The global energy industry is preparing for its most serious upheaval since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. As tensions in Iran intensify, the Strait of Hormuz — the world’s most vital transit route for liquefied natural gas (LNG) — has effectively come to a standstill.
Vessel-tracking data shows that at least 11 large LNG carriers have suspended their journeys. Major Japanese shipping firms, including Nippon Yusen K.K. (TYO:9101) and Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd (OTC:MSLOY), have reportedly instructed their ships to remain in safer waters. Iranian state media has characterized the passage as “virtually closed,” leaving roughly 20% of global LNG supply stranded behind what amounts to a naval blockade. Unlike oil, which can sometimes be diverted through pipelines, the immense volumes of Qatari gas moving through this narrow corridor have no viable alternative route.
Asia’s exposure and price shock
Asian nations are at the forefront of the fallout. Buyers in China, India, and Japan — the largest importers of Qatari gas — are said to be urgently seeking substitute cargoes from other suppliers. Yet in an already tight market, traders expect a sharp surge in spot LNG prices, potentially undoing a year of relative price stability within days.
The strain extends beyond spot purchases. Many long-term LNG agreements are linked to crude benchmarks, so any spike in Brent Crude would quickly drive up costs even for contracted volumes, raising energy bills for households and industrial users alike.
Supply risks and broader regional strain
The disruption is also creating operational risks for producers. LNG export terminals depend on a continuous rotation of tankers to maintain cooling systems; without outbound shipments, producers in Qatar and the UAE could face partial or full production shutdowns.
The ripple effects are spreading beyond the Gulf. With Israeli gas fields closed and Iranian pipeline exports to Turkey under pressure, countries such as Egypt are being pushed into the higher-cost seaborne LNG market.
The result is a global scramble for the limited cargoes still available, setting the stage for an international bidding war. Whether the conflict widens or remains contained, the financial burden is likely to be passed on to consumers around the world.
The United States and Israel carried out coordinated strikes on Iran on Saturday, killing Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and triggering a fresh wave of conflict across the Middle East.
The attacks unsettled neighboring Gulf Arab oil producers as concerns mounted over further escalation, particularly after Iran retaliated with missile launches toward Israel.
According to four trading sources, several major oil companies and leading commodity traders temporarily halted crude and fuel shipments through the Strait of Hormuz following the strikes.
Key Reactions from Analysts
Helima Croft, Head of Commodities Research, RBC Capital:
Croft said the long-term impact on oil prices will depend on whether the IRGC retreats under sustained airstrikes or escalates further, potentially increasing the costs of what she described as Washington’s second regime-change effort in just over two months.
She added that regional leaders had cautioned Washington about the spillover risks of renewed confrontation with Iran, warning that oil prices above $100 per barrel would pose a serious threat.
Croft also emphasized that OPEC’s ability to cushion supply shocks is limited. Aside from Saudi Arabia, most OPEC+ members are already producing near capacity, meaning any announced output increase may have little practical effect.
Jorge Leon, SVP and Head of Geopolitical Analysis, Rystad Energy:
Leon noted that while alternative infrastructure exists to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, a prolonged disruption could effectively remove 8–10 million barrels per day from the market—significant in a world consuming roughly 100 million barrels daily.
He suggested countries with strategic petroleum reserves may release supplies if the disruption drags on. Absent quick de-escalation, he expects oil prices to reprice sharply higher at the start of the week.
Eurasia Group energy analysts:
They anticipate oil prices will surge when markets reopen. If fighting continues into Sunday, prices could jump $5–$10 above the current $73 level, especially given Iran’s claim that it has closed the Strait of Hormuz and reports of tanker disruptions.
Barclays energy analysts:
Barclays warned that markets may confront worst-case supply fears on Monday. Brent crude could climb to $100 per barrel as traders assess the risk of major supply interruptions amid intensifying regional instability.
Vishnu Varathan, Head of Macro Research (Asia ex-Japan), Mizuho, Singapore:
Varathan said recurring regional attacks may become the new norm, keeping oil prices elevated as both production and transit routes remain vulnerable. OPEC could face pressure to boost output, though a 10–25% risk premium on oil prices would not be excessive—even without a full blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which he described as a potential 50% premium event.
Christopher Wong, Strategist, OCBC, Singapore:
Wong expects geopolitical risk premiums to rise as markets open. Safe-haven assets like gold are likely to gap higher, while oil could strengthen on supply concerns. Meanwhile, risk assets and high-beta currencies may experience early volatility, particularly if retaliation or regional spillover intensifies.
Nick Ferres, CIO, Vantage Point Asset Management, Singapore:
Ferres argued that energy remains undervalued and should rally at the start of the week—alongside gold.
Thunderous explosions and massive fireballs from missiles launched by Iran across the Gulf underscored a long-feared reality for regional leaders: Tehran can carry the fight directly to their territory. The attacks are likely to solidify Arab governments’ backing for joint action by the United States and Israel.
Even on the Palm Jumeirah — Dubai’s most exclusive enclave — blasts shook buildings and struck a luxury hotel, sending residents scrambling as missiles and interceptors streaked overhead. The scenes made clear that the conflict had spilled beyond Iran’s borders, just as Tehran had cautioned.
“What has now been demonstrated is that we — not the United States — are directly exposed,” said Ebtesam Al-Ketbi of the Emirates Policy Center. “When Iran attacked, it hit the Gulf first, claiming it was targeting U.S. bases.”
Analysts say Tehran’s strikes are designed to show that no American ally in the region is out of reach and to increase the price of supporting Washington’s campaign. But they warn that any error in judgment could turn calibrated signaling into full-scale war.
Gulf officials argue that by hitting oil-producing neighbors, Iran is widening the battlefield and putting global energy supplies at risk, not merely regional stability. For rapidly expanding economies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — all reliant on open skies, safe sea lanes and steady trade — a broader confrontation would be severely destabilizing.
By casting the confrontation as a campaign for regime change in Iran, President Donald Trump has raised the stakes, increasing the likelihood that Tehran could retaliate more aggressively, observers say.
If Iran were to misjudge and directly attack Gulf Cooperation Council states, the nature of the conflict would shift dramatically. Regional governments would be under intense pressure to respond as lives and strategic assets come under threat.
Some Gulf analysts contend that Iran is undermining its own strategic interests by striking neighboring states. While Tehran insists it is targeting U.S. military installations, Gulf capitals view the attacks as clear violations of sovereignty.
In recent indirect talks with Washington aimed at defusing tensions, Iran signaled willingness to negotiate over its nuclear program but refused to discuss its ballistic missile arsenal or its backing of regional militias. Tehran has suggested that such issues be handled in a regional dialogue excluding the United States — a proposal Gulf states argue would weaken rather than strengthen the existing security framework, given their longstanding reliance on U.S. protection.
From their perspective, Iran’s missile capabilities and network of proxies pose immediate threats. Without external security guarantors, they see little credibility in a regional-only arrangement.
Meanwhile, Trump’s rhetoric has shifted notably. Whereas he previously described potential U.S. strikes as leverage to secure a nuclear agreement, he has more recently framed them in terms that imply regime change. Unlike the large-scale 2003 invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush, which involved a prolonged troop deployment and occupation, the current strategy appears focused on limited air operations designed to achieve swift, visible outcomes while minimizing American casualties and domestic political fallout.
The bet is that a short, decisive campaign would yield political benefits, whereas a drawn-out war — especially one disrupting oil flows or the broader economy — could carry heavy costs.
Should the conflict expand to include U.S. bases, diplomatic missions, energy infrastructure, or the crucial maritime corridor of the Strait of Hormuz, the economic and political repercussions for the United States, the Gulf, and global markets would escalate sharply.
In a post on Truth Social, Donald Trump warned Iran not to carry out any additional retaliatory strikes against the United States or its Middle East allies. He said Tehran had threatened large-scale attacks on neighboring countries seen as aligned with Washington.
The remarks suggest that Iran’s military capabilities remain operational despite the reported killing of its Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. The wave of retaliatory strikes indicates that Tehran has not been deterred by his death.
Iran reportedly targeted the United Arab Emirates, striking Dubai International Airport and the Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building. It also launched attacks on Bahrain’s capital, as well as Qatar and Kuwait. In response, several Gulf states have warned they may retaliate against Iran.
Qatar has shut down its main airport in Doha, while Dubai International Airport has also been closed following the strikes.
It remains uncertain whether Trump’s threat to respond with significantly greater force will deter further escalation. It is also unclear what he meant by saying, “We will hit them with a force that has never been seen before.”
Impact of the Conflict on Global Trade and the Energy Sector
Earlier today, we noted that the sudden closure of Dubai International Airport caused widespread flight cancellations due to its vital role as a global transit hub. Leading Gulf airlines — Emirates, Qatar Airways, and Etihad Airways — have suspended services indefinitely.
In addition, three major Japanese shipping companies have halted operations in the Gulf following a U.S. naval warning. These include Nippon Yusen (TYO:9101), Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (OTC:MSLOY), and Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (TYO:9107).
Analysts at RBC Capital Markets say that U.S. strikes on Iran and Tehran’s counterattacks have created a cascading effect across the Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz is now viewed as “effectively closed,” disrupting roughly 20% of global LNG exports and about 90% of Japan’s crude oil imports.
They warn that crude oil prices could spike sharply as tensions intensify and diplomatic efforts remain stalled. Investors are advised to closely track developments in the region and assess their potential implications for oil and LNG markets.
UK markets return to the spotlight on Friday following Labour’s surprise defeat in the Gorton and Denton by-election. Labour’s candidate finished third, while the Greens secured a commanding win over both Labour and Reform. Investors in gilts and sterling must now assess the longer-term implications of the result — including whether it signals growing traction for the radical left within UK politics — and what it could mean for Keir Starmer’s leadership.
Sterling initially strengthened earlier this morning but has since slipped to fresh lows, testing $1.3450. It is currently the weakest performer in the G10 on Friday and the second weakest over the week. Despite heightened political uncertainty, the decline in the pound has been relatively contained so far. Notably, gilts outperformed on Thursday, with yields falling sharply.
Why Starmer may remain secure — for now
Earlier this month, speculation that Starmer could face an internal challenge sparked some volatility in the gilt market. However, that uncertainty faded quickly after senior cabinet members publicly backed him. Although calls for his resignation may intensify within parts of the party, we do not expect Labour heavyweights or cabinet members to support such moves.
It seems unlikely that Starmer would be ousted on the back of this result alone. Few potential rivals would want to assume leadership ahead of next week’s Spring Statement. Moreover, possible successors such as Wes Streeting and Angela Rayner face their own challenges — Streeting could encounter a Green surge in his constituency, while Rayner continues to contend with questions surrounding the stamp duty issue. Cabinet members have already cautioned against overinterpreting the by-election outcome, suggesting Starmer’s position is stable for the time being.
Why a leftward shift may not help Labour
Some within Labour may argue for a sharper move to the left in response to this defeat. However, Gorton and Denton represents just one constituency and is not necessarily indicative of national sentiment. It is far from clear that adopting more left-leaning policies would strengthen Labour’s prospects in the May elections. According to recent YouGov data, the economy remains voters’ primary concern, and more progressive policies may do little to address rising unemployment, particularly among younger people.
Why gilt volatility may remain contained
Although the by-election presents a political test for the gilt market, it is unlikely to trigger significant volatility at week’s end. The broader impact of the May election results is likely to matter more. Additionally, there is speculation that next week’s Spring Statement could see the Office for Budget Responsibility reduce its forecast for gilt issuance this year, following strong tax receipts earlier in the year. That could help ease upward pressure on yields and offset any market reaction to Labour’s loss.
Technical focus: GBP/USD
Sterling is broadly weaker today, though the by-election result has not sparked a full-scale sell-off. GBP/USD is hovering around its 200-day simple moving average at $1.3447. A decisive break below this level would represent a significant technical deterioration and suggest downside momentum is building.
Netflix rallies after abandoning Warner Bros Discovery bid
European equity futures point to a firmer open on Friday, capping another week in which European indices are set to outperform US markets. Netflix is in focus after confirming it has withdrawn its bid for Warner Bros Discovery. The stock jumped 8% in post-market trading on Thursday and could recover much, if not all, of its roughly 10% year-to-date decline.
Investors will also monitor European inflation data, with attention on France to see whether CPI rebounds following a sharp drop earlier in the year.
Oil prices fell more than 1% in Asian trading on Monday, taking a breather after last week’s sharp rally, as investors assessed the likelihood of a third round of U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations and renewed uncertainty around U.S. trade policy.
By 20:50 ET (01:50 GMT), Brent crude for April delivery dropped 1% to $71.03 a barrel, while WTI crude declined 0.9% to $65.75 a barrel.
Both benchmarks had climbed nearly 6% last week amid signs of a potential U.S.-Iran confrontation and an unexpected drawdown in U.S. crude inventories, which supported prices.
Traders watch third round of U.S.- Iran nuclear talks
Iran and the United States are expected to hold a third round of nuclear discussions on Thursday in Geneva, raising hopes that tensions may ease.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday that there is a strong possibility of reaching a diplomatic resolution, adding that an agreement is within reach. Markets viewed the remarks as a signal of potential compromise.
Iran is a major producer within OPEC and possesses some of the largest proven oil reserves globally. The country also borders the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint that handles about one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil. Any escalation involving Iran could disrupt shipments and drive up freight and insurance costs.
Trump raises global tariffs to 15%
Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled new global tariffs, initially imposing a 10% duty on imports for 150 days after the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated his previous, broader tariff plan.
The administration increased the rate to 15% on Saturday—the maximum permitted under the applicable law—adding fresh uncertainty to global trade and demand prospects.
Higher tariffs can strain supply chains and prompt retaliatory actions from trade partners. Slower trade activity and weaker industrial production typically weigh on fuel consumption.
For more than a year, Donald Trump has operated in Washington with sweeping confidence, exercising power in ways critics said resembled monarchical authority. On Friday, however, the Supreme Court of the United States sharply redirected that momentum.
By invalidating his administration’s cornerstone economic policy, the court handed down a rare and highly visible rebuke, signaling that even a dominant president faces constitutional limits. The 6–3 ruling, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected Trump’s expansive claim that he could impose broad tariffs under emergency powers to safeguard U.S. economic security.
Trump reacted swiftly and angrily. According to Delaware Governor Matt Meyer, the president told governors at the White House that he was “seething” and needed to respond to the courts. Later, speaking to reporters, he criticized the justices who ruled against him — including two he had appointed — calling them weak and an embarrassment. Still, he maintained that the decision ultimately clarified his authority and insisted he could pursue even higher tariffs through alternative legal avenues.
Few issues have defined Trump’s second term more than tariffs, which he has frequently described as his “favorite word.” He used them not only as trade tools but as leverage in disputes over agriculture, foreign investment, narcotics trafficking, prescription drug pricing, and industrial policy. While Congress holds constitutional authority over taxation, the Republican-controlled legislature largely refrained from challenging his approach, and the conservative-leaning court had often bolstered executive power in prior rulings.
This decision, however, marked a boundary. Historians and legal scholars described it as a direct blow to Trump’s broad interpretation of emergency authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Although the president suggested he could rely on other statutes — and even impose a temporary global tariff — such paths would likely involve stricter procedural requirements and time constraints.
Legal experts noted that no previous president had used the disputed law as aggressively. As University of Virginia scholar Saikrishna Prakash put it, the ruling leaves the presidency “definitely weaker,” underscoring that even assertive executive power remains subject to judicial review.
Oil prices moved modestly higher in Asian trading on Friday, building on strong gains from the prior two sessions and putting major benchmarks on course for roughly a 6% weekly advance, as rising tensions between the U.S. and Iran heightened concerns about potential supply disruptions in the Middle East.
By 22:41 ET (03:41 GMT), Brent for April delivery climbed 0.2% to $71.81 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude rose 0.5% to $66.78 a barrel.
Both contracts were hovering near their highest levels since early August and were set to record weekly gains of more than 6%.
Oil near six-month high on US-Iran tensions
Investor anxiety has intensified after U.S. President Donald Trump warned Tehran that “bad things” could follow if a nuclear agreement is not reached within roughly 10–15 days, raising the possibility of military action.
According to a Wall Street Journal report, Trump is considering a limited strike on Iranian targets to pressure Tehran into accepting a nuclear deal.
Any escalation involving Iran — a key OPEC producer — could jeopardize shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passageway that handles about one-fifth of global oil trade, thereby increasing the market’s sensitivity to geopolitical risk.
This week’s rally also marked a rebound from earlier losses, when prices slipped at the start of the week on hopes that U.S.-Iran negotiations were making progress. The renewed tough rhetoric has since restored a geopolitical risk premium, pushing crude back toward multi-week highs.
US crude inventories drop sharply – EIA
Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration on Thursday showed crude stockpiles fell by around 9 million barrels last week, defying expectations for a 1.7 million-barrel increase.
The report also indicated declines in gasoline and distillate inventories, both coming in below forecasts, suggesting solid demand from refiners and consumers.
Markets are now awaiting the release of the U.S. Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index later on Friday — the Federal Reserve’s preferred measure of inflation.
Following recent hawkish Fed minutes that signaled policymakers are in no rush to cut interest rates, the PCE data could offer additional insight into the central bank’s policy trajectory.
WTI prices could stage a rebound as supply concerns intensify amid escalating US-Iran tensions and stalled Ukraine-Russia negotiations.
Talks between Washington and Tehran have yielded little concrete progress, with Iranian officials only اشاره to a broad framework for a potential nuclear agreement, leaving uncertainty over future crude exports.
Meanwhile, peace discussions between Ukraine and Russia held in Geneva concluded without a breakthrough, sustaining geopolitical risks that may continue to underpin oil prices.
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude slips slightly on Thursday after plunging 4.9% in the previous session, hovering around $65.00 per barrel during Asian trading. Despite the recent drop, oil prices may find support from potential supply disruptions linked to rising US-Iran tensions and stalled Ukraine-Russia peace efforts.
Negotiations between Washington and Tehran remain unresolved. Iranian officials have pointed to a “general agreement” on the framework of a possible nuclear deal, but key differences persist. US Vice President JD Vance stated that Iran failed to meet Washington’s red lines, while US President Donald Trump reiterated that military action remains an option. Reports suggest that any potential US strike could develop into a prolonged campaign, with Israel advocating for an outcome aimed at regime change in Iran.
Meanwhile, peace talks in Geneva between Ukraine and Russia concluded without tangible progress, according to Reuters. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy accused Moscow of stalling US-backed diplomatic efforts to end the four-year conflict. Trump has urged Kyiv to consider a deal that could involve significant concessions, even as Russian forces continue attacking energy infrastructure and making battlefield advances.
On the trade front, India’s state-run Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) reportedly made its first-ever purchase of Venezuelan crude, while HPCL Mittal Energy Limited resumed buying cargoes from Venezuela for the first time in two years.
In US inventory data, the American Petroleum Institute (API) reported a 0.609 million-barrel decline in weekly crude stocks, partially offsetting the previous week’s massive 13.4 million-barrel build — the largest increase since January 2023.
Oil prices moved sideways in Asian trading on Monday, as attention centered on renewed diplomatic engagement between the U.S. and Iran, with investors wary of possible supply disruptions in the Middle East.
Trading activity remained subdued due to public holidays in China and the U.S., while weak Japanese growth figures added to worries about slowing demand. Brent crude for April delivery slipped 0.2% to $67.65 per barrel by 21:15 ET (02:15 GMT).
U.S.– Iran nuclear talks to resume
The U.S. and Iran are set to hold a second round of discussions in Switzerland this week regarding Tehran’s nuclear program, following the restart of negotiations earlier in February. However, diplomatic efforts coincided with Washington deploying a second aircraft carrier to the Middle East and signaling readiness for extended military action should talks collapse.
President Donald Trump reiterated warnings that Iran must agree to a deal or risk further military measures. Over the weekend, Iranian officials indicated a willingness to make concessions on their nuclear activities in exchange for relief from tough U.S. sanctions, adding that the next move rests with Washington.
Tensions between the two countries have recently supported oil prices, as traders factored in a higher geopolitical risk premium amid fears of renewed conflict that could disrupt Iranian oil output.
OPEC+ considering renewed output increases
At the same time, some of oil’s geopolitical premium was tempered by a Reuters report suggesting that OPEC+ intends to restart production hikes from April. Higher output would enable member countries to capitalize on recent price gains, though increased supply could weigh on prices over the longer term.
The group is scheduled to meet on March 1.
Oil markets were pressured throughout 2025 by concerns of excess supply in 2026. Although OPEC+ gradually raised production last year, it paused further increases in December due to persistent oversupply worries.
Nonetheless, crude prices climbed to a six-month high in early 2026 amid escalating Middle East tensions, while signs of global economic resilience fueled expectations that demand would stay firm.
Last week, I attended the 2026 Harvard Presidents’ Seminar with leading executives and thinkers, where Ambassador Kevin Rudd, former Australian prime minister, stood out. He warned that the post–World War II rules-based global order is likely fading, giving way to a more 19th-century style world defined by power politics and spheres of influence. Rudd, a realist rather than an alarmist, argued that a strong U.S. remains essential for global stability, while a weakened U.S. risks creating power vacuums that China and Russia are ready to exploit.
A Fracturing Global Order?
For roughly eight decades after World War II, the United States played a central role in shaping the global order—promoting open markets, free trade, democratic expansion, and the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency—underpinning a period of relative stability.
According to Rudd, that chapter may now be closing. Democratic governance is weakening worldwide, while the number of armed conflicts has climbed to its highest level since World War II.
China and Russia are making their ambitions increasingly explicit. Just last week, Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin reaffirmed their deepening partnership, pledging mutual support across economic, military, and ideological fronts. With the New START treaty expiring this month, the final pillar of nuclear arms control between the United States and Russia has now fallen away.
Redrawing the Global Playbook
Rudd, who has written two major books on Xi Jinping, cautioned that China’s current leader is far from a pragmatist in the mold of Deng Xiaoping, whose market-oriented reforms in the 1970s set China on its path to global prominence. Instead, Xi is best understood as a Marxist-Leninist nationalist.
Under his leadership, China has moved beyond simply operating within existing global rules to actively reshaping them. The Chinese Communist Party is pursuing an all-encompassing strategy that spans nearly every sphere—military modernization, industrial leadership, energy self-sufficiency, and more. As I noted back in October, I see China’s expansive Belt and Road Initiative as a Trojan horse.
For Xi’s government, economic strength and national security are inseparable, a reality most evident in its approach to energy and technology.
China’s Sweeping Energy Expansion
As the U.S. continues to oscillate on energy policy, China has been pressing ahead at full speed. Since 2021, it has added more power-generating capacity than the United States has built over its entire 250-year history—an astonishing feat achieved in just four years.
In 2025 alone, China brought online 543 gigawatts of new capacity across solar, wind, coal, nuclear, and gas. Looking ahead, BloombergNEF projects an additional 3.4 terawatts over the next five years—nearly six times what the U.S. is expected to add. The objective is clear: to ensure that China’s next wave of industries, including AI, robotics, and advanced manufacturing, is never constrained by energy shortages.
Clean Energy Emerges as the Next Growth Engine
As I’ve noted before, both Elon Musk and NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang have warned that China’s enormous power surplus could give it a decisive edge in AI computing—and the data backs that up.
In 2025, clean energy accounted for more than a third of China’s GDP growth and over 90% of new investment. Industries such as solar, electric vehicles, and battery technology generated more than $2.1 trillion in economic output, roughly on par with the GDP of Canada or Brazil. Viewed on its own, China’s clean energy sector would rank as the world’s eighth-largest economy.
Meanwhile, in Washington, progress remains stalled by politics.
By contrast, the United States has struggled to execute large-scale energy buildouts amid political gridlock and partisan divides. While China plans decades ahead, U.S. policymakers too often remain focused on the next election cycle.
According to a recent report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), China is on course to overtake the U.S. across a wide range of what it terms “national power industries.” These span military sectors such as guided missiles and tanks, dual-use industries like electronic displays and semiconductors, and enabling industries including automobiles and heavy construction equipment.
That said, the U.S. continues to commit heavily to defense spending. Congress recently approved an $839 billion defense bill—$8 billion more than requested by the Pentagon—with funding directed toward key systems such as the F-35, the B-21 bomber, and the Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program. More than $13 billion is also allocated to space and missile defense under President Trump’s Golden Dome initiative.
What This Means for Investors
Equity markets may already be signaling the start of a new investment cycle. In January, leadership shifted toward small-cap, domestically oriented stocks. While the S&P 500 hit new highs with a gain of about 1.4%, the Russell 2000 jumped 5.4%, markedly outperforming large caps. Small caps also logged a 15-day streak of outperformance versus the S&P—the longest since May 1996.
This strength does not appear to be a one-off. Since the beginning of Trump’s second term, the Russell 2000 has edged ahead of the S&P 500, rising roughly 17% versus 15% as of Friday, February 6. Some small-cap companies, though not all, tend to be less exposed to tariffs and could benefit over time in a less globalized world.
That said, careful stock selection is critical. Around 40% of Russell 2000 constituents are currently unprofitable.
Finally, with precious metals retreating from recent highs, investors may want to consider buying the dip. A 10% allocation to gold—split evenly between physical bullion and high-quality mining stocks—can help diversify portfolios, with regular rebalancing remaining essential.
Oil prices slipped in Asian trading on Monday as the United States and Iran indicated they would continue negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear program, easing concerns about heightened tensions in the Middle East.
Crude prices were also weighed down by a firmer U.S. dollar ahead of a busy week of key U.S. economic data, extending losses after a roughly 2% decline last week. Investors are additionally awaiting major economic releases from China, the world’s largest oil importer.
Brent crude futures for April dropped 0.7% to $67.57 a barrel by 21:17 ET (02:17 GMT), while West Texas Intermediate futures also fell 0.7% to $63.12 a barrel.
U.S. and Iran agree to press ahead with nuclear negotiations
Washington and Tehran said over the weekend that indirect nuclear negotiations will continue following what both sides described as constructive talks in Oman on Friday.
The statements helped ease fears of an imminent military confrontation in the Middle East, particularly after the United States had earlier deployed several warships to the region.
Concerns over a potential conflict had previously pushed traders to build a higher risk premium into oil prices, with former President Donald Trump also issuing threats of military action against Iran.
However, the likelihood of a full-scale war in the region now appears reduced, even as Tehran indicated it will continue advancing its nuclear enrichment activities.
Markets await key U.S. and China economic data
Attention this week is also on a slate of major economic data from the world’s largest oil-consuming economies.
In the United States, January nonfarm payrolls figures are due on Wednesday, followed by CPI inflation data on Friday. These releases will be closely scrutinized for further signals on the interest-rate outlook, as markets continue to assess the direction of monetary policy under Warsh.
In China, January CPI data is also scheduled for release on Friday, providing fresh insight into conditions in the world’s biggest oil importer.
The data arrives just ahead of China’s week-long Lunar New Year holiday, which is expected to boost fuel demand across the country.
Nasdaq has put forward a proposal to accelerate the inclusion of newly listed large companies into its indexes, aiming to reduce the lengthy delays that have often kept major IPOs and exchange transfers out of benchmark indexes for months.
The move comes as 2026 is shaping up to be a particularly active year for high-profile listings, with potential IPOs from companies such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX and artificial intelligence startup Anthropic. According to a source familiar with the discussions, advisers to SpaceX—following its recent acquisition of xAI—have contacted major index providers, including Nasdaq, to explore earlier-than-usual index entry. SpaceX did not immediately respond to a request for comment, and Nasdaq declined to comment.
Under the proposed “Fast Entry” rule, a newly listed Nasdaq company would qualify for expedited inclusion if its market capitalization ranks within the top 40 of existing index constituents. Eligible companies would receive at least five trading days’ notice and be added to the index after 15 trading sessions.
The proposal would waive the usual seasoning and liquidity requirements. Rather than replacing an existing constituent, the new entrant would temporarily expand the index’s size until the next annual reconstitution, consistent with Nasdaq’s approach to handling spin-offs.
Michael Ashley Schulman, partner and chief investment officer at Running Point Capital Advisors, said faster inclusion would enhance Nasdaq’s appeal for large issuers by improving liquidity and narrowing bid-ask spreads through greater passive fund ownership.
The lack of a fast-track mechanism has frequently created a gap between index composition and broader market realities, particularly given the scale and market influence of newly listed giants. Investors also expect major additions to be reflected promptly in the index, something the current framework often fails to deliver.
The proposed rule could prove especially consequential in 2026, as artificial intelligence–driven technology leaders may seek valuations in the hundreds of billions of dollars. Nasdaq remains the preferred exchange for U.S. technology heavyweights, including trillion-dollar companies such as Alphabet and Nvidia.
The Nasdaq 100 index, which includes the exchange’s largest listed firms, is closely watched by investors and analysts and is widely viewed as a key gauge of the health of technology and growth-focused sectors.
“As this proposal shows, Nasdaq is signaling that no company is too large and no system is too established to be improved,” Schulman said.
Canada and China reached a preliminary trade agreement on Friday to sharply reduce tariffs on electric vehicles and canola, pledging to dismantle trade barriers and deepen strategic cooperation during Prime Minister Mark Carney’s visit.
On his first trip to China since 2017 by a Canadian prime minister, Carney aims to repair relations with Canada’s second-largest trading partner after the United States, following months of diplomatic outreach.
Canada will initially permit imports of up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles at a 6.1% most-favoured-nation tariff, Prime Minister Mark Carney said following talks with Chinese leaders, including President Xi Jinping.
The move marks a sharp reversal from the 100% tariff imposed on Chinese EVs in 2024 under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in line with similar measures taken by the United States. China shipped 41,678 electric vehicles to Canada in 2023.
“This restores access to levels seen before the recent trade disputes, but within a framework that offers significantly more benefits for Canadians,” Carney said, adding that the import quota would be expanded gradually to around 70,000 vehicles over the next five years.
“To build a globally competitive electric vehicle industry, Canada must learn from innovative partners, gain access to their supply chains, and stimulate domestic demand,” Carney said, distancing himself from former prime minister Justin Trudeau’s view that tariffs were necessary to shield local manufacturers from subsidised Chinese competitors.
Canada’s decision to ease EV tariffs runs counter to U.S. policy, drawing criticism from some members of President Donald Trump’s cabinet ahead of a planned review of the U.S.–Canada–Mexico trade agreement. However, Trump himself voiced support for Carney’s approach.
“That’s exactly what he should be doing. Signing trade deals is good for him. If you can strike a deal with China, you should take it,” Trump said at the White House.
AGRI-FOOD PARTNERSHIP: Ontario Premier Doug Ford denounces the deal.
“The federal government is effectively opening the door to a surge of low-cost Chinese-made electric vehicles without firm assurances of comparable or timely investment in Canada’s economy, auto industry, or supply chains,” Ford said in a post on X.
China imposed retaliatory tariffs in March on more than $2.6 billion worth of Canadian agricultural and food exports — including canola oil and meal — in response to tariffs introduced by Trudeau. Additional duties on canola seed followed in August.
As a result, China’s imports of Canadian goods fell by 10.4% in 2025.
Under the new agreement, Canada expects China to cut tariffs on canola seed to a combined rate of around 15% by March 1, down from 84%, Carney said. He added that discriminatory tariffs on Canadian canola meal, lobsters, crabs and peas are also expected to be lifted from March 1 through at least the end of the year.
Canadian canola futures climbed.
The agreements are expected to generate nearly $3 billion in export orders for Canadian farmers, fishers and food processors, Carney said.
China’s Ministry of Commerce said it would adjust anti-dumping duties on canola and lift anti-discrimination measures on certain Canadian agricultural and seafood products, citing Canada’s decision to lower tariffs on electric vehicles.
Carney added that President Xi Jinping had agreed in principle to grant visa-free travel for Canadians visiting China, though further details were not provided.
In a statement released by state-run Xinhua, the two countries said they would resume high-level economic and financial talks, expand trade and investment, and deepen cooperation in sectors including agriculture, oil, gas and green energy.
Carney said Canada plans to double the size of its power grid over the next 15 years, creating potential opportunities for Chinese investment, including in offshore wind projects. He also said Canada is ramping up liquefied natural gas exports to Asia, with annual production set to reach 50 million tonnes by 2030, all of which will be shipped to Asian markets.
Carney says China has become “more predictable”
Given the growing complications in Canada’s trade relationship with the United States, it is unsurprising that Carney’s government is seeking to strengthen trade and investment ties with Beijing, which offers a vast market for Canadian agricultural exports, said Even Rogers Pay of Beijing-based consultancy Trivium China.
U.S. President Donald Trump has imposed tariffs on certain Canadian goods and has even suggested that the longtime U.S. ally could become America’s 51st state. China, which has also been targeted by Trump’s tariffs, is eager to deepen cooperation with a G7 country traditionally seen as part of the U.S. sphere of influence.
Asked whether China had become a more predictable and reliable partner than the United States, Carney said recent engagement with Beijing had delivered greater clarity and tangible outcomes. “Looking at how our relationship with China has evolved in recent months, it has become more predictable, and we are seeing results from that,” he said.
Carney added that he had also discussed Greenland with President Xi Jinping, saying the two leaders found their views broadly aligned. Trump has recently revived his claim to the semi-autonomous Danish territory, prompting NATO members to push back against U.S. criticism that Greenland is insufficiently defended.
Analysts said the warming of ties between Canada and China could alter the political and economic backdrop of Sino-U.S. competition, though Ottawa is unlikely to shift decisively away from Washington.
“Canada remains a core U.S. ally and is deeply integrated into American security and intelligence systems,” said Sun Chenghao, a fellow at Tsinghua University’s Centre for International Security and Strategy. “A strategic realignment away from Washington is therefore highly unlikely.”
The recent rally in Japanese equities, sparked by Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s announcement of a snap election, could lose momentum if she ultimately achieves her political objectives, as increased fiscal spending risks stoking inflation and pushing up government borrowing costs.
Japan’s Topix index jumped over 4% this week, marking its strongest advance since July, as investors revived the so-called “Takaichi trade,” betting on heavier government expenditure. Takaichi is seeking to strengthen her grip on power by expanding her party’s seat count, which would give her greater latitude to pursue expansionary economic policies.
Market participants believe Takaichi could follow in the footsteps of her mentor, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose stimulus-driven Abenomics era propelled asset prices. She has identified sectors such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, defense, space, and content industries as key targets for investment.
Although Japanese equities are once again following a familiar pattern of rallying ahead of Lower House elections, sustained upside may hinge on the specifics of Takaichi’s fiscal agenda. Meanwhile, bond investors are demanding higher yields to compensate for holding Japanese government debt, even as global bond yields ease.
“Rising break-even inflation rates suggest the market is pricing in looser, more inflationary policies after the election, with inflation staying above the Bank of Japan’s target for longer,” said Aninda Mitra, head of Asia macro and investment strategy at BNY Investments.
Economists anticipate that Japan’s consumer inflation will ease to below 2.0% this year — falling under the Bank of Japan’s target for the first time in five years — helped in part by reductions in gasoline taxes and other regulated prices.
However, the yen’s decline to a more than one-year low of 159.45 per dollar on Wednesday, and to its weakest level since 1992 on a trade-weighted basis, has reignited inflation worries. The currency’s weakness is also eroding its traditional support for exporter stocks. Pressure on the yen has intensified as Takaichi’s dovish stance on monetary policy is seen as constraining the BOJ’s ability to raise interest rates swiftly.
“The yen is the biggest risk factor for Takaichi,” said Chisa Kobayashi, Japan equity strategist at UBS SuMi TRUST Wealth Management. “Further depreciation could push inflation higher, dampen consumer spending, and eventually weaken voter backing.”
Neil Newman, head of strategy at Astris Advisory Japan, said a Takaichi election victory could drive another 5% rise in the Nikkei 225 Stock Average. “With the government planning targeted investments in strategic sectors, a surge in capital expenditure is likely,” he said.
Despite Takaichi’s strong approval ratings, which have led many investors to expect a comfortable win, some analysts are growing more cautious after Komeito — previously a junior coalition partner of the Liberal Democratic Party — shifted toward cooperation with the main opposition party.
As a result, the election outcome has become increasingly uncertain, said Shinichi Ichikawa, senior fellow at Pictet Asset Management Japan.
“The one thing that’s clear is that both camps will be compelled to campaign on bold spending promises to attract voters,” he said.
WTI prices rise amid growing supply concerns linked to escalating unrest in Iran.
President Trump has warned Tehran against using force on protesters, while Iran has warned the U.S. and Israel against any intervention.
However, oil price gains may be capped due to anticipated resumption of Venezuelan exports and forecasts of a potential market oversupply.
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude extended its gains for a third consecutive session, trading around $59.10 per barrel during Asian hours on Monday. The rise in oil prices is driven by growing supply concerns amid escalating protests in Iran. As OPEC’s fourth-largest producer, exporting nearly 2 million barrels per day, any conflict escalation poses a significant risk to global supply.
The unrest, now in its third week and having reportedly resulted in hundreds of casualties, has prompted Iranian authorities to signal a harsher crackdown. Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump warned Tehran against using force on protesters and suggested possible intervention if the situation worsens, while Iranian officials cautioned against any U.S. or Israeli involvement.
Oil price gains may be restrained by expectations that Venezuelan crude exports could resume following political changes in the country, with the U.S. poised to receive or manage up to 50 million barrels of sanctioned oil under a new arrangement with interim authorities. This potential influx of supply has tempered some of the upside from geopolitical risk.
However, uncertainty remains over the timing and scale of Venezuelan shipments, as shifting U.S. policy and the logistics of restarting exports from dilapidated ports and vessels cloud the outlook for actual flows.
Meanwhile, traders are watching for possible supply disruptions from Russia amid ongoing Ukraine attacks on energy infrastructure and the prospect of tougher U.S. sanctions on Russian energy exports — factors that could add upward pressure on prices if they materially reduce output.
Oil prices remained mostly steady during Asian trading on Monday as investors balanced concerns over potential supply disruptions due to escalating unrest in Iran against the likelihood of more Venezuelan crude returning to the market.
As of 22:23 ET (03:23 GMT), March Brent crude futures rose slightly by 0.1% to $63.39 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures also increased by 0.1% to $59.15 per barrel. Both benchmarks had gained over 3% last week amid heightened geopolitical tensions.
Iran’s lethal protests raise fears of oil supply disruption
Markets have been closely monitoring Iran, a major oil producer in the Middle East, where widespread anti-government protests have escalated in recent days. According to rights organizations, over 500 people have died amid the unrest.
Iranian authorities have warned that U.S. military bases in the region would be targeted if Washington intervenes in support of the protesters. This threat has intensified concerns about a wider regional conflict that could disrupt oil shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global energy supplies.
U.S. President Donald Trump adopted a tougher stance on Iran last week, declaring that the U.S. would not remain passive if Iranian forces continue harsh crackdowns on demonstrators.
“Iran, as the fourth-largest OPEC member, produces about 3.2 million barrels per day of crude oil, which represents a significant supply risk for the market,” ING analysts noted in a recent report.
Resumption of Venezuelan oil exports limits upside in oil prices
However, gains were limited by news from Venezuela, where U.S. officials indicated they might ease restrictions on the country’s oil sector. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said additional sanctions could be lifted as early as next week to help facilitate the sale of Venezuelan crude and support oil exports.
President Donald Trump also revealed plans for Venezuela to turn over up to 30 – 50 million barrels of previously sanctioned oil to the United States.
Despite the prospects of renewed output, major oil companies are cautious about re-entering the Venezuelan market without substantial legal and political reforms. ExxonMobil has described the country as “uninvestable” without major changes, and analysts note that firms whose assets were nationalised previously may be reluctant to return without adequate compensation.
Tehran has declared it will attack Israel and U.S. military bases in the region if Washington intervenes militarily to support protesters in Iran.
Speaking before the Iranian Parliament today, Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf accused the U.S. and Israel of “supporting recent riots and causing unrest” across Iran. He warned that Israel and U.S. military bases in the region would be considered “legitimate targets” if the U.S. launches any attacks against Iran.
According to Reuters, Israeli authorities are currently on high alert due to the possibility of U.S. intervention to back the protest movement in Iran.
The New York Times quoted knowledgeable U.S. officials saying that in recent days, President Donald Trump has received reports on potential military interventions in Iran as he considers acting on his threats to attack the country over accusations of “suppressing protesters.”
While Trump has not made a final decision, officials indicate he is seriously weighing the possibility of launching strikes in response to Iran’s crackdown on demonstrations. Various options have been presented to the president, including attacks on non-military sites in Tehran.
According to sources, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio spoke by phone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on January 10 to discuss the protests in Iran, the situation in Syria, and the peace agreement in Gaza. Earlier that day, Rubio posted on social media expressing U.S. support for “the brave people of Iran.”
When asked about the New York Times report, the White House referred to President Trump’s recent public statements and social media posts.
“Perhaps Iran is closer to freedom than ever before. America is ready to help,” Trump wrote on social media on January 10.
The day before, he warned of “very strong” retaliation if Iran causes protester deaths as in previous incidents. He noted the demonstrators in Iran face “extreme danger” and said the U.S. will closely monitor developments.
“Iran better not start shooting because if they do, we will shoot back,” Trump said, but emphasized this did not mean American troops would directly deploy to Iran.
The protests, which began on December 28, 2025, sparked by small traders upset over the economic situation and the falling rial, have spread in Tehran and other cities in recent days. Iranian officials accuse “terrorist agents” from Israel and the U.S. of inciting the protests and escalating violence, claims denied by the U.S. State Department, which says Tehran is “distracting attention from internal problems.”
International organizations citing local sources report that the Iranian government has blocked nationwide information flow, cut Internet access, and limited international communications, making it difficult to assess the full scope of the protests. Some human rights groups abroad report over 100 protesters have died and more than 2,000 have been arrested since late December 2025.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei declared that the government will not back down before the protests, claiming that the past two weeks of unrest are caused by agitators aiming to please the U.S. leadership. He mocked Trump’s intervention warnings, urging the U.S. president to focus on domestic issues.
Iranian Judiciary Chief Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei warned of “severe, maximum, and merciless” punishment for rioters, while the intelligence branch of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) vowed not to allow the protests to continue.
Oil companies seeking to take part in newly approved exports of Venezuelan crude to the United States after the removal of President Nicolás Maduro are holding urgent talks to secure tankers and organize operations to safely transfer oil from ships and deteriorating Venezuelan ports, according to four sources familiar with the matter.
Trading firms and energy companies such as Chevron, Vitol, and Trafigura are vying for U.S. government contracts to export Venezuelan crude, the sources said, after President Donald Trump announced that Venezuela could deliver up to 50 million barrels of previously sanctioned oil to the United States.
Trafigura told the White House in a meeting on Friday that its first vessel is expected to load within the coming week.
After months under a U.S. blockade, Venezuela has been storing crude aboard tankers and has nearly exhausted its onshore storage capacity. Many of these vessels are aging, poorly maintained, and subject to sanctions. Due to insurance and liability restrictions, other ships cannot directly interact with sanctioned tankers—even if U.S. licenses are granted—sources added.
Onshore storage facilities have also suffered years of neglect, creating additional risks for companies attempting to load the oil.
Shipping firms including Maersk Tankers and American Eagle Tankers are among those seeking to expand ship-to-ship transfer operations in Venezuela, according to three of the sources.
According to one source, Maersk Tankers could reuse the ship-to-shore-to-ship logistics model it previously employed in Venezuela’s Amuay Bay. The company already operates in nearby Aruba and Curaçao, whose waters are frequently used for transferring Venezuelan oil. However, while such transfers are feasible in Aruba and at U.S. ports, they come at a higher cost.
In a statement, Maersk said its presence in Venezuela remains limited, with only 17 employees in the country. The company confirmed that all staff are safe and accounted for, and that there have been no changes to its ocean services. Operations are continuing with only minor delays, and the situation is being closely monitored.
Another shipping source noted that transfer operations will be further complicated by a shortage of smaller vessels needed to move oil from storage tankers to piers, where it can then be transferred to other ships, as well as by poorly maintained machinery and equipment.
American Eagle Tankers (AET), which already facilitates Chevron’s shipments of Venezuelan crude to the United States, is being contacted by potential customers seeking to expand its capacity in the region, two sources said.
Neither AET nor Chevron immediately responded to requests for comment.
Sources added that while exports could potentially return to the roughly 500,000 barrels per day that Venezuela shipped to the United States before sanctions—allowing stockpiles to be drawn down within 90 to 120 days—reaching that level will be difficult if crude must be sourced from both offshore tankers and onshore storage facilities.
Companies are also fiercely competing for loading slots at Venezuela’s main Jose oil terminal, where both capacity and operating speed are constrained. Chevron, a major joint-venture partner in the country, is working aggressively to maintain its preferential access to Venezuelan terminals while preparing its vessel fleet, according to one source.
Meanwhile, oil firms including Chevron, Vitol, and Trafigura are already securing supplies of much-needed naphtha, a Venezuelan industry source said. Naphtha is commonly blended with heavy Venezuelan crude to reduce its density, making it easier to transport and refine.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that Australia and several other countries would participate in a meeting of finance ministers from the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies, which he is hosting in Washington on Monday to address critical minerals.
Bessent mentioned that he has been advocating for this dedicated meeting on critical minerals since the G7 leaders’ summit last summer, and the finance ministers previously held a virtual session on the topic in December.
India was also invited to attend the meeting, Bessent told Reuters during a visit to Winnebago Industries’ engineering lab near Minneapolis, though he was uncertain if India had accepted the invitation.
It is not yet clear which other countries have been invited.
The G7 consists of the United States, Britain, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, and the European Union. Many members heavily rely on China for rare earth minerals. In June, the group agreed on a plan to secure supply chains and strengthen their economies.
In October, Australia signed an agreement with the U.S. to challenge China’s dominance in critical minerals, involving an $8.5 billion project pipeline and Australia’s proposed strategic reserve. This reserve will provide essential metals such as rare earths and lithium, which are vulnerable to supply disruptions.
Following this, Canberra reported interest from Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Singapore.
China currently dominates the critical minerals supply chain, refining between 47% and 87% of copper, lithium, cobalt, graphite, and rare earths, according to the International Energy Agency. These minerals are essential for defense technology, semiconductors, renewable energy components, batteries, and refining operations.
In recent years, Western countries have aimed to lessen their reliance on China’s critical minerals due to China’s implementation of stringent export restrictions on rare earth elements.
Monday’s meeting follows reports that China recently started limiting rare earth exports and powerful magnets to Japanese companies, and also banned the export of dual-use goods to the Japanese military.
Bessent noted that China continues to honor its commitments to buy U.S. soybeans and supply critical minerals to American companies.Monday’s meeting follows reports that China recently started limiting rare earth exports and powerful magnets to Japanese companies, and also banned the export of dual-use goods to the Japanese military.
Bessent noted that China continues to honor its commitments to buy U.S. soybeans and supply critical minerals to American companies.
The self-driving car industry has experienced a cycle of high hopes, costly setbacks, and ongoing delays. From Tesla’s (NASDAQ:TSLA) frequent missed deadlines to General Motors (NYSE:GM) shutting down its Cruise autonomous division following a pedestrian accident, achieving fully autonomous vehicles has been much tougher than early developers expected.
However, a fresh wave of innovation driven by artificial intelligence and strategic collaborations is revitalizing this groundbreaking technology.
At the forefront of this resurgence is Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA), the chipmaker whose leadership in AI computing is now expanding into the automotive sector, providing Western car manufacturers with a potential way to rival China’s rapidly progressing autonomous driving advancements.
The Present State of Autonomous Driving in the U.S.
The U.S. self-driving industry is currently at a critical juncture, with only a few companies still seriously competing. In 2019, Tesla CEO Elon Musk confidently predicted that a million autonomous vehicles would be on the roads within a year. However, the company only rolled out a limited robotaxi pilot program in late 2025, falling six years behind schedule. A major challenge has been the countless unpredictable scenarios, known as edge cases, that can confuse autonomous systems.
Traditional automakers have mostly pulled back from the sector. General Motors shut down its Cruise autonomous division following a serious incident where one of its vehicles hit and dragged a pedestrian.
Similarly, Ford Motor ceased its internal autonomous vehicle projects, choosing to withdraw from the capital-heavy competition. Alphabet’s (NASDAQ:GOOGL) Waymo remains the only company maintaining consistent operations, currently offering Level 4 robotaxi services in several U.S. cities.
At the same time, China has made significant advances supported by strong government backing and rapid deployment. Chinese automakers now account for about seventy percent of global electric vehicle production, while companies such as BYD, Baidu, and Pony.ai are growing their robotaxi services throughout Asia and the Middle East.
The Chinese government recently authorized two vehicles with Level 3 autonomous driving capabilities, permitting hands-free driving. This regulatory endorsement, along with better network infrastructure and more affordable costs, has established China as a rising leader in autonomous technology.
Nvidia’s Self-Driving Platform: Revolutionizing the Industry
At CES 2026 in Las Vegas, Nvidia introduced its solution to the autonomous driving challenge: the Alpamayo platform. Simply put, Alpamayo is a comprehensive toolkit that enables automakers to develop self-driving systems without starting from zero.
The platform features reasoning models that help vehicles interpret and respond to their environment, simulation tools for safely testing various scenarios, and datasets for training the AI. It can process data from cameras and radar sensors to make decisions on steering, braking, and acceleration while also providing explanations for its choices.
What makes Alpamayo especially noteworthy is that Nvidia has made it open-source, allowing any company to use and adapt it freely. This approach contrasts sharply with Tesla’s proprietary model.
Industry experts liken this to the smartphone battle between Apple’s (NASDAQ:AAPL) closed ecosystem and Android’s open platform. By offering a shared foundation, Nvidia empowers automakers to concentrate on differentiating their products rather than reinventing fundamental technology, potentially speeding up the entire industry’s development.
The platform is quickly gaining momentum. Mercedes-Benz revealed that its upcoming CLA model will incorporate AI-driven driving features powered by Nvidia’s technology, set to hit U.S. roads later this year. Additionally, a robotaxi partnership involving Lucid Group, Nuro, and Uber plans to leverage Nvidia’s chips and platform.
Ali Kani, Nvidia’s general manager of the automotive division, expressed optimism that recent fundamental AI improvements have resolved critical issues that once hindered self-driving technology, indicating the industry might be nearing a major breakthrough.
NVDA Share Forecast and What Investors Should Know
Nvidia’s stock mirrors its leading position in several AI-driven markets. As of January 2026, NVDA shares are trading around $185 each, with a market cap near $4.5 trillion, ranking it among the world’s most valuable companies.
The stock has delivered remarkable returns, rising more than 32% in the past year and an impressive 1,297% over five years, significantly outperforming the S&P 500’s 81% gain during the same timeframe.
Despite its high valuation, key financial indicators remain strong. In Q3 FY26, Nvidia reported revenues of $57 billion and earnings of $31.8 billion, surpassing analyst expectations for earnings per share by four cents.
The trailing price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio stands at about 46, while the forward P/E is 24, reflecting the market’s high growth expectations. However, a PEG ratio of 0.70 indicates that the stock’s valuation could be reasonable relative to its anticipated earnings growth. Nvidia continues to demonstrate strong profitability, with a profit margin above 53% and a return on equity exceeding 100%.
Analysts generally hold a positive outlook on Nvidia’s future. The average price target of $252 suggests about a 36% potential increase from current levels, with forecasts ranging from $140 on the low side to $352 at the high end. Most analysts have Buy or Strong Buy ratings, highlighting sustained strong demand for AI infrastructure.
While Nvidia’s automotive division offers a growing avenue beyond its core data center business, investors should be aware that the stock exhibits high volatility, with a beta of 2.31. The upcoming earnings report on February 25, 2026, is expected to shed more light on the company’s progress.
Oil prices advanced during Asian trading on Friday, extending the previous session’s rebound as investors focused on possible supply disruptions in Russia and Iran amid geopolitical risks.
At the same time, fears of an immediate rise in Venezuelan oil output subsided after the U.S. Senate approved a measure requiring congressional authorization for further military action by President Trump.
Analysts said oil production in the country is unlikely to increase sharply in the near term, even with U.S. intervention.
Brent crude futures for March rose 0.7% to $62.44 a barrel, while WTI futures gained 0.7% to $58.03 by 21:04 ET (02:04 GMT). Both benchmarks rebounded to levels seen before last week’s U.S. military action in Venezuela after posting more than 4% gains on Thursday.
Oil prices were supported by positive inflation data from China, the world’s top oil importer, signaling a tentative economic recovery. However, gains were limited as traders remained cautious ahead of key U.S. nonfarm payrolls data that could affect interest rate expectations.
Markets focus on potential supply disruptions in Russia and Iran
Concerns about possible supply disruptions in Russia and the Middle East lent support to oil prices this week.
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine showed little sign of resolution, with ongoing military actions. A drone strike on a tanker headed to Russia in the Black Sea heightened fears of further interruptions to Russian crude supplies.
Compounding these concerns, reports indicated that U.S. President Donald Trump plans to endorse a bipartisan bill imposing even tougher restrictions on countries trading with Russia, aiming to increase pressure on Moscow to seek a ceasefire.
Meanwhile, Iraq’s government approved a move to nationalize operations at the West Qurna 2 oilfield—one of the world’s largest—in an effort to avoid supply disruptions stemming from U.S. sanctions on Russia.
In Iran, escalating nationwide anti-government protests have raised worries about potential impacts on oil production. The government responded with a countrywide internet blackout as demonstrations spread across major cities protesting the Nezam regime.
Market concerns over Venezuelan oil supply ease
Oil prices benefited from easing worries that a U.S. intervention in Venezuela would lead to a significant near-term surge in global crude supply.
Earlier this week, Trump stated that Caracas could deliver up to $3 billion worth of oil to the U.S. and indicated plans for long-term U.S. influence over the country.
However, Congress has advanced legislation that may restrict U.S. military involvement in Venezuela.
Many analysts noted that while U.S. involvement could eventually help boost Venezuelan oil production, persistent political turmoil and deteriorated infrastructure make any near‑term surge in output unlikely.
Oil prices initially plunged after the U.S. detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and signaled control over the country’s oil industry, but prices had fully recovered by Friday as markets judged immediate changes to supply to be limited.
Still, crude prices were experiencing their steepest annual decline in five years in 2025, weighed down by concerns over a widening supply glut and sluggish demand growth—an outlook echoed by major global institutions forecasting continued oversupply into 2026.
Oil prices weakened yesterday after President Trump said Venezuela would supply large volumes of sanctioned crude to the United States.
Energy
Developments in Venezuela remain in the spotlight, adding further downside pressure to oil prices. President Trump said Venezuela is prepared to sell up to 50 million barrels of sanctioned crude to the United States, a move that could also immediately weigh on Canadian crude exports to the U.S.
Such a deal would effectively open a release channel for Venezuelan oil, which has struggled to reach global markets due to a U.S. blockade on sanctioned tankers entering and leaving the country. Redirecting these barrels to the U.S. could ease storage constraints and reduce the need for Venezuela to curb production.
The U.S. Department of Energy confirmed that Venezuelan crude is already being marketed internationally, while Trump’s energy secretary stated that Washington intends to maintain long-term control over future Venezuelan oil sales. This strategy is reinforced by the continued tanker blockade, with two additional vessels reportedly seized yesterday.
Washington’s growing influence over Venezuela’s oil sector also raises uncertainty about the country’s future role within OPEC.
Meanwhile, Energy Information Administration (EIA) data showed U.S. crude inventories fell by 3.83 million barrels last week, the sharpest draw since late October. However, product balances were more bearish, as gasoline stocks rose by 7.7 million barrels and distillate inventories increased by 5.6 million barrels.
These inventory builds point to refinery utilization remaining firm, while implied demand for both products softened somewhat over the past week.
European gas prices moved higher yesterday, with TTF closing more than 2.5% up on the day. Colder conditions across parts of Europe, along with forecasts for below-average temperatures in the days ahead, are supporting the market. The current cold spell has also accelerated storage drawdowns, with EU gas inventories now at 58% of capacity, compared with a five-year average of 72%.
The latest positioning data show that investment funds cut their net short exposure in TTF for a third straight week. Funds purchased 6.2 TWh during the latest reporting period, reducing their net short position to 72.4 TWh.
Oil prices climbed during Asian trading on Thursday, regaining some losses after sharp declines triggered by worries over rising Venezuelan crude supplies.
Additionally, stronger-than-anticipated weekly declines in U.S. oil inventories supported the price recovery. Ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine also contributed to maintaining a risk premium in the market.
March Brent crude futures increased by 0.7% to reach $60.38 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures also gained 0.7%, settling at $56.28 per barrel as of 20:25 ET (01:25 GMT). Both benchmarks had fallen more than 1% over the previous two sessions.
Attention turns to US – Venezuela oil agreement after Trump highlights up to $3 billion in planned crude sales
Oil markets are closely watching the impact of a new agreement between the U.S. and Venezuela on global oil supplies.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that Venezuela will deliver between 30 million and 50 million barrels of oil to the U.S., valued at up to $3 billion, shortly after U.S. forces detained Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
Trump also appeared to encourage multiple U.S. oil companies to expand production activities in Venezuela, with Chevron Corp (NYSE: CVX) leading these efforts. According to Reuters, Chevron is negotiating to broaden its license to operate in the country.
Currently, Chevron is the only major U.S. oil company active in Venezuela, benefiting from special government exemptions that shield it from stringent sanctions imposed on the nation.
Markets are worried that a significant rise in Venezuelan oil output could further swell global supplies, adding to prevailing fears of an oil glut in 2026. Traders are already pricing in ample supply conditions, with expectations that any additional barrels from Venezuela might weigh on crude prices.
However, analysts caution that any meaningful increase in Venezuelan production is unlikely to happen quickly, given the country’s deep political instability and the extensive investment needed to rebuild its dilapidated oil infrastructure after recent upheavals.
A Financial Times report also noted that U.S. oil firms are seeking strong legal and financial guarantees from the U.S. government before committing to major investments in Venezuela’s oil sector, reflecting industry hesitancy amid uncertain policy and market conditions.
U.S. crude stockpiles decline beyond forecasts
Government data released Wednesday revealed that U.S. oil inventories fell by 3.8 million barrels in the week ending January 2, significantly exceeding expectations of a 1.2 million barrel decline.
This reduction was almost double the 1.9 million barrel draw reported the previous week, bolstering confidence that demand remains robust in the world’s largest fuel consumer.
Attention this week centers on several key U.S. economic reports, especially the December nonfarm payrolls data set to be released on Friday, which is expected to influence interest rate forecasts.
After months of rising tensions, the United States launched a major military operation in Venezuela on 3 January 2026, resulting in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. U.S. President Donald Trump confirmed the operation, saying Washington would administer Venezuela until a stable transition government could be established. This marks one of the most dramatic U.S. interventions in Latin America in decades, with Maduro removed from power and taken into U.S. custody.
Maduro, long a focal point of U.S. sanctions and foreign policy pressure, was transported to the United States to face federal charges—such as narco‑terrorism and drug trafficking—filed in the Southern District of New York.
Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, and the sudden change in leadership carries significant geopolitical and economic implications well beyond its borders.
Why Did the US Capture Maduro?
Nicolás Maduro rose through the Venezuelan political system under socialist leader Hugo Chávez and became president in 2013. His time in power was widely criticized domestically and internationally, with opponents accusing him of suppressing dissent, restricting freedoms, and holding elections that lacked credibility.
Relations with Washington deteriorated sharply, especially under the Trump administration. U.S. officials accused Maduro’s government of involvement in drug trafficking and creating conditions that fueled migration toward the United States. They also branded elements of his regime—including the Cartel of the Suns—as a terrorist organization.
Tensions escalated in 2025 when the U.S. increased the bounty for Maduro’s arrest to $50 million and expanded military pressure in the region, including strikes on vessels the U.S. claimed were tied to drug smuggling.
On 3 January 2026, after months of military buildup and diplomatic pressure, U.S. forces launched a major operation in Venezuela—code‑named Operation Absolute Resolve—that resulted in the capture of Maduro and his wife. The U.S. government framed the intervention as a law‑enforcement action tied to longstanding criminal charges against Maduro, including narcoterrorism.
The United States claims that Venezuelan officials were engaged in government‑backed drug trafficking, asserting links with the so‑called Cartel of the Suns, which Washington has designated as a terrorist organization—a claim Maduro vehemently rejects. He argues that U.S. actions were aimed at forcing regime change and securing control over Venezuela’s vast oil riches.
Only hours before his detention, Maduro made his final public appearance as president when he hosted China’s special envoy, Qiu Xiaoqi, at the Miraflores Palace to discuss bilateral relations—an event that highlighted Caracas’s reliance on foreign partnerships for political support. Shortly after that meeting, explosions were reported across Caracas.
The event went beyond a simple arrest; it sent a broader strategic message, particularly to countries like China and Iran, undermining the belief that the U.S. would refrain from acting against governments supported by foreign adversaries.
Drill, Baby, Drill
A major strategic factor behind U.S. actions in Venezuela appears to be securing access to its vast energy resources. Venezuela sits on the largest proven oil reserves on the planet, with estimates from Wood Mackenzie suggesting roughly 241 billion barrels of recoverable crude, making it a uniquely significant player in global oil markets.
Top Countries by Proven Oil Reserves (Billion Barrels)
However, Venezuela’s track record of oil output underscores just how challenging it has been to tap into its vast reserves. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the nation was capable of producing close to 3 million barrels per day—a level that made it one of the world’s top crude exporters. But political turmoil, labor strikes, and the restructuring of the oil sector under Hugo Chávez triggered a prolonged decline. The downturn was steepened further by U.S. sanctions starting in 2017, which restricted investment, technology, and exports, driving production down sharply. After bottoming out around 374,000–500,000 bpd during the worst of the crisis, output has only modestly recovered in recent years and remains in the range of approximately 800,000–900,000 bpd.
Historical Total Venezuelan Supply
Expectations that Venezuelan oil output could quickly rebound may overstate what’s realistically achievable. History shows that even after major disruptions, rebuilding oil production takes many years and vast investment. For example, Iraq needed almost a decade and well over $200 billion in capital to restore its output after the Iraq War, while Libya still has not returned to its pre‑2011 production levels.
Venezuela’s challenges are even more severe. Most of its reserves are extra‑heavy crude that demands upgrading and blending with diluents before it can be transported and refined, a costly and technical process. Years of underinvestment, international sanctions, the erosion of PDVSA’s workforce, and the deterioration of infrastructure have compounded these production hurdles. Pipelines, upgraders, and refineries have been left in poor condition, and limited access to modern technology continues to restrict any rapid recovery.
While PDVSA has claimed that facilities were not physically damaged in recent events—suggesting limited short‑term disruption—oil markets appear capable of absorbing this uncertainty for now. Inventories remain ample, and OPEC+ has signalled that its voluntary cuts of around 1.65 million bpd could be reversed if necessary to balance markets.
In a scenario where a pro‑U.S. government enables sanctions relief and attracts foreign investment, Venezuelan exports could gradually recover. But bringing production back to around 3 million bpd would take many years and substantial infrastructure upgrades. U.S. leadership has indicated that American oil companies would play a role in operating and developing Venezuela’s oil sector, though analysts note that the heavy crude’s technical challenges and investment risks remain significant.
Meanwhile, global oil markets are structurally tightening, with world consumption exceeding 101 million bpd driven by demand growth in the U.S., China, and India. Any short‑term impact on supply may show up as a modest increase in geopolitical risk premiums, but over time, the sidelined Venezuelan barrels—currently producing around 800,000–900,000 bpd—could eventually add supply and influence prices if output scales up gradually.
In addition to oil, Venezuela sits on a wealth of mineral resources. Large deposits of iron ore, bauxite, gold, nickel, copper, zinc and other metallic minerals are concentrated mainly in the southern Guayana Shield region. The country also ranks among Latin America’s largest holders of gold, and geological assessments identify significant iron and bauxite resources alongside reserves of coal, antimony, molybdenum and other base metals.
Despite this geological potential, commercial mining activity remains very limited. Most non‑oil mineral sectors contribute only a tiny fraction of Venezuela’s economic output, and substantial foreign investment has largely been absent, meaning much of the nation’s mineral wealth has yet to be developed into large‑scale production.
The Ongoing Economic Battle Between the United States and China
Competition between modern empires today is no longer about direct confrontation but about control over key inputs. Energy, metals, and critical materials form the foundation of the modern world. When leaders signal a willingness to secure these resources directly, markets should interpret this not as mere rhetoric, but as a concrete resource strategy.
The rivalry between the United States and China is fundamentally structural rather than ideological. The U.S. is rich in energy but dependent on imported metals and rare earths. China dominates metals processing but imports around 70% of its crude oil. Each side is strong where the other is vulnerable, and both seek to turn this imbalance into strategic advantage.
Control over energy flows also carries monetary implications. Influence over Venezuelan oil is not only about supply, but also about reinforcing the petrodollar and preventing the rise of the petroyuan.
There is also a regional dimension to this rivalry. China has steadily increased its presence in Latin America through infrastructure projects and commodity-backed financing. Recent U.S. moves indicate an effort to reassert dominance in the Western Hemisphere, compelling Beijing to compete on less advantageous terms. The Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy elevated the region to a core priority, effectively reviving the logic of the Monroe Doctrine—rebranded as the “Donroe Doctrine.” The aim is to bring strategically important natural resources, especially critical minerals and rare earths, under U.S.-aligned corporate control while building a hemisphere-wide supply chain that reduces dependence on China.
Across much of South America, governments are edging closer to Washington, leaving Brazil increasingly isolated. This is significant given President Lula’s openly left-leaning stance and his consistent alignment with Russia, China, and Iran. Following Trump’s capture of Maduro, betting markets on Kalshi assign a 90% probability that the presidents of Colombia and Peru will be out of office before 2027. At the same time, President Trump has again stated that Greenland should become part of the United States, reinforcing a broader strategy centered on securing critical assets.
Which Assets Could Gain from “Nation Building” in Venezuela?
A political transition in Venezuela would most directly benefit assets tied to sovereign debt restructuring, energy infrastructure, and the oil supply chain.
Venezuelan bonds are currently priced at roughly 25–35 cents on the dollar, reflecting the impact of sanctions and ongoing legal uncertainty. Under a regime-change scenario, several analysts project potential recoveries in the 30–55 cent range, supported by the prospects of debt restructuring and the easing or removal of sanctions.
Ashmore continues to rank among the largest institutional holders of Venezuelan sovereign debt. Advisory firms such as Houlihan Lokey—financial adviser to the Venezuela Creditor Committee—and Lazard, a veteran of major sovereign restructurings (including Greece and Ukraine), would likely stand to gain from the sheer scale and complexity of any debt workout. In such processes, advisers typically earn success-based fees and function as the “picks and shovels” of restructuring. Venezuela’s debt structure is widely regarded as one of the most intricate ever assembled.
Reviving Venezuela’s oil industry would demand swift rehabilitation of aging infrastructure. Technip, which historically designed much of the country’s core oil facilities, is well placed to play a leading role given its proprietary expertise—particularly if emergency repairs are fast-tracked through sole-source or no-bid contracts. Graham Corporation, a supplier of vacuum ejector systems used in heavy-oil upgrading and refining, could also benefit, since Venezuela’s crude requires vacuum distillation to prevent it from solidifying into coke.
Before exports can meaningfully increase, Venezuela will need to import substantial volumes of diluent (such as naphtha or natural gasoline) to transport its heavy crude through pipelines. Targa Resources, operator of the Galena Park Marine Terminal in Houston—a major LPG and naphtha export hub—would be a natural beneficiary if Venezuela pivots back to U.S. diluent supplies, replacing current inflows from Iran.
The clearest corporate beneficiary of regime change and nation-building in Venezuela is Chevron (NYSE: CVX). Unlike other U.S. energy majors that exited the country, Chevron has maintained an on-the-ground presence. It retains the workforce, regulatory approvals (through OFAC), and operational assets—most notably Petroboscan and Petropiar—that position it to scale up production quickly. Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM) and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP), both of which hold legacy claims and arbitration awards stemming from past expropriations, could also regain market access or pursue compensation under a revised legal and political framework.
Refiners along the U.S. Gulf Coast—such as Valero Energy (NYSE: VLO), Phillips 66 (NYSE: PSX), and Marathon Petroleum (NYSE: MPC)—were purpose-built to handle heavy, sour crude like that produced in Venezuela. Since the imposition of sanctions, these companies have had to rely on costlier substitute feedstocks. A resumption of Venezuelan supply would reduce input costs and support refining margins, assuming end-product demand remains stable.
At the sector level, a significant increase in Venezuelan output would likely weigh on oil prices, which would be negative for crude producers but positive for consumer-oriented equities. Lower energy prices are inherently deflationary and could translate into lower bond yields—conditions that are generally supportive of risk assets, all else equal.
Note: This section is for analytical purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.
Venezuela: What Comes Next for the Economy and Markets?
In a characteristically Trump-like approach, President Trump initially stated that the United States would “administer” Venezuela during the transition period. U.S. officials later confirmed that approximately 15,000 troops would remain stationed in the Caribbean, with the option of further intervention if the interim authorities in Caracas failed to comply with Washington’s demands.
Venezuela’s Supreme Court subsequently named Vice President Delcy Rodríguez as interim president. A close ally of Maduro since 2018, Rodríguez previously oversaw much of the oil-dependent economy and the country’s intelligence structures, placing her firmly within the existing power framework. She signaled a willingness “to cooperate” with the Trump administration, hinting at a potentially dramatic reset in relations between the two long-hostile governments.
International observers, including the United Nations and the Carter Center, have concluded that Venezuela’s 2024 elections lacked legitimacy and fell short of international standards. Independently verified tally sheets reviewed by analysts indicated that opposition candidate Edmundo González secured around 67% of the vote, compared with roughly 30% for Maduro.
At the same time, María Corina Machado—Nobel Peace Prize laureate and a leading figure in Venezuela’s opposition—is expected to return to the country later this month and has said the opposition is ready to take power. President Trump, however, has publicly cast doubt on the breadth of her support among the Venezuelan population.
In this context, three potential scenarios appear likely, as outlined by Gavekal Research:
“Soft” Military Rule
In the near term, the most probable outcome is the continuation of the current power structure under Rodríguez and the armed forces. For this arrangement to endure, it would likely require a pragmatic shift toward U.S. priorities—embracing a more business-friendly approach and loosening ties with traditional partners such as Russia, China, and Iran. Washington may be willing to accept this scenario if it ensures political stability and reliable access to energy supplies.
Democratic Transition
A negotiated move toward civilian governance would hinge largely on how new elections are structured. Allowing participation from the Venezuelan diaspora could significantly reshape the results, whereas restricting voting to residents inside the country would be more likely to benefit factions linked to the existing regime.
“Libya Redux” (State Breakdown)
The most destabilizing scenario would involve the collapse of central authority, triggering internal military conflict and the proliferation of armed groups. Such an outcome would heighten the risk of civil strife, renewed migration pressures, and severe disruptions to oil production and global energy markets.
Oil prices tumbled in Asian trading on Wednesday after U.S. President Donald Trump said Venezuela would deliver tens of millions of barrels of crude to the United States, a development expected to significantly increase global supply. Prices were already under pressure earlier in the week, as Washington’s takeover of Venezuela fueled expectations of a broad easing of sanctions on the country’s oil sector—potentially releasing tens of millions of barrels back onto the market.
Despite elevated geopolitical risks adding a modest risk premium, oil prices stayed under pressure as markets grew increasingly concerned about a potential supply glut in 2026. Crude was already on track for its steepest annual decline in five years in 2025. Brent futures for March slid 1% to $60.11 a barrel at 20:13 ET (01:13 GMT), while U.S. benchmark WTI dropped 1.1% to $56.29 a barrel.
Venezuela to send 30–50 million barrels of crude to the United States, Trump says
In a post on social media, Trump said Venezuela would transfer between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil to the United States, with Washington planning to sell the crude at prevailing market prices. He added that the proceeds from the sales would be managed by him as U.S. president, stating that the funds would be used to serve the interests of both Venezuela and the United States.
The announcement follows just days after U.S. forces detained Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, when Trump said Washington was taking control of the country and planned to open up its oil sector. Oil prices initially fell after Maduro’s capture, as markets anticipated that a potential easing of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela could unleash large volumes of crude onto global markets. Trump’s actions since then suggest that this outcome is increasingly likely.
However, analysts cautioned that any reopening of Venezuela’s energy industry could take longer than expected, citing risks of political instability and the constraints of the nation’s aging infrastructure. Data from maritime analytics firm Kpler also indicated that a near-term increase in Venezuelan output is unlikely due to limited domestic storage capacity.
Russia-Ukraine ceasefire draws attention as U.S. backs security guarantees for Kyiv
Oil markets were also tracking any fresh developments in talks on a Russia–Ukraine ceasefire after the United States on Tuesday endorsed a largely European-led coalition that pledged to provide security guarantees for Kyiv.
The U.S. commitment was made at a Paris summit aimed at reassuring Ukraine in the event of a truce with Moscow. Washington also said it was prepared to help monitor and verify any ceasefire should an agreement be reached. However, Russia has so far shown limited willingness to engage in a ceasefire, with fighting between the two sides continuing as the war moves toward its fifth consecutive year.
Even so, any prospective ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine could ultimately lead to a rollback of U.S. sanctions on Moscow, allowing additional Russian oil to return to the market. Such a development would also reduce the geopolitical risk premium embedded in crude prices.
The removal of Venezuela’s current leadership would likely signal a sharp shift in Washington’s stated objectives—from a focus on counter-narcotics pressure to a far more ambitious agenda: unlocking one of the world’s largest oil reserves and reopening the country to U.S. energy companies.
“The oil business in Venezuela has been a bust—a total bust—for a long period of time,” U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters on Saturday.
“We’re going to have our very large United States oil companies—the biggest anywhere in the world—go in, spend billions of dollars, fix the badly broken oil infrastructure, and start making money for the country.”
The central question for Trump’s administration is whether political change alone would be sufficient to revive an industry hollowed out by decades of mismanagement, corruption, and chronic underinvestment.
On paper, Venezuela’s oil potential is vast. Government figures put proven reserves at more than 300 billion barrels, the largest in the world, consisting largely of heavy crude prized by refiners along the U.S. Gulf Coast and in parts of Asia.
Analysts note that this heavy crude complements U.S. shale production, which is typically lighter and less suited to certain refinery configurations. In theory, Venezuela’s reserves could once again play a meaningful role in global energy markets.
In practice, however, the obstacles are formidable. Venezuela currently produces less than one million barrels per day—a fraction of its output two decades ago. Infrastructure has deteriorated severely, skilled workers have fled the country, and oil fields, pipelines, ports, and refineries would require massive capital investment merely to restore reliable operations.
Even under optimistic scenarios, years of rebuilding would be required before production could rise meaningfully. Market conditions add another layer of complexity: global oil supplies remain ample, and prices below $60 a barrel reduce the incentive for large-scale, high-risk investment abroad.
U.S. producers must therefore weigh whether capital is better deployed in stable domestic basins rather than in a country with a long history of expropriation and contract disputes.
Legal and institutional reform would also be indispensable. Venezuela would need to overhaul laws governing private investment, restructure roughly $160 billion in sovereign and quasi-sovereign debt, and resolve outstanding arbitration claims stemming from past nationalizations.
Without clear property rights and predictable regulatory frameworks, international oil companies are unlikely to commit billions of dollars, regardless of political change.
Security and governance challenges remain unresolved as well. Removing a leader does not automatically produce stability, and companies will wait to see whether a transitional government can maintain order, protect assets, and establish credible authority across the country.
The scale of reconstruction required extends far beyond oil extraction, encompassing financing, currency stabilization, and the rebuilding of core state institutions.
In that sense, unlocking Venezuela’s oil is ultimately less a question of geology than of politics, economics, and time.
OPEC+ delegates indicated that the group is expected to keep oil production steady at their upcoming meeting on Sunday, despite ongoing political tensions between key members Saudi Arabia and the UAE, as well as the recent U.S. capture of Venezuela’s president.
The Sunday meeting involves eight OPEC+ members—Saudi Arabia, Russia, the UAE, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Iraq, Algeria, and Oman—who together produce about half of the world’s oil supply. This session follows a challenging 2025, during which oil prices plunged over 18%, marking their steepest annual decline since 2020 amid concerns over oversupply.
From April to December 2025, these eight members raised oil output targets by roughly 2.9 million barrels per day, representing nearly 3% of global oil demand. They agreed in November to pause further output increases for January through March 2026.
According to three OPEC+ sources, Sunday’s meeting is unlikely to alter this policy.
OPEC Faces Multiple Crises Amid Market and Political Challenges
Tensions between Saudi Arabia and the UAE escalated last month over a decade-long conflict in Yemen, when a UAE-aligned group seized territory from the Saudi-backed government. This crisis sparked the biggest rift in decades between the former close allies, exposing years of divergence on key issues.
Historically, OPEC has managed to navigate serious internal disputes—such as during the Iran–Iraq War—by prioritizing market stability over political conflicts. However, the group now faces multiple challenges. Russian oil exports remain under pressure from U.S. sanctions related to the Ukraine war, while Iran grapples with widespread protests and threats of U.S. intervention.
These overlapping crises put OPEC’s cohesion and its ability to manage the global oil market to a critical test.
On Saturday, the United States reportedly captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. U.S. President Donald Trump announced that Washington would assume control of the country until a transition to a new administration can be arranged, though he did not specify how this process would be carried out.
Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves, surpassing even those of OPEC’s leader, Saudi Arabia. However, its oil production has sharply declined over the years due to chronic mismanagement and international sanctions.
Analysts caution that a significant increase in crude output is unlikely in the near future, even if U.S. oil majors follow through on the multibillion-dollar investments promised by President Trump.
THE ETERNAL SOVEREIGN 