All News (Page 374)

Bernard Looney, whose tenure as CEO of BP ended with him embattled in controversy, is entering the AI age as the new CEO of Wyoming-based Prometheus Hyperscale, leading a bevy of data center campus developments in the Cowboy State as well as the Lone Star state of Texas.

Looney, who pushed BP toward renewables in the energy transition, resigned suddenly from that company’s CEO post in 2023 amid a probe by the company into undisclosed personal relationships. Since then, BP has struggled financially, cutting costs and pivoting away from renewables and back to fossil fuels.

Coincidentally, BP’s new CEO takes over April 1. Meg O’Neill, the former Woodside Energy head, becomes the first-ever woman CEO of a Big Oil giant.

Looney became non-executive chair of Prometheus in late 2024. He takes over as CEO from the company’s founder, Trenton Thornock, who will remain a board member.

Prometheus is primarily focused on two flagship data center projects in Wyoming—in Evanston and Casper—with a combined initial capacity of 2.5 gigawatts, enough to power almost 2 million homes. The two projects are expected to cost more than $30 billion.

Prometheus is focused on speed of construction and on cleaner energy, utilizing a combination of behind-the-meter natural gas and battery storage to get projects completed and then utilize more wind, solar and even advanced nuclear power. The data centers are expected to use a proprietary geothermal cooling technology that doesn’t require water, according to the company.

“As artificial intelligence and digital technologies continue to reshape our world, it is crucial that we build the necessary infrastructure responsibly. This is the mission we have set ourselves,” Looney said in a statement, touting Prometheus being at the “forefront of next-generation data center development.”

Prometheus is backed by In-Q-Tel, the venture capital fund backed by the Central Intelligence Agency and the broader U.S. intelligence community, and others, and has power partnerships with Conduit Power, France’s Engie, Sam Altman-backed nuclear player Oklo, and more.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

As Donald Trump searches for an exit to the Iran war, the narrow Strait of Hormuz increasingly looks like a labyrinth in which the commander-in-chief has no good options. 

Any ceasefire or U.S. disengagement that cedes control of the strait risks creating new problems, including potentially triggering a nuclear arms race among Gulf states, experts say. But taking control of the strait militarily requires massive costs and risks, including a strategic invasion that comes short of occupying the country. Trump said March 31 he wants to leave Iran in two or three weeks, hours after he vented against allies to “Go get your own oil!”

Continuing with the status quo, meanwhile—in which the U.S. and Israel pound Iranian targets, while Iran charges multi-million dollar tolls to let select ships pass through the strait—could send the global economy into a recession.

“If this goes on for another two months, we’re in a global recession. There’s no way around it,” Jim Wicklund, a veteran oil analyst and managing director for PPHB energy investment firm, told Fortune, arguing the U.S. is staring down the barrel of a credit crash and sky-high inflation. 

Even a slight opening of the strait would bring only temporary relief. Oil and natural gas prices may fall as more traffic flows through the strait, but they would remain much higher than in February before the U.S. and Israel initiated the war, especially if Iran continues to charge a $2 million toll per vessel. “The whole world won’t stand for a long-term toll,” said Wicklund. “There will be a higher risk premium even if the strait opens tomorrow.”

The U.S. must either put “boots on the ground” to take control of the narrow strait—through which 20% of the world’s oil, liquefied natural gas, and petrochemicals pass—or make some kind of truce that’s unlikely to last, he said. “Trump has to do something, and he has to do something soon.”

Bob McNally, former White House energy adviser under George W. Bush and founder of the Rapidan Energy Group, took it a step further if the U.S. were to walk away without militarily seizing control of the strait.

“That would be a catastrophic setback for U.S. foreign policy interests that would, in my view, transcend even our defeat in Vietnam,” McNally told Fortune. “One would struggle to find a precedent or a parallel for what a defeat that would be.”

Where we are

More than a month into the slog of war, the average U.S. price for a gallon of regular gasoline rose above $4.00 on March 31 for the first time since 2022. California, Oregon, and Hawaii all exceeded $5.

And the impacts remain much worse in the rest of the world where supply shortages are mounting in Asia, and where Europe is now beginning to see scattered fuel shortfalls. This is where demand destruction escalates in April.

On March 30, Trump threatened “completely obliterating” Iranian power and water infrastructure if the strait is not opened—potentially a war crime. One day later, he lashed out at U.S. allies for not helping enough. “You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” he posted on social media.

“We leave because there’s no reason for us to do this,” Trump later told reporters at the White House. “We’ll be ‌leaving very soon.”

With Pakistan and now China increasingly serving as the negotiation mediators, they offered a five-point peace initiative March 31 that included a call to “restore normal passage through the strait as soon as possible.”

Rystad Energy chief economist Claudio Galimberti sees a tenuous peace as the most likely outcome in the coming weeks. After all, only about 5% of the typical traffic is passing through the strait, which is not sustainable.

“It would be a very fragile ceasefire. It’s very unstable,” Galimberti said.

If a ceasefire only allows 50% or less of traffic to resume, then “this would be a very high inflationary scenario” for the world with oil prices likely remaining above $100 per barrel, he said. If it’s almost fully opened under a tolling scenario, then prices would fall further, but still remain well elevated above February levels before the war.

That is why McNally and Wicklund see U.S. boots on the ground as more likely to see the military campaign through. They think Trump is frustrated, but mostly posturing for now.

“What I think is likely is we’re going to see an intensification of combined operations—air, sea, and land—to degrade Iran’s ability to threaten Hormuz traffic,” McNally said.

The doctrine effect

The alternatives are much worse, McNally argued.

“The Arab Gulf countries and Israel would not accept Iran’s long-term domination of Hormuz. I think it would make another conflict just a matter of time. And it’s a conflict the United States would likely get dragged [back] into,” McNally said. “I don’t think it’s a durable scenario where we just sort of leave and say, ‘Hey, cut your deals with Iran. They’re the toll keeper now. Good luck.’”

The geopolitical precedent also would prove awful, McNally said, effectively canceling the Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine. The 1980 Carter Doctrine said the U.S. would intervene militarily to protect its interests in the Middle East against external powers, which was in response to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. The 1981 Reagan Corollary, which came during the Iran-Iraq War, extended the doctrine but also pledged to secure internal stability in the Middle East, especially Saudi Arabia.

“We would be canceling the Reagan Corollary to the Carter Doctrine, and eventually, perhaps the doctrine itself,” he said. “I think eventually a China or Russia would want to step in there.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

As the bell rang out over the New York Stock Exchange on Tuesday afternoon, it was an unusually beautiful day: 71 degrees, sun pouring on the faces of people swarming through the city. After the brutal cold of winter, it felt like something of a miracle.

The markets had spent the day chasing one of their own.

Iran’s official news agency reported an unconfirmed phone call between President Masoud Pezeshkian and the European Council president, where Pezeshkian said Iran had the “necessary will” to end the war; provided that “essential conditions are met, especially the guarantees required to prevent repetition of the aggression.” The S&P went vertical immediately afterwards. It didn’t matter that Pezeshkian had said nearly the same thing on X earlier this month, or that it wasn’t even clear how big a development this was.

The Nasdaq still snapped back 795 points, recovering nearly half of its total drawdown over the course of the U.S.-Israeli-Iran war in a single day. The S&P soared 2.89%, representing $1.7 trillion alone, recovering about 30% of its total drawdown since the war began. The Ddow also soared 1,125 points. All three indexes had their biggest single-day signs since May.

The incredible thing about the rally today wasn’t the scale of it, but the fragility of what it was built on. 

It started Monday night, when the WSJ reported that Trump had told aides he was willing to end the military campaign against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz remained closed for the most part. Futures immediately rallied up something like 1.5%. But the same report noted that military options were still being considered, and if the U.S. drew out it would leave other nations to deal with the complex process of reopening the Strait, one of the world’s most critical oil chokepoints where 20% of the world’s oil flows out of.

Trump made his preference clear the next morning with a post calling on allies to gather up their “delayed courage” and deal with the Strait themselves.

 “Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done,” Trump wrote. “Go get your own oil!” Soon after, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine held a before-the-bel press conference, where they didn’t commit to either leaving the Strait or defending it, nor any sort of timeline on the war. But they said it was going well, and when the stock market opened, most of the major indexes were rallying above 1%.

Then the confusion began. On Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that talks with Iran were ‘continuing and going well,’ adding that ‘what is said publicly is, of course, much different than what’s being communicated to us privately.’ Then, Iran’s foreign ministry spokesperson said the opposite, that there had been in fact, no direct negotiations with the United States in 31 days of war, only ‘messages’ passed through intermediaries like Pakistan. But that wasn’t enough to dampen the high before Tuesday’s main event.

The oil market looked at the same information and reached a more sober conclusion. Brent crude settled upwards nearly 5% at $118.35 a barrel, its highest close since June 2022, after Bloomberg reported that Iran had struck a Kuwaiti oil tanker in Dubai waters. Oil said war, and stocks said peace, and both closed higher.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

President Donald Trump expressed frustration Tuesday with allies who have been unwilling to do more to support the U.S. war effort, telling them to “go get your own oil” as the conflict with Iran and its closure of the Strait of Hormuz sent average U.S. gas prices past $4 a gallon.

The social media post came after U.S. strikes hit the central city of Isfahan, sending a massive fireball into the sky, and Tehran attacked a fully loaded Kuwaiti oil tanker in the Persian Gulf.

The attacks showed the intensity of the war more than a month after the U.S. and Israel launched it. The conflict has left more than 3,000 dead and caused major disruptions to the world’s supply of oil and natural gas, roiling global markets and pushing up the cost of many basic goods.

Trump, who has vacillated between insisting there is progress in diplomatic talks with Iran and threatening to widen the war, had earlier shared footage of the attack on Isfahan.

Fuel prices rise, rattling global markets

Iran’s stranglehold on the strait, the waterway leading out of the Persian Gulf through which a fifth of the world’s oil is transported during peacetime, has driven up global oil prices, as have Tehran’s attacks on regional energy infrastructure.

Spot prices of Brent crude, the international standard, hovered around $107 a barrel Tuesday, up more than 45% since the war started Feb. 28.

Trump directed blame at U.S. allies like the United Kingdom and France that have refused to enter a war with no clear endgame that they were not consulted on.

“You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!” Trump wrote.

He singled out France for not letting planes fly over French territory while taking military supplies to Israel.

France has allowed the U.S. Air Force to use the Istres base in southern France because it had guarantees that planes landing there would not be involved in carrying out strikes.

Allies have refused to get involved

Spain, which has emerged as Europe’s loudest critic of the war, said Monday that it had closed its airspace for U.S. planes involved in the conflict.

Italy recently refused to allow U.S. military assets to use the Sigonella air base in Sicily for an operation linked to the offensive, an official with knowledge of the matter said, confirming a local press report. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto wrote on X that Italy is still allowing the U.S. to use its bases, adding that there has been no cooling of relations between the two countries.

Journalist kidnapped in Iraq identified

In Iraq, officials said an American journalist was kidnapped, and Iraqi security forces were pursuing her captors.

Al-Monitor, a regional news site covering the Middle East, identified the journalist kidnapped Tuesday in Baghdad as Shelly Kittleson, a freelancer who contributed to the publication. In a statement, Al-Monitor said it was “deeply alarmed” by her kidnapping and stands by her “vital reporting.”

Kittleson has been a longtime freelancer in the region, reporting extensively from Syria and Iraq.

Two cars were involved in the kidnapping, one of which crashed, and a person inside was apprehended. The car carrying the journalist fled, two Iraqi security officials said.

The U.S. State Department said the administration was closely tracking the reports but had nothing further to share. It was not immediately clear if the kidnapping was related to the Iran war.

US has not ruled out ground forces

Trump warned this week that if a ceasefire is not reached “shortly,” and if the strait is not reopened, the U.S. would broaden its offensive, including by attacking the Kharg Island oil export hub and possibly desalination plants.

Speaking at the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth would not say if U.S. ground forces would enter the war. “We don’t want to have to do more militarily than we have to,” he said.

A ground invasion could alienate Iranians who despise the ruling theocracy and who rose up in mass protests that were crushed earlier this year. Some could see it as an attack on Iran itself and rally around the flag.

A young anti-government activist in Iran said he plans to volunteer with the army if Trump follows through on such threats.

“If the idea of occupying islands or part of my country’s territory is implemented, I will definitely be available as a soldier to defend the Iranian nation,” said the 25-year-old resident of the northern town of Babol, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear for retribution.

Imprisoned Iranian Nobel laureate may have suffered heart attack

Supporters of imprisoned Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Narges Mohammadi said she may have suffered a heart attack.

The campaign for her release, citing fellow inmates at Zanjan Prison in northern Iran, said she was found unconscious last week. Mohammadi has a heart condition and suffered multiple heart attacks while imprisoned before undergoing emergency surgery in 2022, her supporters say.

“Despite this medical emergency, and evident indications of a heart attack, authorities refused to transfer Mohammadi to a hospital or allow her to visit a specialist,” the campaign said in a statement.

Mohammadi, 53, was awarded the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize for her decades of activism. She has campaigned for women’s rights and democracy, and against the death penalty.

Iran hits oil tanker as Israel strikes Iran and Lebanon

Israel and the U.S. launched a wave of strikes on Iran, hitting Tehran in the early morning.

The Israeli military said it had launched strikes targeting what it described as Hezbollah infrastructure in the Lebanese capital, Beirut. Defense Minister Israel Katz said Israel plans to control the area south of the Litani River — some 20 miles (about 30 kilometers) north of the border.

Israel invaded southern Lebanon after Hezbollah began launching missiles into northern Israel days after the outbreak of the wider war. Many Lebanese fear another prolonged military occupation.

An Iranian drone hit a Kuwaiti oil tanker off the United Arab Emirates city of Dubai, sparking a blaze that was later put out, the Dubai Media Office said. Authorities said no oil spill resulted.

Four people were wounded by debris from an intercepted drone in Dubai, air raid sirens sounded in Bahrain, while Saudi Arabia said it intercepted three ballistic missiles launched toward its capital. Loud explosions were also heard in Israel not long after the military warned of an incoming missile barrage from Iran.

In Iran, authorities say more than 1,900 people have been killed, while 19 have been reported dead in Israel.

Two dozen people have died in Gulf states and the occupied West Bank. In Lebanon, officials said more than 1,200 people have been killed, and more than 1 million displaced.

Ten Israeli soldiers have died in Lebanon, including the four announced Tuesday, while 13 U.S. service members have been killed.

___

Corder reported from The Hague, Netherlands, and Superville from Washington. David Rising in Bangkok, Abby Sewell and Sally Abou AlJoud in Beirut, Sylvie Corbet in Paris, Amir-Hussein Radjy in Cairo, Qassim Abdul-Zahra in Baghdad and Giada Zampano in Rome contributed to this report.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Credit delinquency rates are on the rise in states that have legalized sports betting, and it’s impacting Gen Z and millennials the most.

A new working paper from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found after sports betting was legalized in the U.S., delinquencies among the total population increased 0.3%. While that figure may appear small, when the Fed researchers analyzed the population of just those who participated in sports betting, delinquency rates rose by 10%. 

The New York Fed used an analysis of consumer credit data and defined delinquency rates as being 90 days past due on any credit purchase, such as auto loans or mortgage payments.

“Our findings suggest that sports betting can have dramatic implications for household financial stability,” the authors wrote.

In 2018, the Supreme Court struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act effective banning sports betting, opening the door for 40 states to legalize the practice in some form. Since then, participation in sports betting, particularly online, has exploded. Commercial gaming revenue hit a record $78.7 Billion in 2025, according to the American Gaming Association, a 9.2% year-over-year increase. Americans have wagered more than $520 billion on sports since the practice was legalized, and quarterly deposits have risen to $1,250 in 2025, compared to $500 five years ago, the Fed researchers found.

Millennials and Gen Z are particularly vulnerable to negative financial consequences as a result of sports betting. While 22% of Americans have an account with at least one online sportsbook, according to a 2025 Siena College Research Institute Survey, nearly half of men ages 18 to 49 have an account. People under 40 made up the largest share of individuals with credit delinquency, which rose to 26% after legalization, the Fed study found using “back-of-the-napkin” math.

The widespread financial consequences of sports betting

The New York Fed report adds to a growing base of literature showing the financial harms associated with sports betting. A working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2024 found household bests increased $1,100 per year in states with legal online sports betting, which was also associated with a 14% decrease in net investments, such as stocks.

A 2025 study analyzing University of California Consumer Credit Panel found average credit scores in states with legal online sports betting were slashed by about 2.7 points and increased the likelihood of bankruptcy by 10%.

“The various outcomes of delinquencies and credit scores [are] just kind of indicating that it seems to be leading to some harm among consumers,” Poet Larson, the study co-author and postdoctoral fellow at the Digital Data Design Institute at the Harvard Business School, told Fortune.

Larson speculates that sports betting has become so popular. Young people, to whom online sportsbooks are marketed toward and who have less accumulated weather than older generations, could be particularly at risk, he said.

These financial effects extend beyond states where sports betting is legal. The Fed study found significant spatial spillover effects, meaning delinquency rose in states where sports betting was illegal, but which bordered legal states. Spillover delinquency rose 0.2% compared to the 0.3% baseline, a result of individuals crossing borders in order to use online sports betting platforms in states where it is legal.

The future of legal sports betting

States that have not yet legalized sports betting may still see similar trends in financial insecurity for reasons beyond spillover effects. The rise in popularity of prediction markets, such as Kalshi—which are legal and regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as “designated contract markets”—have effectively created a national sports betting market.

A  Citizens JMP report published this month found that in users’ first three months on a prediction market platform, they lost more money proportionate to the amount wagered than on online sportsbooks like DraftKings or FanDuel.

Still, prediction markets are relatively untapped in the U.S., with just 3% of Americans and 8% of men ages 18 to 24 reporting using a platform in the past six months, according to a Ipsos survey of more than 2,3000 adults published this month. Larson suggested the impact of these emerging platforms on financial security with depend on how popular they become.

“Because you have so many people sports gambling, you can start to see appreciable financial harms,” Larson said. “For prediction markets…if it’s small, then we might see financial harm, but it may be kind of difficult to detect.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Forget the Fed. Forget nonfarm employment. Forget even industrial production and real income. For Jim Paulsen, the real recession indicator is watching Walmart.

Paulsen, the former chief investment strategist at investment research firm Leuthold Group, devised an indicator he dubs the “Walmart Recession Signal” (WRS), which tracks the stock price of Walmart against the S&P Global Luxury Index, a basket of 80 companies producing or distributing luxury goods. He said that since economic downturns are usually felt first by lower-income individuals, an increase in Walmart stock price could indicate a potential economic downturn.

Paulsen wrote in a Substack post that the indicator is now at its highest level since the 2008 Great Recession. “‘Walmart Worries’ just keep multiplying,” he wrote. “It’s currently close to the highest level ever recorded which was during the Great Financial Crisis of 2008-09.”

The central premise of the WRS is this: During economic downturns, consumers tend to shift their spending toward discount vendors like Walmart, and away from luxury retailers. It’s one way households cut down on costs when economic pressure is high. “As economic activity slows and recession risk builds, retailing purchasing patterns tend to gravitate toward discounters like Walmart and away from luxury retailers,” he wrote.

Walmart stock has climbed steadily over the past year, up over 40% year over year to $123.95 as of Tuesday afternoon. While the S&P Global Luxury Index is up over 7.7% year over year to $5,544.98, the price has fallen 13.6% since the beginning of the year.

The economy has sat in an increasingly precarious position as a string of back-to-back shocks has rattled it. A dismal February jobs report revealed the economy unexpectedly shed 92,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate crept up to 4.5%. The Iran war has only added to the economic pressure weighing on Americans as oil and fertilizer prices are skyrocketing. Gas prices just surpassed $4 a gallon. On top of that, the housing market faces a dire affordability crisis, and consumer sentiment remains grim. 

All of these factors are crystallizing into a greater likelihood of a recession. Moody’s Analytics just raised its recession outlook for the next 12 months to 48.6%. That follows an increase from Goldman Sachs, which sets the likelihood to 30%. And EY-Parthenon sets the odds of a recession at 40%.

“I’m concerned recession risks are uncomfortably high and on the rise,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “Recession is a real threat here.”

Walmart’s booming year and heightened recession odds

Walmart, which held the number one spot on the Fortune 500 for 13 years before it was overtaken by Amazon in February, has had a booming year. The company posted revenue of $190.7 billion last quarter, up 5.6% from a year ago. Revenue for the full year was up 4.7% to $713.2 billion. 

Paulsen said the WRS has had a close historical relationship with both annual real GDP growth and the unemployment rate. During successive economic downturns throughout the 90s and 21st century, the WRS rose before real GDP growth collapsed. He adds that every increase in unemployment has been preceded by an uptick in the WRS.

As for the causes of what’s impacting the WRS, Paulsen cites the cratering consumer sentiment, dismal job postings, the impact of the Iran war, among other factors. He also warns that instead of a public credit crisis, the economy may be facing a private credit crisis, as the WRS also has a close historical relationship with the value of private credit.

Yet Paulsen isn’t betting on a recession happening just yet, saying the U.S. may be in the clear this year. 

But he adds “I am becoming more convinced that a significant U.S. economic slowdown is unfolding that will ultimately require additional economic policy accommodation and lower interest rates to arrest.”

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

If you’d never heard of the Strait of Hormuz before, you probably have by now. Iran’s effective closure of the waterway, which usually carries about 20% of the world’s oil and gas, has put severe pressure on the global economy.

Now, some analysts are warning a new flashpoint could emerge: the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

That’s because on March 28, the Houthis, a military group that controls large parts of northern Yemen and is aligned with Iran, entered the war, launching missiles towards Israel for the first time since the war with Iran began.

Yemen is situated on one side of the strait, and the Houthis have previously attacked shipping in the Red Sea, causing major disruption in late 2023 and 2024.

Bloomberg now reports Iran has approached the Houthis to prepare for a similar campaign.

Here’s why all eyes will be back on the Houthis, Bab el-Mandeb and the Red Sea, and what disruption of a second major chokepoint could mean for the world economy.

What is the Bab el-Mandeb Strait?

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait is about 30 kilometres wide at its narrowest point. It is situated between Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula to the northeast and Eritrea and Djibouti in Africa on the west.

Its name literally means “Gate of Tears” in Arabic, after its famously treacherous sailing conditions.

It has become so important because, along with the Suez Canal in Egypt, it allows ships to transit directly between the Mediterranean Sea and the Indian Ocean by passing through the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden.

Before the Suez Canal’s opening in the 19th century, ships had to travel all the way around the southern tip of Africa to join these two points.

An oil tanker leaving Saudi Arabia to go to the Netherlands, for example, only has to travel 12,000 kilometres if it goes via the Red Sea, compared with more than 20,000 kilometres going south around Africa.

As you’d expect, that’s much faster too. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), a trip between the Arabian Sea and the Netherlands that takes 34 days the long way around is shortened to just 19 days.

What passes through it?

In normal times, as much as 14% of global maritime trade goes through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

Detailed data on what passes through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait is somewhat limited. But fossil fuels are a major component.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that in 2025 about 4.2 million barrels of crude oil and petroleum liquids crossed the Bab al-Mandeb Strait per day. That’s about 5% of global production.

Given most ships use the Suez Canal as well, official data from the Suez Canal Authority allow us to paint a detailed picture of Red Sea shipping.

In the final quarter of 2025, about 40% of the 3,426 ships passing through the Suez Canal transported fossil fuels: (1,330 oil tankers, 88 liquefied natural gas (LNG) ships).

Bulk and general cargo made up another 40% (1,339 ships), typically transporting agricultural commodities such as corn, wheat and soybeans, and also coal and iron ore. Container ships made about 13% of the traffic (459 ships).

Notably, total traffic through the Red Sea has declined considerably since Houthi attacks on shipping in late 2023 and 2024, even though these attacks have largely stopped.

Can the strait be closed?

The Bab el-Mandeb Strait can’t be “closed” entirely. Its narrowest point is still a considerably wide waterway. And unlike the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait is not a “cul-de-sac”, where the passage is closed at one end with only one way out. Ships can still exit to the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal.

That’s little comfort for those bound for Asia, which would then have to round Africa to do so, adding weeks to the journey.

Notably, Saudi Arabia had already built a “Plan B” to avoid the Strait of Hormuz, called the East-West pipeline. This pipeline connects Abqaiq in the north with Yanbu on the Red Sea, and had already begun pumping oil at almost full capacity in response to the conflict.

But oil bound for Asia from this new exit point still has to pass through Bab el-Mandeb to avoid the long way around, meaning it could be disrupted.

We’ve been here before

To get a sense of how the Houthis could disrupt shipping again, we can look to the most recent Red Sea crisis.

According to the International Maritime Organization (IMO), 67 incidents were recorded between November 2023 and September 2024. Some ships only suffered minor equipment damage. But others faced severe fires, flooding and structural damage after being hit by missiles or drones.

However, there have been relatively few attacks since 2024. And the strait was never totally “closed” per se: some ships continued to pass through throughout the crisis.

The mere threat of attacks

These same tactics would probably apply today. But for shipping companies, the mere threat of attacks may be enough to slow or restrict shipping. There are significant risks to civilian crew, who face a threat to life.

Adding to this, insurance costs could become prohibitive enough to close the route in practical terms. Back in 2024, insurance costs were about 0.6% of the value of the cargo on a ship. After the Red Sea crisis, this rose as high as 2%.

The effective closure of both the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb at the same time would be severely disruptive to global supply chains and the global economy.

Flavio Macau, Associate Dean – School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

While I was leading a tour of the National Air and Space Museum in January 2026, a visitor posed this insightful question: “Why has it taken so long to return to the Moon?”

After all, NASA had the know-how and technology to send humans to the lunar surface more than 50 years ago as part of the Apollo program. And, as another tour guest reminded us, computers today can do so much more than they could back then, as evidenced by the smartphones most of us carry in our pockets. Shouldn’t it be easier to get to the Moon than ever before?

The truth is that sending humans into space safely continues to be difficult, especially as missions increase in complexity.

New technologies require years of study, development and testing before they can be certified for flight. And even then, systems and materials can behave in ways that surprise and worry engineers and mission planners; look no further than Boeing’s Starliner CFT mission or the performance of the Orion heat shield on Artemis I.

Issues with Starliner’s thrusters led NASA to return the spacecraft from the International Space Station without its crew. Unanticipated chipping of the Orion heat shield resulted in years of research, culminating in NASA altering the atmospheric reentry plans for the Artemis II mission.

NASA’s programs also require sustained political will and financial support across multiple presidential administrations, Congresses and fiscal years. As a historian of human spaceflight, I have studied the space agency’s efforts to engage the broader public to convince American taxpayers that their programs hold value for the nation.

NASA is now on the eve of the first crewed flight to the Moon since the Apollo era: Artemis II. A crew of four will conduct a lunar flyby, laying the groundwork, the agency hopes, for a landing on the Artemis IV mission.

The story of NASA’s effort to return humans to the Moon is long and winding, demonstrating the complexities of turning grand ambitions into real missions.

Post-Apollo

In early 1970, with two successful Moon landings on the books, President Richard Nixon sought to reduce NASA’s budget to better align with his administration’s priorities. This decision put the space agency in a difficult position, which ultimately led to the cancellation of three planned Apollo missions to conserve funding for its plans for long-term human activity in low Earth orbit.

NASA repurposed the third stage of a Saturn V rocket to create the first U.S. space station, Skylab, which operated from 1973 to 1974. The space agency used leftover Saturn IB rockets and Apollo command and service modules to send crews to the station.

Over the next three decades, NASA developed and operated the space shuttle. The fleet of space shuttle orbiters supported satellite deployment and microgravity research on orbital missions of up to 17 days. This work was meant to enable future long-duration human missions and provide benefits to people on Earth. For example, data from protein crystal growth experiments have informed the development of medicines.

The space shuttle program facilitated the construction, maintenance and staffing of a continuously inhabited research platform in orbit, the International Space Station. The first modules launched in late 1998.

Where to next?

As the new millennium approached, the Clinton administration tasked NASA to think beyond the space station. What could robots and humans do next in space? And where could they do it? Notably, the White House expressed an interest in locations beyond low Earth orbit.

NASA, it turned out, was well positioned to meet the administration’s request. NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin was already thinking about preparing proposals for the next presidential administration and had recently sponsored a human lunar return study. In 1999, he established a team to investigate new technologies, missions and destinations for the 21st century.

This work took on new significance following the tragic loss of the space shuttle Columbia crew in February 2003. Many people, including those in the new George W. Bush White House, wondered whether the human spaceflight program should continue – and, if so, how.

Administration discussions culminated in Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration in 2004, which directed NASA to retire the space shuttle after the completion of the space station. It called for returning humans to the Moon on a crew exploration vehicle designed for destinations beyond low Earth orbit.

It also called for continuing robotic exploration of Mars and engaging companies and international partners in space. Fifteen years earlier, President George H. W. Bush had also announced a Moon and Mars exploration program, but congressional concerns about cost kept space travelers close to home.

The Constellation program’s legacy

In December 2004, NASA began the process of finding a manufacturer for the crew exploration vehicle. By August 2006, the space agency awarded Lockheed Martin the contract to build the capsule, which it had named Orion – the same Orion planned to carry Artemis astronauts to the Moon.

Years of research, development and testing followed for Orion as well as the Ares I crew and Ares V cargo launch vehicles. Together, these technologies made up the Constellation program.

Constellation had two primary objectives: in the near term, to help transport crew to and from the space station after the space shuttle program ended; in the long term, to enable human lunar exploration.

Building systems that could work in both Earth orbit and around the Moon was supposed to save the time and cost of developing two vehicles. Similarly, adapting space shuttle program hardware could supposedly cut costs.

During the first months of Barack Obama’s presidency in 2009, the administration initiated an independent review of NASA’s human spaceflight plans. The Augustine Committee, chaired by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine, found that the agency’s ambitions outstripped its limited budget, leading to significant delays. The first Orion spacecraft was likely to arrive after the space station ceased operations.

The committee proposed several paths forward at the current funding level, which prioritized space shuttle and space station programs. An additional annual investment of US$3 billion would allow for human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.

Ultimately, the Obama administration canceled Constellation, but two of its technologies lived on, thanks to U.S. senators from states that would have been affected by cuts.

The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 funded Orion’s continued development, shifting responsibility for space station crew transportation to commercial vehicles. It also directed NASA to develop the space launch system, a redesigned Ares V heavy booster, to send Orion to the Moon. The technical strategy had political benefits, too, preserving jobs in numerous congressional districts by providing continuity for aerospace contractors.

In December 2014, a Delta IV heavy rocket launched the first Orion capsule on a test flight, providing engineers with data on spacecraft systems and the heat shield. By October 2015, the space launch system had completed a critical design review, the last step before manufacturing could begin.

Introducing Artemis

In December 2017, the new Trump administration issued a policy directive shifting the focus of NASA’s human spaceflight program back to the Moon. The space agency would use Orion and the space launch system in a race to meet an ambitious 2024 landing date. NASA officially named the program Artemis in May 2019.

The 25-day Artemis I mission, launched in November 2022, was a major milestone for the program. This uncrewed flight was the first flight of the space launch system and the first to integrate SLS and Orion. It laid the groundwork for Artemis II, which will be the first crewed flight of the SLS.

Over more than 50 years, each new presidential administration has reassessed the place of spaceflight among its priorities, either encouraging or curtailing NASA’s efforts to return humans to the lunar surface.

Each crewed flight requires the alignment of technical expertise, political will and financial support over years if not decades. For the space fans who plan to watch the Artemis II launch, the wait for countdown may feel long. But it’s just a blink in NASA’s long journey back to the Moon.

Emily A. Margolis, Curator of Contemporary Spaceflight, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Every society in human history, regardless of geography, language, or economic system, has had to answer the same question: how do you build something with people whose commitment has to be earned?

The answer is trust. It is what makes two strangers decide to do business, compels an employee to give more than what is required, and draws a customer back when they have a reason to walk away. At a time when trust in institutions is at an all-time low, it remains the most valuable asset any institution can hold. Trust is also most fragile at the exact moment innovation is moving fastest, and when the pressure to be the first mover is at its peak.

We live and breathe this reality every minute of every day. One in four Americans has a Synchrony credit card – putting Synchrony at the center of real, everyday financial moments: a broken refrigerator, an unexpected medical bill, a purchase that can’t wait. Every one of those moments is a real decision, for both the customer and us. We either earn their trust, or we lose it, and in financial services, there are no neutral outcomes.

The foundation of Synchrony’s business is trust. We trust consumers by responsibly extending credit so they can buy the things they want and need. We are trusted by our partners to help grow their businesses by underwriting consumers responsibly, without overextending them. And, we are trusted as a means for millions of Americans to build their credit.

We’re excellent at managing credit risk and underwriting. Yet, we disrupted ourselves because we know credit is about more than a single transaction – it can be transformational.

It would have been easy to protect what we were good at, but, instead, we saw a system that could be improved to give more people access to credit. With that in mind, we built PRISM, our proprietary underwriting system that leverages alternative data to expand credit access for people traditional models leave behind. Through this work, Synchrony’s PRISM played a key role, and we’ve approved more than 180 million accounts since January 2018.

If PRISM is about using better data to make smarter decisions, AI is enhancing those decisions at a scale and speed unimaginable a decade ago. That willingness to challenge what we were already good at is the same lens we bring to artificial intelligence. It’s reshaping how we work, how we serve customers, and how we compete.

Even so, technology alone doesn’t create value; it is ultimately people who identify opportunities to build trust. AI helps us scale those insights, act on them faster, and deliver better outcomes. It’s a partnership: people create the vision; technology helps bring it to life.

The model only works, though, when the people running it feel trusted enough to use it well. At Synchrony, 92% of employees say management trusts them without constant oversight. That trust fuels better ideas, faster action, and a culture of continuous improvement.

When employees feel trusted, they also feel accountable. It allows them to try something new. Innovation, including having the freedom, expectation, and permission to experiment with new tools – including AI – creates better outcomes for our partners and consumers. That’s the environment we work every day to create at Synchrony – never getting comfortable, always looking for ways to improve.

We demonstrate this in how we work—and where. We never mandated a return to office, instead offering in-person collaboration. At our Stamford headquarters, the majority of our employees are coming in because they recognize the value they unlock and the connections they build when in person. And, our New York City Experience Center inspires hundreds of partners and employees, serving as a physical manifestation of what’s possible when you bring people, partners, and technology together. It’s not only an office for employees, but an expression of innovation.

While challengers will always exist, we all need to focus on what matters most: continuous improvement for our employees, partners, and consumers, centered around building trust. It’s how Synchrony has risen in the Great Place to Work rankings from #37 in 2021 to the top three. This is how we create value not only for our shareholders but for society.

In the end, innovation is about maintaining the conditions that make trust possible. And the companies that get it right, consistently, are the ones that will endure.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com