Global (Page 51)

Iran and the United States are heading back to the negotiating table over Tehran’s nuclear program under a fragile new framework that halted direct fighting, reopened the Strait of Hormuz, lifted the American naval blockade, and established a 60-day ceasefire window for negotiations, with a formal signing expected in Geneva.

What makes this round of diplomacy different is the mindset on the Iranian side. After roughly four months of conflict that began in late February, Iran’s government remains in power despite extensive military strikes, economic pressure, and the loss of senior military leaders. While the war inflicted significant damage, Tehran emerged convinced that it can withstand far more pressure than many Western leaders previously believed. That perception is likely to shape every aspect of the negotiations.

At the center of the talks is Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran possesses approximately 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity, placing it only a short technical step away from weapons-grade material. Determining the future of that stockpile is expected to be the most contentious issue facing negotiators.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that sanctions relief will not be granted merely in exchange for surrendering enriched uranium. He has also expressed opposition to proposals that would place Iranian nuclear material under the control of countries such as China or Russia, arguing that such arrangements fail to provide sufficient safeguards.

Vice President JD Vance has described the military campaign as having significantly delayed Iran’s nuclear ambitions rather than permanently ending them. His comments reflect a growing recognition within Washington that military action alone did not eliminate the underlying dispute surrounding Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Another major obstacle involves international inspections. Following strikes on key nuclear facilities, Iran suspended portions of its cooperation with the IAEA, limiting access to sites that inspectors had previously monitored. IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has urged Tehran to restore full cooperation, warning that uncertainty surrounding the location and condition of nuclear materials increases risks for all parties involved.

Despite its more confident political posture, Iran remains under severe economic strain. Sanctions continue to restrict access to global financial markets, foreign investment remains scarce, and energy exports have faced repeated disruptions. Oil revenue remains the backbone of the Iranian economy, making sanctions relief a critical objective for Tehran.

That reality explains why Iranian officials continue to signal interest in a negotiated settlement. Senior Iranian figures have publicly discussed the release of frozen assets and broader sanctions relief as essential components of any agreement. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has indicated that Iran remains willing to discuss enhanced oversight and limitations on parts of its nuclear program if meaningful economic benefits are delivered in return.

The current negotiations build upon previous diplomatic efforts that produced temporary ceasefires and competing proposals from both sides. While substantial differences remain, the talks are now focused on two core questions: whether Iran will retain any domestic uranium enrichment capability and how quickly sanctions would be removed if an agreement is reached.

For businesses, investors, and consumers around the world, the outcome extends far beyond nuclear policy. The reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, through which a significant portion of global energy supplies pass, has already eased pressure on oil markets. Any lasting agreement that restores Iranian exports could further increase global energy supplies and influence fuel prices worldwide.

Markets are therefore watching the negotiations closely. Energy traders, shipping companies, manufacturers, and governments all have a stake in whether the ceasefire evolves into a lasting agreement or collapses into another round of confrontation.

The reality facing both sides is complicated. Iran enters the talks politically emboldened by its survival but economically weakened by years of sanctions and months of conflict. The United States enters seeking stronger nuclear safeguards while attempting to avoid another prolonged regional crisis.

That combination of confidence and economic vulnerability may ultimately define the negotiations. Iran may believe it has gained leverage, but it still needs access to global markets, oil revenues, and financial relief. Whether those competing pressures produce a breakthrough or another stalemate will determine not only the future of Iran’s nuclear program, but also the stability of one of the world’s most important energy-producing regions.

JBizNews Desk
Geneva / Washington

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.

General Motors and Lockheed Martin announced Tuesday that they have signed a partnership aimed at using the automaker’s manufacturing expertise to help increase production of missiles, munitions, and other defense systems as growing global conflicts place pressure on U.S. weapons stockpiles.

The companies unveiled the agreement at the Reindustrialize Summit in Detroit, describing it as a step toward accelerating weapons production while strengthening America’s industrial base.

Lockheed executives argued that the manufacturing principles behind building advanced military hardware are not all that different from those used to build automobiles.

“What does a THAAD air defense interceptor have in common with a Corvette?” asked Frank St. John, Lockheed Martin’s chief operating officer. The answer, he said, is precision engineering, complex supply chains, advanced manufacturing processes, and the ability to produce at scale.

The goal is not to merge the products themselves but to apply the manufacturing strengths of one industry to another.

The timing reflects growing Pentagon concerns about production capacity.

America’s weapons inventories have been strained by military operations involving Iran and by years of weapons shipments supporting Ukraine. Defense officials have repeatedly urged contractors to increase production rates to replenish stockpiles and prepare for future conflicts.

According to company executives, the memorandum of understanding was developed following discussions with the Pentagon, which has been encouraging industry partners to find ways to expand output more rapidly.

That is where GM enters the picture.

Through GM Defense, established in 2017, the automaker already supplies military vehicles and specialized transportation systems to government agencies. The division currently holds contracts with the U.S. Army, the Department of State, and other federal entities.

But Lockheed is interested in something beyond GM Defense’s existing products.

General Motors possesses one of the world’s most sophisticated manufacturing networks, capable of producing complex systems at high volume while managing thousands of suppliers and logistics partners. Defense leaders increasingly view those capabilities as essential to rebuilding America’s defense-industrial capacity.

Bruce Brown, vice president of strategy at GM Defense, said technological innovation alone is not enough. The ability to manufacture, scale, and deliver consistently is equally important.

The partnership also represents a return to history.

During World War II, General Motors produced tanks, aircraft engines, military trucks, and other equipment for the U.S. war effort. In the decades that followed, the company focused primarily on civilian vehicles. The new partnership signals a renewed push into defense manufacturing at a time when government demand is rising.

For General Motors, defense work offers access to a market supported by long-term government contracts and potentially higher margins than traditional automotive manufacturing.

For Lockheed Martin, the agreement supports a broader expansion already underway.

The defense giant has committed more than $9 billion through 2030 to modernize and expand production facilities. That investment includes a new munitions manufacturing center in Troy, Alabama, where construction began last month and is expected to create a significant number of jobs.

Lockheed produces some of America’s most important military systems, including the F-35 fighter jet, THAAD missile-defense system, PAC-3 interceptors, and the Black Hawk helicopter. The company has faced increasing pressure from the Pentagon to expand output of missile-defense systems and precision-guided weapons.

Executives emphasized that the partnership remains in its early stages.

No specific factories, products, or contracts have been announced. St. John said it is too early to determine which Lockheed programs will benefit most from the collaboration.

Steve duMont, president of GM Defense, said both companies will spend the coming weeks identifying projects where GM’s manufacturing capabilities can provide the greatest value.

Beyond the immediate defense implications, the announcement reflects a broader trend reshaping American industry.

The push toward reindustrialization has gained momentum as policymakers seek to strengthen domestic manufacturing, reduce dependence on foreign supply chains, and expand production of strategically important goods. Increasingly, the line between commercial manufacturing and defense production is becoming less distinct.

If successful, the partnership could channel additional defense work into factories, supplier networks, and manufacturing communities across the United States, supporting skilled jobs and industrial investment.

Questions remain.

Defense manufacturing involves strict security requirements, specialized certifications, and procurement rules that differ significantly from automotive production. Transforming commercial manufacturing capacity into military output is not as simple as repurposing an assembly line.

Ultimately, both companies will be judged not by the announcement itself but by whether the partnership results in more weapons reaching U.S. stockpiles.

The first major test will come when Lockheed Martin and General Motors identify the specific defense programs they intend to pursue together.

For now, the message from Detroit is clear: the companies that helped build America’s automotive industry are being asked to help rebuild its arsenal.

Detroit – JBizNews Desk

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.

A group of 51 hotel owners who together run close to 1,000 Marriott-branded properties has told the company it wants a larger share of the money flowing through its Bonvoy rewards program, according to a letter the owners sent in March that became public Tuesday.

The letter went straight to the top, addressed to Chief Executive Anthony Capuano and Chairman David Marriott.

The fight comes down to a simple question: who pays when a guest cashes in points for a free night, and who pockets the profits the program throws off.

Most Marriott hotels are not owned by Marriott. They are owned by independent operators and franchisees who run the buildings, employ the staff, and pay Marriott for the right to fly its flags and tap into Bonvoy, one of the largest loyalty programs in travel.

When a member redeems points for a free stay, the hotel that hosts that guest gets reimbursed from a shared fund. Owners say that reimbursement often falls short of what the room is really worth.

Here is what changed.

For years, owners believed Bonvoy roughly broke even — a marketing engine that filled rooms without making anyone rich.

Now they have learned the program is a serious money-maker, and they feel cut out.

Marriott has said it expects fee revenue from its co-branded credit cards to climb about 35% this year, approaching $1 billion.

Much of that comes from card partners paying Marriott for the right to issue Bonvoy cards.

Owners argue they help create that value every time a guest stays, yet little of the windfall reaches them.

Their core complaints are about money and transparency.

They want higher payments when members redeem free nights — at least matching what they would earn from an online travel site like Expedia — and they want to see the program’s books, which Marriott has historically kept close.

Under the old setup, owners got a low base payment for an award night when the hotel had empty rooms to spare, on the logic that a free guest in an otherwise unsold room costs the hotel nothing.

When a property filled up, the payment rose toward the hotel’s normal nightly rate.

Owners say that formula no longer reflects how much Marriott earns from the credit-card side of the business.

Marriott has made some moves to ease the tension.

The company says it recently raised what owners are paid for loyalty stays on busy, high-demand nights, trimmed certain charge-out rates, and for the first time shared some Bonvoy financial details with owners.

It is also renegotiating agreements tied to the program.

The stakes are large because loyalty has quietly become one of the most profitable corners of the hotel business.

Bonvoy added roughly 43 million members last year and counted about 283 million members by the end of the first quarter.

Every one of those members is a reason for a traveler to book a Marriott instead of a competitor — but the value created sits at corporate, in the form of high-margin card fees, while the cost of honoring free nights lands on the individual hotel.

For travelers, the dispute could eventually show up in the value of their points.

If owners win bigger reimbursements for award stays, Marriott has to find that money somewhere.

The most common way hotel programs cover rising costs is by raising the number of points needed for a free night, which quietly erodes what each point is worth.

Nothing has changed for members yet, but a richer payout to owners tends to flow downhill to guests.

There is also a business-model question for investors.

Marriott International (MAR) has long sold Wall Street on an “asset-light” story — it manages and licenses brands rather than owning buildings, and loyalty and credit-card fees are a big part of that pitch.

A revolt by the people who actually own the hotels puts a spotlight on how durable those fees are, and how much Marriott may have to give back to keep its franchise network from walking.

For now, the two sides are negotiating.

The owners have leverage in numbers and in the simple fact that Marriott needs them to run its hotels.

Marriott has the brand, the members, and the card deals.

Somewhere between those positions is the new split of a billion-dollar pot — and the answer will ripple from hotel balance sheets all the way down to the points sitting in travelers’ accounts.

Bethesda, Md. — JBizNews Desk

JBizNews Desk / © JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.

Even if the war in Iran ends, the price increases it set off are not going to disappear with it. That is the message coming from senior officials at the European Central Bank (ECB), who raised interest rates last week and warned that the energy shock has already worked its way too deeply into the economy for a peace deal to reverse on its own.

On June 11, the ECB lifted its key deposit rate by 0.25 percentage points to 2.25%, marking its first rate increase since 2023 and the first move by a major central bank in response to the surge in oil and natural-gas prices triggered by the conflict. ECB President Christine Lagarde said the decision was unanimous and reflected concerns that inflation pressures created by the war were becoming more persistent.

The bank’s chief economist, Philip Lane, explained the concern in simple terms: inflation can outlive the event that caused it.

Once higher energy costs begin spreading through wages, transportation, food, manufacturing, and everyday services, they develop momentum of their own. A manufacturer facing higher electricity costs raises prices. Workers facing higher living expenses seek larger wage increases. Businesses then raise prices again to offset higher labor costs. Economists call this process “second-round effects,” and it is the part of inflation that does not disappear simply because a ceasefire is signed.

That concern helps explain why policymakers remain cautious despite signs that the fighting may be winding down.

The numbers remain troubling. Inflation across the 20 nations that use the euro climbed to 3.2% in May, significantly above the ECB’s 2% target. The central bank now expects inflation to average roughly 3% this year, up from the 2.6% forecast it issued in March, before gradually returning toward target by 2028.

At the same time, economic growth remains weak. The ECB now expects the euro-area economy to expand just 0.8% in 2026, after posting only 0.1% growth during the first quarter. That combination of slowing growth and elevated inflation presents one of the most difficult challenges central bankers face.

A peace agreement may help, but not as quickly as many consumers hope.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which normally handles roughly a quarter of the world’s seaborne oil shipments, disrupted global energy markets for months. In addition, attacks on energy facilities across the Gulf region damaged infrastructure and restricted supplies.

Even as shipping resumes and tensions ease, energy markets cannot immediately return to normal. Facilities must be repaired, inventories replenished, and transportation networks stabilized. Much of the economic damage has already been built into business contracts, household budgets, and corporate expectations.

Not everyone believes the ECB will continue raising rates aggressively.

Mark Wall, chief European economist at Deutsche Bank, described the latest increase as a significant milestone but cautioned that interest-rate hikes can only do so much when inflation originates from a supply shock rather than excessive demand.

Higher rates may cool spending, but they do not produce more oil, natural gas, or electricity.

That reality creates a difficult balancing act for policymakers. Raise rates too aggressively and they risk pushing an already fragile economy closer to recession. Move too slowly and inflation could become entrenched.

For households and businesses, the consequences are becoming increasingly visible.

Borrowing costs are rising just as economic growth weakens. Businesses face higher financing expenses while still coping with elevated energy and transportation costs. Families carrying mortgages, auto loans, or credit-card debt may find monthly payments becoming more burdensome even if fuel prices eventually begin to decline.

The divide among major central banks adds another layer of uncertainty.

While the ECB has chosen to tighten policy, the Federal Reserve in the United States and the Bank of England have so far held rates steady, reflecting a belief that much of the energy shock may eventually fade on its own. The ECB has taken a different view, concluding that inflation risks are too serious to ignore.

Those differing approaches can influence currency values, trade flows, investment decisions, and the cost of doing business across global markets.

What happens next depends largely on whether the energy shock leaves lasting scars.

ECB officials have signaled that another rate increase could come as soon as July if inflation remains elevated, though they have emphasized that future decisions will depend on incoming economic data.

For now, Europe’s central bankers are sending a clear message: even if peace arrives, the economic consequences of the conflict may linger far longer than the fighting itself.

Frankfurt – JBizNews Desk

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.

A growing number of voters in both the United States and Israel appear dissatisfied with the outcome of the war against Iran, according to newly released polling that suggests the political and economic consequences of the conflict are continuing to shape public opinion.

A Rasmussen Reports survey released Wednesday found that 48% of likely U.S. voters consider the war that began in February unsuccessful, including 27% who described it as “not at all successful.” By comparison, 44% viewed the effort as successful. The survey also found that only 35% of respondents favored continuing military operations until the government in Tehran was removed from power.

Economic concerns appear closely tied to those views. Since the conflict began on February 28 under the codename Operation Epic Fury, gasoline prices have risen significantly, with the national average approaching $4 per gallon, according to data tracked by AAA. At the same time, inflation has accelerated. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported consumer prices up 3.8% year-over-year in its most recent reading, the highest annual pace since 2023, driven largely by energy costs.

Consumers have also faced higher grocery prices and increased household expenses. Recent labor data showed that average hourly earnings, after adjusting for inflation, have declined, adding pressure to household budgets. For many voters, the debate over the war has become intertwined with concerns about everyday living costs.

Those concerns are reflected in President Donald Trump’s approval ratings. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted June 3–8 found Trump’s overall approval rating at 35%, among the lowest levels of his second term. The survey found 29% approval for his handling of Iran and 22% approval for his handling of the cost of living. Meanwhile, the Economist/YouGov tracker recorded a net approval rating of negative 25 points, with particularly weak marks on inflation and consumer prices.

Several analysts have noted that economic management has traditionally been one of Trump’s strongest political issues. Rising inflation and higher energy costs have complicated that advantage, placing greater focus on voters’ financial concerns heading into the election season.

The political challenges extend beyond the United States. In Israel, a poll conducted for public broadcaster Kan found significant skepticism toward the U.S.-brokered agreement that ended active hostilities. Among the 555 Israelis surveyed, 18% supported the agreement while 55% opposed it. The poll also found that 70% remain concerned about the Iranian threat despite the joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign.

Views of Trump among Israeli respondents were more mixed. Approximately 40% described him as a strong friend of Israel, while 32% said they believe his approach toward the country may be changing.

A key issue moving forward is the impact of the agreement on global energy markets. The arrangement includes the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping corridor through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass. The deal also provides temporary relief on some restrictions affecting Iranian oil exports.

Energy analysts say increased oil supplies could eventually help reduce fuel prices, although several experts have cautioned that supply chains and inventories may take considerable time to normalize. As a result, any meaningful reduction in energy costs may not be immediate.

The economic effects of the conflict have also been felt by businesses. Appliance manufacturer Whirlpool, parent company of KitchenAid and Maytag, recently reported declining sales and cited weakening consumer demand. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve, under Chairman Kevin Warsh, has kept interest rates unchanged, citing ongoing inflation concerns and uncertainty surrounding energy prices.

The months ahead could prove critical politically. With the midterm elections approaching, public opinion surveys suggest that voters remain highly focused on inflation, fuel prices, and overall economic conditions. Whether lower energy prices emerge quickly enough to ease those concerns may play a significant role in shaping both voter sentiment and market expectations.

JBizNews Desk
Washington

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.

The World Bank Group said Tuesday it has approved a financing package designed to unlock as much as $2 billion in private bank loans for Argentina, a deal meant to cut the country’s borrowing costs just as a heavy round of debt payments comes due. The approval was announced from Washington by the bank’s board.

The structure is unusual, and the details matter. Rather than lend the money itself, the World Bank Group is backing loans that commercial banks will make to Argentina. It does this through two guarantees: a first-loss policy-based guarantee from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and a second-loss guarantee from the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA). Together they cover 95% of the debt-service payments on the commercial loan.

In plain terms, the bank is promising to absorb most of the losses if Argentina fails to pay. That promise is what makes private lenders comfortable handing over money to a borrower they would otherwise treat as high-risk, and it lets Argentina lock in cheaper terms than it could get on its own.

The timing is no accident. Argentina faces roughly $4.4 billion in debt repayments by July 9, and the new package is built to help refinance part of that load rather than drain the country’s reserves to cover it. The supported loan carries a six-year maturity with a three-year grace period before repayments begin.

“We are committed to supporting Argentina’s macroeconomic stabilization and growth reform agenda,” said Susana Cordeiro Guerra, the World Bank’s Vice President for Latin America and the Caribbean. She said the guarantee structure helps bridge the country’s return to international capital markets on more affordable terms while pushing reforms that lift private investment and productivity.

That last point is the real goal behind the headline number. The guarantees are tied to changes meant to pull private money into Argentina — financing for infrastructure, stronger competition in its markets, and a friendlier environment for companies trying to do business there. The loan is less a handout than a down payment on Argentina convincing private investors to come back on their own.

And the World Bank is not acting alone. The Inter-American Development Bank is weighing a guarantee of up to $550 million for Argentina, while the Development Bank of Latin America and the Caribbean (CAF) is looking at another $500 million in support. CAF also announced Tuesday that it will provide a separate $400 million loan to Pan American Energy to fund the company’s natural-gas operations and expand output — a sign that lenders are backing both the government and the businesses driving its energy sector.

For ordinary Argentines and the companies that operate there, the stakes are practical. The country has spent years fighting punishing inflation and a weak currency, and the cost of borrowing abroad has long been one of its heaviest burdens. Cheaper refinancing eases pressure on the national budget, which in turn affects everything from the value of the peso to the price of imported goods and the government’s ability to keep spending steady. Lower financing costs also make it easier for firms to plan, hire, and invest without bracing for the next debt crisis.

There is a wider message here too. The deal is being watched closely by other developing economies, because the guarantee model offers a template for governments that have been shut out of cheap credit. If private banks are willing to lend to Argentina when most of the risk is covered, the same approach could be used to pull commercial money into countries that markets have written off.

None of this erases Argentina’s underlying problems. The package buys time and lowers costs, but it does not eliminate the debt or guarantee the reforms will deliver. The country still has to prove it can stabilize its economy and earn its way back into global markets without a safety net.

For now, the approval is a clear win. It hands Argentina a cheaper path through a near-term cash crunch and signals that international lenders are betting the country’s turnaround is worth backing. The harder test — whether private investors return on their own once the guarantees are gone — is still ahead.

Washington — JBizNews Desk

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.

Britain will bar children under 16 from using a range of major social media apps, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced Monday, putting the country at the front of a global push to pull young people away from platforms built to keep them scrolling.

Speaking at Downing Street, Starmer said the ban would cover Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, and would take effect next year.

Messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal, along with YouTube Kids, would be exempt.

Crucially, the penalties fall on the companies, not the children. Platforms that fail to take reasonable steps to keep under-16s off their services could face fines running into the millions.

“Every parent can see it with their own eyes. Social media is making children unhappy,” said Starmer, who has two teenage children and framed the move as a “big moment for our country.”

The government said its plan drew support from about nine in ten parents and generated 116,000 responses during public consultation, one of the largest in years.

The British plan follows the model set by Australia, which last year became the first country to bar under-16s from holding social media accounts.

But Starmer said Britain would go further.

The government also intends to block livestreaming and stranger contact with children on gaming platforms, restrict AI chatbots that simulate romantic or sexual relationships to adults only, and is weighing additional measures such as overnight curfews and forced breaks in endless scrolling for those under 18.

For the technology industry, the stakes are real and largely American.

The companies in the crosshairs are among the biggest names in U.S. tech: Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook; Snap, the maker of Snapchat; Google, which owns YouTube; and TikTok’s parent, the Chinese firm ByteDance.

These platforms depend on advertising revenue, and advertising depends on engaged users, including the teenagers a ban would lock out.

Beyond the lost users, the companies face the cost and complexity of verifying ages across millions of accounts, a technical and privacy challenge with no easy solution.

The platforms are pushing back.

A YouTube spokesperson warned that a blanket restriction could backfire by pushing children out of supervised, curated services and toward anonymous, less-safe corners of the internet.

Starmer anticipated the resistance, saying he would fight back if technology companies resisted and acknowledging that some teenagers would inevitably find workarounds.

He compared it to alcohol, arguing that the difficulty of perfect enforcement is no reason to abandon the effort.

Here is why it matters well beyond Britain.

The country is one of the largest and wealthiest markets in Europe, and a ban there sets a precedent that other governments are likely to study closely.

Australia, Canada, Brazil and Indonesia have already moved on age limits, and France, Spain, Denmark and others are weighing similar steps.

Each new market that closes to younger users chips away at a business model the social media giants have spent two decades building, one that treats teenage attention as a core asset.

The timing is pointed.

Starmer said he expected to raise the issue with President Donald Trump and other leaders at the Group of Seven summit in France this week, suggesting the campaign to regulate children’s access to social media is becoming an international cause rather than a national experiment.

For the American companies that dominate these platforms, the message from London is a warning:

The era of unrestricted access to young users is starting to close, one country at a time.

London — JBizNews Desk

JBizNews Desk / © JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.