Golden Ocean-CMB.Tech merger

Golden Ocean’s shareholders approved an all-stock merger with CMB.Tech at a meeting on August 19 with the green light from Golden Ocean’s shareholders the merger was expected to close on August 20, reports Seatrade Maritime News.

Under the terms of the merger all common shares in Golden Ocean will be cancelled an exchanged for 0.95 shares in the newly enlarged CMB.Tech.

CMB.Tech shareholders will own around 70% of the merged company, and Golden Ocean shareholders will have a roughly 30% stake.

The deal will see Golden Ocean’s fleet of 90 bulk carriers, comprising 59 Capesizes and 31 Panamaxes, with a capacity of 13.7 million tons, join CMB.Tech’s diversified fleet of 160 vessels. CMB.Tech operates a range of crude oil tankers, dry bulk vessels, container ships, chemical tankers, offshore wind vessels and workboats.

The merged company will have a combined fleet of 250 vessels estimated to be worth US$11 billion.

The merger will see Golden Ocean delisted from the NASDAQ and Euronext Oslo Børs, while CMB.Tech adds a secondary listing on Euronext Oslo Børs in addition to its NYSE and Euronext Brussels listings.

The merger followed CMB.Tech acquiring John Fredriksen’s Hemen Holdings 40.8% stake in Golden Ocean for US$1.18 billion in March this year. It was a move that was to see Fredriksen selling most of his dry bulk shipping assets.

Antwerp-headquartered CMB.Tech is controlled by the Savery’s family. The listed-company formerly known as Euronav acquired 106 vessels from the Savery’s owned CMB in 2024.

The move was part of a strategy to diversify the business of the former Euronav from tankers into dry bulk, container ships and offshore wind, with a focus on green ships and renewable energy.

 

Geopolitical stunts are created to maneuver oil prices

It may not be wrong to say that geopolitical stunts (or deliberate political maneuvers) are often used to influence oil prices. The time proves that oil is one of the most geopolitically sensitive commodities, and even the perception of instability can trigger price movements. Here are some ways this happens:

Military Conflicts and Threats

Tensions in oil-producing regions (Middle East, Russia, and Ukraine) raise fears of supply disruptions. Even without actual disruption, rhetoric, military drills, or strikes can cause speculative buying, lifting prices.

Sanctions and Embargoes

Sanctions on major producers (Iran, Venezuela, and Russia) reduce their exports, tightening supply. Announcements of new sanctions, even before implementation, often drive markets up.

OPEC Plus Announcements

OPEC and allies strategically announce production cuts or increases to move prices. Sometimes the timing is politically motivated — for example, cuts ahead of US elections or global summits.

Diplomatic Stunts

Leaders may signal alliances, threats, or peace talks to calm or unsettle oil markets. For instance, US–Saudi or US–Iran engagements often coincide with volatility in oil futures.

Domestic Politics

Countries that depend heavily on oil revenues (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Nigeria, and Venezuela) may trigger or amplify tensions abroad to keep oil prices high. Conversely, big consumers (United States, China, and European Union) may release strategic oil reserves to cool prices.

Media Amplification

Headlines about “possible war,” “pipeline sabotage,” or “shipping lane blockades” often move markets more than the actual underlying event. Traders react to expectations and fear, not just physical supply-demand.

Therefore, it could be concluded that oil markets are not purely economic — they are political battlegrounds, and states often use geopolitical stunts as levers to maneuver prices in their favor.

Here are three recent real world examples (2025) where geopolitical maneuvers clearly influenced oil prices—either via threat driven surges or optimism amid shifting sanctions and diplomacy.

Threat to Close the Strait of Hormuz

In June 2025, escalating attacks between Israel and Iran triggered a spike in oil prices—Brent crude climbed to US$70 per barrel amid concerns over supply disruptions and potential threats to the vital Strait of Hormuz.

On June 14, 2025, Iran explicitly threatened to close the Strait, which handles nearly 20% of global oil traffic. Analysts warned this could push prices even higher—possibly into the US$100 to US$150 per barrel range.

While a full closure didn’t materialize, the mere threat created a sharp short-term price shock, echoing how geopolitical risk can rapidly alter market sentiment.

Russia Ukraine Peace Talks

In August 2025, oil markets closely tracked developments—or lack thereof—in high-profile diplomatic efforts involving Russia, the United States, and Ukraine.

When President Trump proposed a trilateral summit (Putin–Zelenskiy–himself), Brent crude briefly climbed—markets anticipated that a ceasefire could eventually ease sanctions and boost supply.

Conversely, when the Trump–Putin summit yielded no binding oil or policy changes, markets cooled; analysts noted the event lacked the "magic lever" to relieve supply constraints.

Ongoing sanctions and inventory draws in the US—especially amid strong demand—continued to support prices amid supply uncertainty.

OPEC Plus Production Moves

In June 2025, OPEC Plus surprised markets by announcing a modest output increase of around 411,000 barrels per day, despite prevailing worries of oversupply. This unexpected move served as a geopolitical reminder of OPEC Plus ability to tweak supply—and kept oil prices elevated.

This came at a time when global crude production was running high, yet the announcement shaped expectations that geopolitical coordination could still swing the market.

Geopolitical Stunts Still Matter

Perception matters:

Markets often react more sharply to the fear of disruption—like threats to chokepoints—than to actual events.

Short-term risk channel:

As historical analyses show, geopolitical shocks typically drive short-term price spikes via risk premiums, though long-term economic slowdown may offset these gains.

Strategic signaling:

Diplomatic posturing—summits, threats, tariffs—can sway trader sentiment and pricing, even without concrete policy shifts.

Israel's plan to erase idea of Palestinian state

According to Reuters, a widely condemned Israeli settlement plan that would cut across land that the Palestinians seek for a state received final approval on Wednesday, according to a statement from Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

The approval of the E1 project, which would bisect the occupied West Bank and cut it off from East Jerusalem, was announced last week by Smotrich and received the final go-ahead from a Defence Ministry planning commission on Wednesday.

"With E1, we are delivering finally on what has been promised for years," Smotrich, an ultra-nationalist in the ruling right-wing coalition, said in a statement.

"The Palestinian state is being erased from the table, not with slogans but with actions."

Restarting the project could further isolate Israel, which has watched some Western allies frustrated by its continuation and planned escalation of the Gaza war announce they may recognize a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

"We condemn the decision taken today on expanding this particular settlement, which ... will drive a stake through the heart of the two-state solution," said UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric. "We call on the government of Israel to halt all settlement activity."

The Palestinian Foreign Ministry also condemned the announcement, saying the E1 settlement would isolate Palestinian communities living in the area and undermine the possibility of a two-state solution.

British Foreign Minister David Lammy said on X: "If implemented, it would divide a Palestinian state in two, mark a flagrant breach of international law and critically undermine the two-state solution."

A German government spokesperson commenting on the announcement told reporters that settlement construction violates international law and "hinders a negotiated two-state solution and an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not commented on the E1 announcement.

On Sunday, during a visit to Ofra, another West Bank settlement established a quarter of a century ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made broader comments, saying, "I said 25 years ago that we will do everything to secure our grip on the Land of Israel, to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, to prevent the attempts to uproot us from here. Thank God, what I promised, we have delivered."

 

Israel takes steps for military operation in Gaza City

According to Reuters, Israeli military has taken the first steps of a planned operation to take over Gaza City, Israeli military spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin said on Wednesday.

Following a clash with Hamas south of Khan Younis in the strip on Wednesday, he said, "We will deepen the attack on Hamas in Gaza City, a stronghold of governmental and military terror for the terrorist organization."

Defrin said troops had already begun circling the outskirts of Gaza City and Hamas was now a "battered and bruised" guerrilla force.

"We have begun the preliminary operations and the first stages of the attack on Gaza City, and already now IDF forces are holding the outskirts of Gaza City," he said.

Israel's military called up tens of thousands of reservists on Wednesday in preparation for the expected assault on Gaza City, as the Israeli government considered a new proposal for a ceasefire after nearly two years of war.

The call-up signals Israel is pressing ahead with its plan to seize Gaza's biggest urban centre despite international criticism of an operation likely to force the displacement of many more Palestinians.

But a military official briefing reporters said reserve soldiers would not report for duty until September, an interval that gives mediators some time to bridge gaps between Palestinian militant group Hamas and Israel over truce terms.

Israeli troops clashed on Wednesday with more than 15 Hamas militants who emerged from tunnel shafts and attacked with gunfire and anti-tank missiles near Khan Younis, south of Gaza City, severely wounding one soldier and lightly wounding two others, an Israeli military official said.

In a statement, Hamas' Al-Qassam Brigades confirmed carrying out a raid on Israeli troops southeast of Khan Younis and engaging Israeli troops at point-blank range. It said one fighter blew himself up among the soldiers, causing casualties, during an attack that lasted several hours.

Can there be an end to India-China animosity?

Relations between China and India are on a “positive trend” towards cooperation, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told his Indian counterpart in New Delhi.

The world’s two most populous nations are intense rivals competing for influence across South Asia, and fought a deadly border clash in 2020.

India is also part of the Quad security alliance with the United States, Australia and Japan, which is seen as a counter to China.

Caught in global trade and geopolitical turbulence triggered by US President Donald Trump’s tariff war, the countries have moved to mend ties.

During talks on Monday with Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India’s foreign minister, Wang said the two countries should “view each other as partners and opportunities, rather than adversaries or threats”.

He pointed to the resumption of “dialogue at all levels” and “maintenance of peace and tranquility in border areas” as evidence that bilateral ties were on a “positive trend of returning to the main path of cooperation”.

Wang is also expected to meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi during his three-day visit.

According to Indian media, Modi might visit China this month, which would be his first trip since 2018.

Relations have improved since October, when Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping met for the first time in five years in Russia.

Chinese and Indian officials have said in recent weeks that the two countries were discussing the resumption of border trade, which has been halted since 2020.

Its resumption would be symbolically significant, and follows discussions to resume direct flights and issue tourist visas.

At this juncture it is necessary to examine the factors responsible for the confrontation between China and India.

Point blank it could be said that the omnipresent confrontation is rooted in a mix of historical, geopolitical, economic, and strategic factors.

While both the countries are major Asian powers and share a long border, their relations have been tense for decades. The reasons include:

Border Disputes

The 3,488 kilometers (2,167 miles) boundary between China and India is not formally demarcated. Two main disputed Areas are: 1) Aksai Chin (controlled by China, claimed by India) and 2) Arunachal Pradesh (controlled by India, claimed by China as “South Tibet”). Repeated standoffs (Doklam 2017, Galwan 2020) occur due to patrol overlaps and differing perceptions of the Line of Actual Control (LAC).

Historical Legacy

The 1962 Sino-Indian War left a deep scar. China defeated India and occupied Aksai Chin. India still feels betrayed, as relations before 1962 were publicly friendly under “Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai” (India-China brotherhood).

Strategic Rivalry in Asia

Both nations see themselves as dominant Asian powers. China views India’s rise and its closeness with the US, Japan, and Australia (Quad alliance) as a counterbalance to Beijing.

Similarly, India sees China’s moves in the Indian Ocean (ports in Sri Lanka, Pakistan, and Myanmar) as strategic encirclement, often called the “String of Pearls.”

China–Pakistan Nexus

China is Pakistan’s closest ally, providing military, economic, and diplomatic support. The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) passes through Gilgit-Baltistan, a territory claimed by India. This deepens India’s suspicion that China aims to strategically contain it.

Tibet and the Dalai Lama

India hosts the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan government-in-exile in Dharamshala. China sees this as interference in its internal affairs and a threat to its sovereignty over Tibet.

Economic Competition

India sees Chinese dominance in trade and technology as a threat. After the 2020 border clashes, India banned over 200 Chinese apps and tightened FDI rules from China.

Both China and India compete for influence in South Asia, Africa, and global institutions.

Military Build-up

Both nations are rapidly modernizing and militarizing their borders. China has built extensive infrastructure (roads, rail, and airstrips) along the LAC. India is catching up with new highways, forward bases, and troop deployments.

Nationalism and Domestic Politics

In both countries, leaders use nationalist rhetoric to project strength. In India, strong responses to China are politically popular. In China, the Communist Party portrays territorial claims as non-negotiable to maintain legitimacy.

Geopolitics

China is wary of India’s growing ties with the US (Indo-Pacific strategy, defense pacts). India distrusts China’s closeness with Russia and Pakistan. Both are competing in international organizations (UN, BRICS, SCO, and G20).

Iran-Pakistan set ambitious agri trade target

Iran and Pakistan signed a joint statement pledging to expand cooperation in agriculture, trade, and food security, with a goal to raise bilateral agricultural trade to US$3 billion within two years.

Iran’s Agriculture Minister Gholamreza Nouri Ghezeljeh said current trade is around US$1.4 billion, noting both countries’ complementary strengths.

Iran will expand exports of dairy, nuts, fruits, and vegetables, while Pakistan will supply rice, corn, and 60% of Iran’s meat imports.

Both sides also agreed to collaborate on climate change research, food security, and establish a joint agricultural committee to meet biannually.

Pakistan’s Minister Rana Tanveer Hussain called the Tehran meeting “fruitful,” stressing that regional trade is cheaper than sourcing from distant markets like Brazil.

Both public and private sectors will participate, with barter and tailored facilities under consideration.

The Iran–Pakistan Business Conference opened in Islamabad on August 03, attended by President Masoud Pezeshkian and hosted by Senator Ishaq Dar.

Pakistan’s Commerce Minister Jam Kamal Khan highlighted the draft Free Trade Agreement, tariff issue resolution, and improved border infrastructure, including activation of the Pishin–Mand market and plans for a new Chadgi–Kouhak crossing.

Iran’s Trade Minister Mohammad Atabak emphasized the need to expand land terminals, rail connectivity, and port cooperation.

Dar underlined close ties under the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) and invited Iranian investors to Pakistan, citing reforms and a new investment facilitation council.

Reza Masrour, head of Iran’s Free Trade and Special Economic Zones, proposed joint paddy farming in Pakistan with rice processing in Iran’s Chabahar Free Zone to address water shortages.

He also suggested multi-entry visas, a joint free zone, and linking CPEC to Iran and the North–South Corridor. Pakistan welcomed these ideas.

According to Iran’s Trade Promotion Organization, trade reached US$3.129 billion in 2024–25, with Iran exporting US$2.423 billion (mainly petroleum products, milk powder, and dates) and importing US$706 million (primarily rice, oilseeds, and meat). However, trade in early 2025 dipped due to regional instability.

Officials stressed that better logistics, customs cooperation, and transport infrastructure are vital for sustaining growth and realizing the long-delayed promise of free trade.

Iran 72 years after the 1953 coup

Seventy-two years ago on August 19, 1953, the United States and Britain advanced a coup against the first democratically-elected government of Iran, the government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, and reinstalled the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. 

The coup and the subsequent US support for the ruthless military regime under Mohamad Reza Shah, who had escaped the country while the coup was taking place, came with grave implications. The coup played a major role in shaping the Iranian perceptions of the United States, a new imperialist that had entered the course of the competition with the British and Russians to gain control on Iran’s vast resources.

The US intervention in Iran is part of a broader trend in American foreign policy that is aimed at toppling states that refuse to become puppet governments controlled by Washington. According to a dataset published by the Military Intervention Project (MIP), the US has waged nearly 400 military interventions since its founding in 1776.

The coup was primarily motivated by the desire to protect British oil interests in Iran, specifically after Prime Minister Mossadegh had nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. 

The movement to nationalize the oil industry was a reaction by the Iranians to concessions made by both Qajar and Pahlavi Shahs to foreign powers. The movement had originated in the parliament and was led by Mosaddegh when he was a lawmaker.  

After the British and Soviet troops invaded Iran in 1941 and toppled first the Pahlavi king, Reza Shah, they replaced him with his young son Mohammad Reza. In the early years of the second Pahlavi Shah, the anti-colonial oil nationalization movement had become too strong to suppress. The weakness of Mohammad Reza Shah’s regime benefited the movement in the period after World War II. Different political groups emerged and the oil movement gradually got stronger and stronger.

As time passed, the United States joined the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, who were seeking to gain control of the Iranian oil reserves. 

In the meantime, a senior cleric named Ayatollah Abol-Ghasem Kashani was leading a powerful popular movement outside the parliament against foreign interference in the country’s affairs, giving a hand to the democratically-elected government of Premier Mossadegh. 

The coup plot lasted for five days from August 15th to 19th. This event involved the CIA and British intelligence (MI6) orchestrating a series of actions, including disinformation and military campaigns, to undermine Mosaddegh's government and install Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as the sole ruler. 

In fact, the CIA and British intelligence operations had already been playing out in the previous months to undermine Mosaddegh's popularity and build support for the Shah. This involved propaganda campaigns and organizing protests that eventually led to the army siding with the pro-Shah forces.

The coup plot had been formally approved by President Dwight D. Eisenhower as the CIA played the leading role in a covert operation, called Operation Ajax, whereby CIA-funded agents were used to foment unrest inside the capital, Tehran.

The CIA released dangerous thugs such as Shaban Jafari and his friends from prisons and unleashed them in groups to walk in the city streets while hanging posters of Mossadegh on their chests. The funded gangs attacked public and private properties on their way while ranting and raving in the name of the Mossadegh supporters. 

In the period of five days, fighting between supporters of Mossadegh and the Shah resulted in hundreds of deaths.

Eventually, the coup, which was cod-named Operation Boot in the United Kingdom, brought back the stumbling Pahlavi dynasty to the top of power and ensured brutal Pahlavi suppression of the Iranian people for the next 26 years. 

After the coup succeeded, Shah, who had returned to the country, issued decrees dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing General Fazlollah Zahedi as the prime minister. These decrees, while issued earlier, played a crucial role in legitimizing the coup when they were revealed to the public.  
Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the rest of his life. Other Mosaddegh supporters were imprisoned, and several received the death penalty.

The young Shah, along with Britain and the US, could not stand the nationalization of the oil industry and the democratically-elected Mosaddegh. For that, they overthrew his government.
In the aftermath of the coup, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi could reassert his autocratic rule and negotiated the 1954 Consortium Agreement with the British, which returned the ownership of Iranian oil to a consortium of Western companies until 1979, the year the Islamic Revolution became victorious. 

It is generally agreed today that the 1953 coup sowed the seeds for the Islamic Revolution of 1979, in which the Shah was overthrown. But even after the 1979 Islamic revolution, which eliminated US presence in Iran entirely, Washington continued its efforts to bring down the revolutionary government in Iran.

They dispatched military troops to Iran in Operation Eagle Claw, supported anti-revolutionary coup plotters and the Saddam Hussein regime, and imposed sanctions on Iran, which continue to this day. 

Courtesy: Tehran Times