplies and advanced weapons systems. For the Gulf states, the deals bring proven drone defense technology at a moment when Iranian Shaheds are landing on their territory daily.

The visit also underscored a growing alignment between countries on the receiving end of Iranian and Russian drone warfare. Iran supplied Russia with the Shahed 136. Russia modified the design, began producing its own copies, and has launched thousands of them at Ukrainian cities over the past four years. Those same drones — or their Iranian originals — are now hitting targets across the Gulf.

Zelensky drew the connection explicitly. "Ukraine is being attacked with essentially the same strike drones as those used against countries in the Middle East and the Gulf region," he said. "The destabilization of global markets and the blocking of maritime routes have not left a single country unaffected."

The trip also raised questions about why the United States treats the Ukraine and Iran conflicts as separate problems. Gulf states appear to see them as linked — and are acting accordingly by partnering with the one country that has the most experience fighting both the drones and the countries that make them.

Israel, notably, has not shown Zelensky the same warmth the Gulf states extended. Despite facing the same Iranian drone threats, Jerusalem has maintained distance from Kyiv throughout the Russian invasion.

Zelensky briefed Finnish President Alexander Stubb on the trip's results Sunday, telling him the agreements could make "a significant contribution to security and stabilization." He said he was preparing communication formats with other European leaders and maintained contact with the American direction — his diplomatic shorthand for the Trump administration.

"For Ukraine, this is not only about prestige and respect for our people," Zelensky said Monday night. "This is a very concrete and practical matter." He said he found "great respect" for Ukraine across the region and a shared vision among Gulf leaders to work with Ukrainian experts. The deals are not yet fully finalized, but the framework is in place — 10-year agreements with three countries, active discussions with four more, and a Ukrainian drone defense network already operating across the Gulf.

Whether the arrangements hold will depend on how the Iran war unfolds, whether the Strait of Hormuz reopens, and whether the Gulf states follow through with the energy and defense reciprocity Zelensky is counting on. For now, Ukraine has turned four years of fighting Russia's drone war into a credential that the Middle East is willing to pay for.