Yen on High Alert After Japan's Intervention Warning

Alexander

Central Bank

Remarks of Officials

Traders' Opinions

Political

Economic

Forex

Summary:

Japan signals yen intervention as US Fed rate checks spark joint action speculation, rattling global markets.

Foreign exchange traders are bracing for a volatile week after Japan’s government issued a clear signal that it may intervene to halt the yen's recent slide. Officials warned that speculative currency moves have gone too far, putting the market on notice for direct action.

Prime Minister Takaichi Sanae stated that the government is prepared to act if trading becomes "speculative and abnormal." This comment immediately shifted market sentiment after weeks of one-sided bets against the Japanese currency.

Tensions escalated late Friday when reports surfaced that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York had contacted financial institutions to inquire about the yen exchange rate. That move alone was enough to rattle traders. Earlier the same day, Japan’s top currency official had pointedly refused to confirm whether Tokyo had conducted its own rate check, deepening the uncertainty.

Fed 'Rate Checks' Trigger Sharp Yen Rebound

Talk of intervention intensified as news of the New York Fed’s calls spread. Michael Brown at Pepperstone noted that rate checks are often the final warning before authorities step into the market. He added that the Takaichi administration has shown less tolerance for speculative currency moves than previous governments.

This message forced a rapid reassessment among traders who had accumulated massive short positions on the yen, which had grown to their largest level in over a decade. The currency reacted violently, reversing a decline and surging by as much as 1.75% to 155.63 per dollar. The move marked the yen's biggest single-day gain since August, catching many short sellers off guard.

Tokyo's Firm Line on 'Abnormal' Market Moves

Prime Minister Takaichi reiterated her stance during a televised debate on Sunday. While acknowledging that exchange rates are determined by the market, she emphasized that "all necessary steps would be taken to deal with speculative and highly abnormal moves."

Although she did not specify a market, officials have recently highlighted risks associated with both the yen and Japanese government bond yields. The bond market had already flashed warning signs last week, with yields on the longest-dated bonds jumping to record highs before retreating. This convergence of currency volatility and rising debt costs has increased pressure on policymakers.

Nick Twidale of AT Global Markets advised caution ahead of Monday's trading open, suggesting the yen could trade near the 155-per-dollar level, a new focal point after last week's sharp reversal.

Is Coordinated US-Japan Intervention on the Table?

The yen’s recovery began shortly after Bank of Japan Governor Kazuo Ueda's press conference on Friday. It gained momentum during the U.S. trading session as Wall Street interpreted the Fed’s rate checks as a precursor to a possible joint intervention. Some traders even began pricing in the possibility of U.S. participation.

Twidale noted that while the underlying desire to short the yen remains, traders will proceed with caution given the official warnings. He stressed that confirmed U.S. involvement would have significant ripple effects across global markets.

This has led to comparisons with the 1985 Plaza Accord, where major economies coordinated to weaken the U.S. dollar. According to New York Fed data, the U.S. has only intervened in currency markets three times since 1996. The most recent instance was in 2011, when G7 nations jointly sold the yen to stabilize markets following Japan's earthquake.

Anthony Doyle at Pinnacle Investment Management argued that Japan would struggle to support the yen alone without causing domestic or global fallout, making coordination a more viable strategy. He said that inquiries from the U.S. Treasury typically indicate the situation has escalated beyond routine market fluctuations.

Politics and Key Price Levels to Watch

Japan has a recent history of direct intervention, having spent nearly $100 billion buying yen in 2024. Those four interventions all occurred near the 160 yen-per-dollar level, establishing it as an unofficial line in the sand.

Homin Lee at Lombard Odier said that authorities must take real action to anchor the USD/JPY exchange rate, noting that a joint move by Japan and the U.S. would be a powerful signal of direct coordination.

Political factors are also at play. Lee pointed out that 160 is a psychologically important level ahead of Japan's snap lower-house election scheduled for February 8. Prime Minister Takaichi's campaign pledge to cut food taxes has already unsettled the debt market, pushing the 40-year bond yield above 4% for the first time since its introduction in 2007.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

The Post-2003 Financial Architecture

More than twenty years after the U.S.-led invasion, Iraq’s oil revenues remain deeply embedded in a financial framework shaped by Washington. Following the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s government in 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority established the Development Fund for Iraq, with all oil export revenues deposited into an account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. This arrangement was formalized through an executive order signed by George W. Bush and renewed by every subsequent U.S. administration.

Over time, the Development Fund was transformed into an account formally held by the Central Bank of Iraq at the Federal Reserve. While Iraqi authorities regained administrative control over budget execution, the location of these funds ensured that ultimate oversight of oil-derived dollar flows remained in U.S. hands. Given that oil revenues account for roughly 90% of Iraq’s state budget, this structure created a persistent channel of influence.

Why Oil Revenue Custody Matters

The significance of this arrangement lies not in ownership of the oil itself, but in control over the financial system that converts crude exports into usable dollars. By hosting Iraq’s reserves, Washington retains the ability to monitor, delay, or restrict access to funds. This leverage has translated directly into political influence. In 2020, when Baghdad called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, officials cited by Reuters reported that Washington considered limiting Iraq’s access to its account at the Fed, after which Iraq’s stance softened.

According to Toby Dodge of the London School of Economics, this mechanism represents a form of soft power comparable in effect to military presence. By influencing liquidity, imports, and currency stability, the United States can shape economic outcomes without direct intervention.

Stability Benefits And Hidden Trade-Offs

The arrangement has not been without advantages for Iraq. Iraqi officials have acknowledged to Reuters that holding reserves at the Fed helps maintain international confidence, facilitates access to dollars for trade, and shields oil revenues from legal claims by creditors linked to the pre-2003 era. The International Monetary Fund noted in a 2023 report that this custody framework supported exchange-rate stability and reduced systemic risk while Iraq’s banking sector remained fragile.

However, these benefits come with structural constraints. As U.S. authorities intensified scrutiny of dollar flows to enforce sanctions against Iran, Iraq found itself increasingly exposed. Washington expanded oversight and imposed penalties on Iraqi banks accused of allowing dollars to reach sanctioned entities, effectively tightening control over Iraq’s financial arteries.

The Dollar Auction And Market Distortions

For years, the Central Bank of Iraq relied on daily dollar auctions to supply foreign currency to the economy. Under U.S. pressure, this mechanism was terminated in early 2025, marking a major shift in Iraq’s monetary operations. While the move aimed to curb illicit dollar leakage, it also reduced the availability of official dollars, contributing to a widening gap between the official exchange rate and the black-market rate.

This development illustrates a clear causal relationship between external financial control and domestic economic stress. As official dollar access shrank, parallel markets expanded, raising transaction costs, fueling inflation, and eroding household purchasing power.

Why Iraq Cannot Easily Break Free

Despite growing political emphasis on economic sovereignty, analysts argue that a clean break from the Fed-centered system is unlikely in the near term. Iraq’s economy remains heavily dependent on oil exports priced in dollars, and alternative reserve arrangements would struggle to offer comparable legal protection and market credibility.

Energy analyst Ben Cahill has argued that as long as Iraq relies on oil and the dollar-based global financial system, it will continue to accept a trade-off between stability and autonomy. The current framework, while limiting sovereignty, provides predictability in an otherwise volatile regional environment.

A Legacy Of War That Still Shapes The Present

The U.S. grip on Iraq’s oil revenues is not simply a technical financial arrangement but a lasting legacy of the 2003 invasion. By embedding Iraq’s most vital income stream within the U.S. financial system, Washington secured a form of influence that has endured long after troop levels declined.

Today, control over oil revenues functions as a quiet but powerful constraint on Iraqi policymaking. It demonstrates how modern power is often exercised not through territory or troops, but through financial infrastructure that continues to shape state behavior decades after the original conflict has ended.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Political

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Abu Dhabi Talks As A Diplomatic Turning Point

According to U.S. officials cited by Axios, recent negotiations in Abu Dhabi involving delegations from the United States, Russia, and Ukraine have moved the conflict into a more advanced diplomatic phase. These discussions are widely seen as a necessary preparatory step toward any potential face-to-face meeting between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky.

One U.S. official indicated that the process is now “very close” to enabling a direct encounter between the two leaders, provided upcoming meetings continue to build on the current trajectory. Another official noted that successful trilateral engagement could eventually pave the way for negotiations to be hosted in Kyiv or Moscow, underscoring growing confidence in the diplomatic channel.

Structure And Substance Of The Negotiations

The most recent round of talks took place over two days, January 23 and 24, in Abu Dhabi. According to sources cited by RBC-Ukraine, the first day functioned largely as an introductory session, while the second day moved into expanded discussions before splitting into two focused working groups: one political and one military.

The military track appears to have generated the most tangible progress so far. Discussions concentrated on ceasefire mechanics, including whether troop withdrawals would be required, how a ceasefire could be monitored, how hostilities might be formally halted, and the potential establishment of a joint monitoring and coordination center. Talks also examined which countries could participate in overseeing any ceasefire arrangement.

Ceasefire Mechanics Before Political Decisions

While progress was reported on military-technical issues, sources emphasized that no concrete decisions have yet been made regarding territorial questions. This sequencing suggests a deliberate approach in which ceasefire implementation and verification mechanisms are addressed first, before moving on to politically sensitive issues.

The military working group reportedly agreed to prepare concrete proposals outlining next steps toward a ceasefire within one week, ahead of the next scheduled round of talks.

Next Steps And Prospects For A Leaders’ Meeting

Axios reports that the next trilateral meeting is expected to take place on February 1, again in Abu Dhabi. U.S. officials view this upcoming round as critical in determining whether conditions will be sufficiently stable and structured to justify a direct meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian presidents.

If momentum is maintained, the emerging diplomatic process could mark the most serious movement toward de-escalation since the conflict began. While a Putin–Zelensky meeting is not yet confirmed, the current negotiations indicate that such an encounter is no longer viewed as a distant or hypothetical possibility, but as a realistic next phase in the peace process.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Julia Daniels

Cryptocurrency

Central Bank

Remarks of Officials

Stocks

Traders' Opinions

Political

Economic

Forex

The Federal Reserve is widely expected to hold interest rates steady at its upcoming meeting, but that doesn't mean markets will be quiet. The real action will be at Chairman Jerome Powell's press conference, where his commentary could spark significant moves across stocks, crypto, and currency markets.

Traders will be dissecting Powell's every word for clues about the Fed's future plans and his views on pressing economic issues, including President Donald Trump's affordability policies and challenges to the central bank's independence. Here’s a breakdown of what’s priced in and what could trigger the next big market swing.

A Rate Hold Is Almost a Certainty

After three consecutive quarter-point cuts, the Fed is signaling a pause. Markets are aligned with this outlook, with CME's FedWatch tool showing a 96% probability that the federal funds rate will remain in its current 3.5%-3.75% range.

This aligns with guidance from Chairman Powell in December, when he suggested the committee would hold off on further cuts into 2026. Reinforcing this stance, Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari, a voting member this year, recently told The New York Times it is "way too soon" for another rate cut.

Barring a major surprise, the rate announcement itself is shaping up to be a non-event. An unexpected cut could cause the dollar to fall sharply while boosting assets like Bitcoin and stocks, but few are betting on that outcome.

The Key Question: A Hawkish or Dovish Pause?

With a rate hold all but guaranteed, the focus shifts to the tone of the Fed's message. Traders need to know if this is a temporary, "dovish" pause before more cuts, or a firm, "hawkish" halt driven by persistent inflation concerns.

• A Hawkish Pause: If Powell emphasizes lingering inflation risks, it would dampen expectations for future rate cuts and likely put downward pressure on risk assets.

• A Dovish Pause: If the Fed signals that further easing is still on the table for the coming months, it could provide a lift to Bitcoin and equity markets.

Morgan Stanley analysts anticipate a more dovish signal. They believe the Fed will retain key wording in its policy statement—"considering the range and timing for further adjustments"—to keep the door open for future easing. The statement is expected to acknowledge economic strength while preserving this flexibility.

The number of dissenting votes will also be critical. Stephen Miran, an appointee of President Trump, is expected to dissent in favor of an aggressive 50-basis-point cut. If more committee members join him, it would strengthen the case for future easing and support risk assets.

Currently, most market observers expect one or two rate cuts later this year. JPMorgan stands as a notable outlier, predicting no rate changes in 2024, followed by a hike next year.

Powell Under Pressure: Trump, Inflation, and Politics

Chairman Powell will likely face tough questions on the Fed's rationale for holding rates steady, especially given the performance of U.S. markets and economic activity.

According to analysts at ING, Powell will have a hard time arguing that financial conditions are too restrictive. This stance could "pour cold water on the notion of a second Fed rate cut," potentially strengthening the U.S. dollar against currencies like the yen and euro. For greenback-denominated assets like Bitcoin, a stronger dollar typically acts as a headwind.

Trump's Affordability Policies in Focus

Powell's commentary on President Trump's recent housing affordability measures could inject further volatility into the markets. Trump recently announced he has directed his representatives to purchase $200 billion in mortgage bonds to lower interest rates. He also issued an executive order to limit large institutional investors from buying single-family homes.

Market observers believe these policies could be inflationary in the short term. Allianz Investment Management noted that the mortgage-backed securities purchase could "risk pulling forward demand, inflating prices and skewing benefits toward incumbents." Meanwhile, Trump's tariffs are already expected to have a delayed inflationary impact this year as higher import costs work their way through the supply chain.

Finally, Powell may be questioned about a DOJ investigation targeting him personally, which he has characterized as politically motivated, and recent volatility in the bond market. He is expected to avoid commenting on the probe while aiming to calm any fears about bond market instability.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

King Ten

Remarks of Officials

Middle East Situation

Latest news on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Palestinian-Israeli conflict

Political

Top US officials met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday to advance the second phase of the Trump administration's peace plan for Gaza. The discussions come amid ongoing tensions and a fragile ceasefire that has failed to stop the bloodshed.

The American delegation included Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Senior Advisor Jared Kushner, and White House advisor Josh Gruenbaum. Their primary goal is to implement the next stage of a 20-point peace plan, which involves a series of critical steps designed to stabilize the region.

Key components of this second phase include the reopening of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, a further withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, and the transfer of the enclave's administration from Hamas to a committee of Palestinian technocrats. Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by Israel, the US, and several other nations.

US Delegation Pushes for Progress

Following the meeting, Witkoff stated that the US and Israel are "advancing together in close partnership" on the peace process. In an online post, he described the relationship as "strong and longstanding" and called the discussions with Netanyahu "constructive and positive."

Witkoff confirmed that both sides are aligned on the next steps and underscored "the importance of continued cooperation on all matters critical to the region."

According to a report from Israeli news site Ynet, which cited an unnamed Israeli official, Witkoff specifically pressed Israel to reopen the Rafah border crossing, a central and contentious element of the plan.

The Rafah Crossing: A Diplomatic Flashpoint

The Rafah crossing is a critical lifeline for the more than 2 million Palestinians living in Gaza, which has been devastated by two years of war. Israel's control of the crossing, which it seized in May 2024, created a major diplomatic rift with neighboring Egypt. After a brief withdrawal in January 2025, the IDF reoccupied it in March of the same year.

The issue remains a high priority for Egypt. On Sunday, the country's Foreign Ministry announced that top diplomat Badr Abdelatty had raised the need to reopen the crossing with US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau.

There are signs of potential movement. Ali Shaath, who is slated to chair the 15-member committee of Palestinian technocrats intended to govern Gaza, said on Thursday that he expects the crossing to reopen next week.

Israel's Stance: Hostage Return a Prerequisite

Despite US pressure, Netanyahu's government maintains a firm precondition for entering the second phase of the deal: the return of all hostages from Gaza.

The issue is focused on the remains of Ran Gvili, the last of the 251 Israelis taken hostage during the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023. Gvili's family has been actively pressuring the administration to secure the return of his body before any further peace steps are taken.

On Wednesday, Hamas claimed it had provided ceasefire mediators with "all information" it possessed regarding Gvili's remains. The group also accused Israel of obstructing search efforts in areas it controls within Gaza. According to an anonymous US official cited by the AP, the visiting American delegation has been working closely with Netanyahu on this specific issue.

Fragile Ceasefire Overshadowed by Violence

The first phase of the peace plan established a ceasefire that took effect on October 10 of last year. This initial stage also involved the withdrawal of Israeli forces to a designated "yellow line" inside Gaza and the return of all living Israeli hostages.

However, the truce has not ended the violence. According to health authorities in Gaza, whose figures are considered reliable by the United Nations, at least 480 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since the ceasefire began. In the same period, Israel has reported that four of its soldiers have been killed by militants.

Israeli forces often state they open fire on individuals approaching or trying to cross the "yellow line," or during operations targeting militants. In contrast, local civil and health authorities frequently report that the majority of those killed are civilians.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

King Ten

Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Remarks of Officials

A landmark security agreement between the United States and Ukraine is "100% ready" and awaiting a final sign-off, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy announced on Sunday. Speaking from Vilnius, Lithuania, Zelenskiy indicated that recent negotiations with Russia in Abu Dhabi have yielded some progress.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy addresses the media in Vilnius, Lithuania, on January 25, 2026.

"For us, security guarantees are first and foremost guarantees of security from the United States," Zelenskiy stated during a news conference. "The document is 100% ready, and we are waiting for our partners to confirm the date and place when we will sign it."

Following the signing, the pact will require ratification from both the U.S. Congress and Ukraine's parliament to take effect.

Progress in Abu Dhabi Peace Talks

Zelenskiy's comments came after Ukrainian and Russian negotiators met for US-mediated talks in Abu Dhabi on Friday and Saturday. While the meeting did not result in a final deal to end the nearly four-year conflict, it marked a step forward in dialogue.

According to a U.S. official, both Moscow and Kyiv have expressed openness to further discussions, with more talks anticipated in Abu Dhabi next Sunday.

The negotiations centered on a 20-point framework proposed by Washington. "The 20-point (U.S.) plan and problematic issues are being discussed," Zelenskiy explained. "There were many problematic issues, but now there are fewer."

Territorial Integrity Remains a Sticking Point

Despite the positive momentum, fundamental disagreements persist. Zelenskiy noted that Moscow continues to push for Ukraine to cede its eastern regions, which Russia has failed to capture since its full-scale invasion.

Kyiv's position remains firm: Ukraine's territorial integrity must be upheld.

"These are two fundamentally different positions – Ukraine's and Russia's," Zelenskiy said, highlighting the challenge for mediators. "The Americans are trying to find a compromise." He added that a resolution would require all parties, including the United States, to be prepared to compromise.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

From Strategic Entry To Structural Exposure

Nearly two decades ago, China moved decisively into Venezuela’s oil sector after U.S. majors were expelled during the nationalization campaign under Hugo Chávez. At that moment, Beijing capitalized on political alignment, financing constraints, and Caracas’ need for external partners, gradually securing access to more than 4.4 billion barrels of oil reserves. This volume is nearly five times larger than the holdings of Chevron, the sole major U.S. oil company that retained a presence in the country.

China’s strategy rested on long-term production agreements, infrastructure investment, and a debt-repayment model anchored in oil shipments. For years, this structure allowed Venezuela to bypass sanctions pressure while giving China discounted crude and strategic leverage in Latin America.

That architecture is now under strain as Washington reasserts control over Venezuela’s energy flows.

Political Reset And The End Of Discounted Oil

The removal of Nicolás Maduro in early January marked a decisive turning point. Shortly after, U.S. President Donald Trump publicly signaled that China could continue purchasing Venezuelan oil, but only at market prices. This effectively dismantled the opaque discount mechanisms that had defined Sino-Venezuelan oil trade under sanctions.

While higher prices alone do not materially disrupt China’s energy security, they eliminate a key economic advantage that justified years of political risk and capital deployment. More importantly, Beijing’s concern now centers on production rights and reserve ownership rather than short-term import costs.

Production Rights Versus Reserve Reality

Chinese state firms such as China National Petroleum Corporation and Sinopec control assets concentrated in Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt and offshore zones like the Gulf of Paria. These areas are geologically challenging, characterized by extra-heavy crude that requires high capital intensity and advanced upgrading capacity.

Despite holding massive reserves, Chinese operators account for only about 15 percent of Venezuela’s total oil output. This discrepancy reflects operational inefficiencies at PdVSA, whose declining performance under Maduro constrained joint venture output. As a result, reserve ownership did not translate into proportional production control.

This imbalance now exposes China to political risk without the buffer of operational dominance.

Debt-Oil Mechanism Under Threat

For Beijing, the deeper shock lies in the potential unraveling of the oil-for-debt model. Venezuela owes China more than 10 billion USD, much of it structured around future oil deliveries. If Washington’s renewed oversight restructures export channels and revenue collection, these arrangements may lose legal or logistical viability.

This risk is causal rather than merely correlated. If the U.S. controls the monetization process of Venezuelan oil, then China’s repayment mechanism weakens regardless of reserve size. In that scenario, past investments convert from strategic assets into stranded exposures.

Limited Energy Impact, Significant Strategic Signal

From an energy security perspective, Venezuela remains marginal for China. Venezuelan crude represents a small fraction of China’s daily oil imports of roughly 11 million barrels. Even a complete disruption would not materially affect domestic supply.

The strategic signal, however, is far larger. Venezuela was one of China’s most visible examples of converting geopolitical alignment into long-term resource control. The current reversal highlights the limits of that model when U.S. financial and political leverage re-enters the equation.

Signs Of Quiet Retrenchment

Recent developments suggest Beijing is adjusting rather than confronting. Last year, Sinopec quietly agreed to sell part of its Venezuelan assets to Amos Global Energy Management, led by former Chevron executive Ali Moshiri. The deal’s terms were not disclosed, but it signaled a partial de-risking of exposure.

At the same time, smaller Chinese firms continue limited engagement, including new drilling projects on Lake Maracaibo, and Chinese exports of oilfield equipment to Venezuela have risen. This indicates tactical flexibility rather than wholesale withdrawal.

Why The U.S. Is Unlikely To Push China Out Completely

According to analysts such as Parsifal D’Sola Alvarado, Washington’s objective is not to expel China but to control flows. As long as oil revenues and export mechanisms fall under U.S. oversight, Chinese participation may be tolerated.

This mirrors patterns seen elsewhere, including Argentina, where governments critical of China have nonetheless allowed Chinese economic activity to continue when it does not undermine Western financial control.

A Strategic Lesson For Beijing

China’s 4.4 billion-barrel exposure in Venezuela illustrates a broader structural lesson. Reserve access alone does not guarantee strategic security when revenue channels, pricing power, and political legitimacy are externally controlled. In the Venezuelan case, the shift in power dynamics has transformed what once looked like a long-term energy triumph into a reminder of how quickly geopolitical conditions can redefine asset value.

In the evolving global energy order, Venezuela stands as a cautionary chapter in China’s overseas resource strategy rather than a decisive defeat.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Recent Searches

Top Searches

Markets

News

Analysis

User

24/7

Economic Calendar

Education

Data

Yen on High Alert After Japan's Intervention Warning

Fed 'Rate Checks' Trigger Sharp Yen Rebound

Tokyo's Firm Line on 'Abnormal' Market Moves

Is Coordinated US-Japan Intervention on the Table?

Politics and Key Price Levels to Watch

How the United States Has Retained Leverage Over Iraq’s Oil Revenues for More Than Two Decades

The Post-2003 Financial Architecture

Why Oil Revenue Custody Matters

Stability Benefits And Hidden Trade-Offs

The Dollar Auction And Market Distortions

Why Iraq Cannot Easily Break Free

A Legacy Of War That Still Shapes The Present

Putin–Zelensky Direct Talks Edge Closer as Negotiations Gain Momentum

Abu Dhabi Talks As A Diplomatic Turning Point

Structure And Substance Of The Negotiations

Ceasefire Mechanics Before Political Decisions

Next Steps And Prospects For A Leaders’ Meeting

Fed Rate Decision: Why Powell's Words Are the Real Show

A Rate Hold Is Almost a Certainty

The Key Question: A Hawkish or Dovish Pause?

Powell Under Pressure: Trump, Inflation, and Politics

US Presses Israel on Next Phase of Gaza Peace Deal

US Delegation Pushes for Progress

The Rafah Crossing: A Diplomatic Flashpoint

Israel's Stance: Hostage Return a Prerequisite

Fragile Ceasefire Overshadowed by Violence

Zelenskiy: US Security Deal for Ukraine is 100% Ready

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy addresses the media in Vilnius, Lithuania, on January 25, 2026.

Progress in Abu Dhabi Peace Talks

Territorial Integrity Remains a Sticking Point

China’s 4.4 Billion-Barrel Setback: How Venezuela Became A Strategic Shock For Beijing

From Strategic Entry To Structural Exposure

Political Reset And The End Of Discounted Oil

Production Rights Versus Reserve Reality

Debt-Oil Mechanism Under Threat

Limited Energy Impact, Significant Strategic Signal

Why The U.S. Is Unlikely To Push China Out Completely

A Strategic Lesson For Beijing

Risk Disclosure