Trump Administration threatens backers of IMO net zero proposals

A joint statement by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, said the Trump Administration “unequivocally rejects” the net zero framework proposal that the IMO is aiming to reach agreement on in October, reports Seatrade Maritime News.

The joint statement said the Trump Administration, “will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists”.

However, the statement did not merely reject the IMO’s net zero proposals but also said that the US would retaliate against nations backing them at the MEPC meeting in October.

“We will fight hard to protect the American people and their economic interests. Our fellow IMO members should be on notice that we will look for their support against this action and not hesitate to retaliate or explore remedies for our citizens should this endeavour fail.”

There was no mention of what shape retaliation or remedies might take, but tariffs have very much been the Trump Administration’s weapon of choice.

The strongly worded rejection of the proposals follows the US delegation walking out of a vote at extraordinary meeting of the MEPC at the IMO in April. Despite the US walkout and some member states either abstaining or voting against the proposals the necessary majority was attained to take the framework forward to the next meeting in October.

The Trump Administration’s threat of retaliation against countries backing the proposals will add further difficulties to what was already expected to be a challenging meeting in October.

In May DNV Maritime CEO Knut Ørbeck-Nilssen, told a webinar, “Considering that the US withdrew from the whole process, I think it is still uncertain what will happen in October.”

While those pushing for net zero targets were critical of the proposals for not providing enough incentives for the switch green fuels such as ammonia or methanol, the Trump Administration railed against potentially higher costs for ship owners and operators using LNG and biofuels with the imposition of what it sees as a global carbon tax.

“Whatever its stated goals, the proposed framework is effectively a global carbon tax on Americans levied by an unaccountable UN organization. These fuel standards would conveniently benefit China by requiring the use of expensive fuels unavailable at global scale,” the statement said.

China is at the forefront of developing alternative fuels. According to the Methanol Institute when it comes to developing green methanol production China represents more than half of the total announced capacity to 2030 and in the near term will provide 75 to 80% up to 2028.

Rubio, Lutnick, and Duffy stated, “These standards would also preclude the use of proven technologies that fuel global shipping fleets, including lower emissions options where US industry leads such as liquified natural gas (LNG) and biofuels. Under this framework, ships will have to pay fees for failing to meet unattainable fuel standards and emissions targets.”

 

Collision between ships in South China Sea

According to South China Morning Post, two Chinese ships were involved in a collision during a confrontation with Philippine ships near the disputed Scarborough Shoal on Monday.

The incident, in which Beijing claimed it had expelled a number of vessels from the area, was the latest in a series of confrontations between the two countries in the South China Sea.

Two Philippine coastguard vessels – the BRP Teresa Magbanua and BRP Suluan – were in the area escorting the government owned fishing carrier MV Pamamalakaya and 35 local fishing vessels as part of a government initiative to support fishing communities.

The coastguard said its ships were also delivering fuel and other supplies to the fishing boats at the time.

The Philippine coastguard said its ships were confronted by the China Coast Guard (CCG)’s cutter 3104 and a PLA Navy Type 052D guided-missile destroyer, the Guilin.

It added that the two vessels collided around 10.5 nautical miles (19.5km) east of the Scarborough Shoal, a reef that has seen numerous confrontations between the two sides.

China has not released footage of the incident, but the Philippines released a video showing the accident.

The footage, apparently filmed on board the Suluan, showed the Chinese coastguard ship heading towards the Philippine vessels and firing its water cannons.

The camera then showed the destroyer at the rear of the Philippine vessel, where it was hit by the Chinese coastguard ship, which appeared to suffer extensive damage to its bow.

“The CCG 3104, which was chasing the BRP Suluan at high speed, performed a risky manoeuvre from the [Philippine] vessel’s starboard quarter, leading to the impact with the PLA Navy warship,” the Philippine coastguard said.

It also credited the crew’s “seamanship skills” for avoiding a direct hit from the water cannons.

China’s official statements have so far focused on its efforts to expel Philippine vessels from the waters around the Scarborough Shoal.

Gan Yu, a Chinese coastguard spokesman, said the Philippine ships had “disregarded repeated dissuasion and warnings from China” and “forcibly intruded” into the area.

Gan added the Chinese ships had taken “professional, standardized, legitimate and legal” methods to drive away the vessels.

It was unclear if anyone was hurt in the collision or the exact extent of the damage to either Chinese ship.

Ding Duo, an associate research fellow at the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, said that the “relatively small and fast” Philippine vessel had made a “risky” manoeuvre to cross directly in front of the destroyer.

“The Chinese coastguard vessel was pursuing from behind, could not stop in time, and did not give up the chase. The distance involved was actually normal, but the Philippine side chose a different tactic – one with a degree of recklessness and considerable danger,” he said.

The China Coast Guard and PLA Navy both carry out regular patrols in the South China Sea as part of Beijing’s efforts to assert its sovereignty.

But the accident has raised questions about how well they coordinate their operations in the disputed waters.

Other navies have suffered from similar accidents in the past, including the US Navy, which was involved in three separate collisions – two of them fatal – with commercial ships in the space of just four months in 2017.

Seven sailors died when the USS Fitzgerald collided with a Philippine cargo ship off the coast of Japan in June of that year. A further 10 died when the USS John McCain and an oil tanker crashed into each other two months later in waters east of Singapore.

 

Bahri denies carrying arms for Israel

Responding to recent media coverage, Saudi Arabian shipping logistics company Bahri has issued a statement categorically denying that its vessels carry Israel-bound shipments, reports Seatrade Maritime News

“In response to false allegations and malicious rumours circulating in certain media outlets and on social media platforms, claiming that the company’s vessels are transporting shipments bound for Israel, Bahri categorically denies these unfounded claims. These allegations are entirely false and without merit,” the company said in its statement.

The release comes after dockworkers from Italian union Unione Sindacale di Base (USB) refused to work on Bahri Yanbu, after claiming to have found a large shipment of weapons and ammunition onboard the vessel. USB’s own coverage of the event makes no mention of Israel, but alleged the weapons shipment lacked necessary paperwork.

The union is currently running a campaign to prevent arms trafficking in Italian ports, and to resist Italian ports playing a role in weapons logistics chains.

The union’s “We will not work for war” stance has seen containers of “war material” turned away from Italian ports. USB has also been involved in coordinated action with other European unions to target materiel and weapons-grade materials destined for Israel, cargoes they believe will be used to carry out genocide in Gaza.

 “The company operates strictly in line with the Kingdom’s declared and consistent policies in support of the Palestinian cause,” Bahri said in its statement.

“It has never transported any goods or shipments to Israel and has never been involved in any such operations in any capacity.”

The Saudi ship owner, which has a fleet of 103 vessels in sectors including oil, products, dry bulk, and break bulk, said it retained the right to pursue legal action against those spreading malicious claims against the company.

 

Trump paved way for Israeli attacks on Iran

Israel had been planning a full-scale invasion of Iran for many years, but the re-election of Donald Trump coincided with a series of critical events paving the way to the direct attack in June this year, four current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews in separate interviews.

Israeli intelligence sources, speaking on condition of anonymity due to security concerns, told Euronews that Mossad agents had identified key strategic factors and political conditions enabling them to prepare for and initiate the attack on Iran. Among these, they cited the intensification of the proxy war, the election of US President Donald Trump, and the momentum of nuclear negotiations with Western powers.

On June 13, Israel launched multiple land and air strikes on Iran, killing senior Iranian military leaders, nuclear scientists and politicians, and damaging or destroying Iranian air defences and nuclear military facilities.

Iran retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israeli cities and military sites, aided by Houthis in Yemen.

The US defended Israel from these attacks and, on the ninth day, bombed three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran then struck a US base in Qatar. On June 24, under US pressure, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire.

Both sides claimed victory following the ceasefire. Israel and the US asserted that they significantly degraded Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, while Iranian authorities denied these claims. Independent assessments are currently limited due to the secrecy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program.

Israel and the US said that the attack had been in the planning for many years, in parallel with diplomatic engagement with Iran.

“Israel has never hidden the fact that it wants to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, and it has never hidden the fact it was also willing to allow it to be resolved diplomatically, as long as the diplomatic solution prevents Iran not only from enriching uranium, but from ever getting the capacity to pose an existential threat to the state of Israel,” a first Israeli intelligence source told Euronews.

Diplomatic engagements were not bringing any tangible results, the sources said, while tensions between the US and Iran grew following Donald Trump's first presidency in the US from 2016-2020.

In 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which had limited Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Following the US re-imposition of sanctions, Iran began ignoring the deal’s nuclear restrictions in 2019.

“I think the pivotal moment was in April 2024, when Iran launched missiles directly from its own territory at Israel. Until then, Iran had primarily relied on proxies to attack Israel, while Israel carried out covert operations inside Iran with plausible deniability, aiming to prevent escalation into full-scale war,” the first intelligence source said.

In April 2024, Iran launched missiles at Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike on its consulate in Syria that killed Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Zahedi. He was the highest-ranking Iranian military official killed since the Iranian General Qassem Suleimani’s assassination in 2020 by the US Trump administration. Suleimani was the ‘architect’ of Iran’s proxy war in the Middle East.

“I think Israel had to wait from April 2024. It needed time to gather all the intelligence and planning it needed in order to feel confident that, already in the first two or three days of the war, we would be in a position where we had complete control over the situation, minimal casualties at home, and complete control of Iranian airspace, with the ability to attack whenever and wherever we want to,” the source added.

Donald Trump's second election as US president was another key pivotal moment and was welcomed by all the four sources.

“The original plan was to attack in October 2024. That was after the second direct missile attack by Iran on Israel following Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon in September,” the first intelligence sources said, but the attack was delayed to wait for the US elections in November.

“I think it was very important for Israel that Trump should win those elections. Once Trump was elected, he put the main emphasis on reaching a hostage deal,” said the second source, referring to the Hamas-Israel conflict.

“Once the hostage deal was signed around March 2025, Israel was again in a position to attack Iran. But the US and Iran entered into negotiations, to try bringing a peaceful solution to the issue of Iran's enrichment and nuclear program,” the first source added.

In March, the US and Iran began indirect negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program. The negotiations did not bring an agreement, although counterparts described them as “constructive”.

“Trump gave 60 days to those negotiations. The day after, Israel attacked Iran. I think that obviously was coordinated with the US administration,” all the current and former Israeli intelligence sources told Euronews.

Washington has never publicly stated that Israel’s first attack on Iran was coordinated. However, following the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a press conference on June 23 that the operation had been planned for many years.

“When we attacked, we were at the end of the 60-day period of negotiations. I think it was very clear to Trump at this stage that the Iranians were not willing to forego enrichment on Iranian soil, even though the negotiations did bring up some interesting solutions to that. For example, some sort of international enrichment agency that would allocate enriched uranium at civilian levels to all countries in the region interested in it,” the first intelligence source said.

“Trump realized Iran was engaging in negotiations merely to buy time, with no real intent to reach a resolution. The talks served as a decoy, giving Iran the impression it wouldn’t be attacked, especially amid widespread press reports that Israel was on the verge of striking,” the first source added.

While Iran claimed victory and celebrated its resilience towards Israel's invasion, Israeli intelligence sources said that Tehran’s regime has been left weakened following the attack.

“Israel has emerged from several conflicts in a stronger strategic position in the region, but in a more difficult political position with its Western partners, except perhaps Washington. We’re at a very delicate moment in which both Israel and Iran have little to gain by pushing further right now,” Ian Lesser, fellow and adviser to the German Marshall Fund’s president, told Euronews.

“Iran has fewer options now. One option is to return to negotiations. Another is to turn to its traditional methods of responding, which rely on proxies and non-traditional actions, including terrorism. There is also the possibility that, if Iran maintains some ability to develop nuclear weapons, it may see this as another path. But I don’t think anyone will let them do that. There may be disagreements about Israeli strategy and policy, but overall, Israel and its Western partners are not willing to tolerate a nuclearized Iran,” the expert added.

If the war had gone further, Israel would have probably attacked gas and oil installations, a fourth former Israeli intelligence source told Euronews. However, after the ceasefire, negotiations have resumed at diplomatic level.

On July 25, diplomats from Iran met counterparts from Germany, the UK, and France in Istanbul for talks, the first since Israel’s mid-June attack on Iran, amid warnings that these European countries might trigger a “snapback” of UN sanctions on Tehran.

The second intelligence source said that following the conflict, Israel would maintain control over Iranian airspace, in order to “destroy anything that even suggests that the Iranians are preparing to rebuild any of the capabilities that we have destroyed”. — Euronews

What is the ultimate objective of Netanyahu?

If we strip away the diplomatic language and look at Netanyahu’s actions in Gaza through the lens of political strategy rather than morality, the objectives many analysts see are not just about “defense” — they align with a set of long-term political, security, and ideological goals.

Here’s how many observers interpret what he seeks to attain:

Erase or cripple Palestinian political sovereignty

By devastating Gaza’s infrastructure, governance, and population capacity, Netanyahu can make any future independent Palestinian state nearly impossible to sustain. This aligns with the position of many in his coalition who reject a two-state solution entirely.

Consolidate his own political survival

Netanyahu has faced massive protests, corruption trials, and political instability. War shifts the national focus to “security,” rallying his right-wing base and delaying domestic accountability.

Cement Israel’s control over territory

By depopulating or making parts of Gaza uninhabitable, Israel could increase its long-term security buffer and limit the demographic growth of Palestinians near its borders.

Appease ultranationalist coalition partners

His government depends on far-right figures who openly call for resettling Gaza with Israelis and removing large numbers of Palestinians. Maintaining their support keeps his fragile coalition in power.

Send a deterrent message regionally

By showing overwhelming force, Netanyahu signals to Hezbollah, Iran, and other adversaries that challenges to Israel will be met with total military dominance.

Align with Zionist ideology

Some in Netanyahu’s camp believe a “Greater Israel” — without a viable Palestinian state — is the only acceptable outcome. The destruction of Gaza is seen as a step toward making that reality irreversible.

Moral of the story

It may be concluded that the genocide accusation isn’t just about punishing Hamas; it’s about shaping a future where Palestinian political and demographic influence is permanently weakened, while Netanyahu secures his political survival and cements an ideological vision.

 

Iran seizes tanker carrying diesel

In a blow to organized fuel smuggling networks, Iranian Border Guard Commander Brigadier General Ahmadali Goudarzi announced the interception of an oil tanker carrying over 2 million liters of illicit diesel in the Persian Gulf’s exclusive economic zone.

The operation, conducted in collaboration with the naval forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army (Artesh), led to the arrest of 17 foreign nationals.

Goudarzi emphasized in a Monday interview that border guards in Hormozgan province leveraged comprehensive intelligence monitoring, electronic surveillance systems, and aerial reconnaissance to identify the vessel Phoenix—flagged under a third country—before it could exit Iranian waters.

"Through coordinated operational planning with the Navy, we immobilized and inspected this tanker," he stated, noting the seizure represents the heaviest financial blow to smuggling syndicates this year.

The detained suspects have been transferred to legal authorities in Jask for prosecution.

Goudarzi credited the success to the enhanced military-defensive synergy among armed forces across Iran’s maritime and land borders, which has systematically dismantled smuggling networks exploiting regional waters.

Iran has consistently demonstrated its role in supporting the security and stability of the Persian Gulf—a vital waterway through which nearly 20% of the world’s oil flows.

Through the use of advanced monitoring technologies such as drones and coastal radar, alongside agile maritime units, Iran aims to contribute to a secure environment that safeguards regional peace, facilitates global trade, and protects its economic interests.

Iran’s commitment to maritime security extends beyond combating smuggling. The Islamic Republic has played a pivotal role in ensuring the safe passage of commercial vessels through the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint through which a significant portion of the world’s oil passes. Iran’s naval forces have consistently acted to deter piracy and protect international shipping lanes.

 

India: Calls to boycott US goods

From McDonald's and Coca-Cola to Amazon and Apple, US-based multinationals are facing calls for a boycott in India as business executives and Prime Minister Narendra Modi's supporters stoke anti-American sentiment to protest against US tariffs, reports Reuters.

India, the world's most populous nation, is a key market for American brands that have rapidly expanded to target a growing base of affluent consumers, many of whom remain infatuated with international labels seen as symbols of moving up in life.

India, for example, is the biggest market by users for Meta's WhatsApp and Domino's has more restaurants than any other brand in the country. Beverages like Pepsi and Coca-Cola often dominate store shelves, and people still queue up when a new Apple store opens or a Starbucks cafe doles out discounts.

Although there was no immediate indication of sales being hit, there's a growing chorus both on social media and offline to buy local and ditch American products after Donald Trump imposed a 50% tariff on goods from India, rattling exporters and damaging ties between New Delhi and Washington.

Manish Chowdhary, co-founder of India's Wow Skin Science, took to LinkedIn with a video message urging support for farmers and startups to make "Made in India" a "global obsession," and to learn from South Korea whose food and beauty products are famous worldwide.

"We have lined up for products from thousands of miles away. We have proudly spent on brands that we don't own, while our own makers fight for attention in their own country," he said.

Rahm Shastry, CEO of India's DriveU, which provides a car driver on call service, wrote on LinkedIn: "India should have its own home-grown Twitter/ Google/ YouTube/ WhatsApp/ FB -- like China has."

To be fair, Indian retail companies give foreign brands like Starbucks stiff competition in the domestic market, but going global has been a challenge.

Indian IT services firms, however, have become deeply entrenched in the global economy, with the likes of TCS and Infosys providing software solutions to clients world over.

On Sunday, Modi made a "special appeal" for becoming self-reliant, telling a gathering in Bengaluru that Indian technology companies made products for the world but "now is the time for us to give more priority to India's needs."