Tech moves fast, but you're still playing catch-up?

That's exactly why 200K+ engineers working at Google, Meta, and Apple read The Code twice a week.

Here's what you get:

All delivered twice a week in just 2 short emails.

Join 200K+ engineers

What you need to know

Iran war enters a tense bargaining phase

The Iran war has entered a more ambiguous stage. The intense exchange on the core U.S.-Iran axis has eased for now, but the conflict has not given way to peace. Instead, it has moved into a bargaining phase in which Washington is seeking to convert military pressure into a negotiated outcome, while keeping the threat of renewed force close at hand.

Over the past 24 hours, the U.S. position has come into clearer focus. The Trump administration appears to have settled on a formula of pausing direct strikes, pressing ahead with talks in Islamabad, and preserving the option of rapid military escalation if Tehran refuses to comply. President Donald Trump has portrayed the ceasefire track not as a compromise, but as the product of U.S. and Israeli military success. The Pentagon has echoed that line, emphasizing readiness, battlefield gains, and the continued presence of forward-deployed American forces.

That matters because Washington appears to be seeking more than a temporary pause. Its diplomacy is increasingly tied to practical outcomes, above all the reopening of freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz and the shaping of Iran’s future conduct.

There were no credible reports over the past day of new U.S. or major Israeli strikes inside Iran. Iranian state media, meanwhile, denied reports that an Iranian delegation had arrived in Islamabad for talks. That left the diplomatic track looking fragile, tentative, and heavily dependent on competing narratives about what the present pause actually means.

On the military front, the picture across the Gulf was mixed. The UAE appears to have passed its first day since the war began without new Iranian missile or drone detections. Kuwait, however, reported hostile drone attacks on vital installations, including energy infrastructure.

The heaviest material damage appears to have fallen on Saudi Arabia’s energy system. According to Saudi reporting, recent attacks hit the East-West Pipeline, disrupted throughput by roughly 700,000 barrels a day, and affected major upstream and refining assets. Manifa and Khurais, two important oil fields, were both hit. Major refining and export facilities, including SATORP in Jubail, Ras Tanura, SAMREF in Yanbu, and the Riyadh refinery, were also affected. Gas infrastructure suffered as well. The Ju’aymah processing and export hub was struck by fires, disrupting LPG and NGL flows from a facility with about 1.1m barrels a day in NGL processing capacity.

The consequences reach well beyond the Gulf. Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz remains severely depressed even though no new kinetic incidents were confirmed. Less than ten ships appear to be transiting daily. Legally, Hormuz remains open. Practically, it remains heavily constrained.

That is why the greater danger may now be economic rather than purely military. Damage to oil, gas, shipping, and export infrastructure is beginning to resemble a broader regional economic war. Losses across oil, LNG, fertilizer, and helium threaten disruption far beyond the energy sector. These are not isolated commodities. They sit at the base of food supply, industrial production, transport systems, electronics manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, and power generation. A sustained shock across all of them at once would raise the risk of a serious global downturn.

Aviation is already showing the strain. Europe’s aviation safety authorities have recommended that airlines avoid the Middle East until 24 April. Emirates is still operating a reduced schedule. British Airways has cut service to Dubai, Doha, and Riyadh while shifting aircraft toward Asia and Africa. Indian carriers remain under pressure from longer routings and disrupted access to regional airspace. Across the Gulf, airline capacity remains well below pre-war levels.

The wider regional map also shows how incomplete the present pause is. Lebanon remains the hottest active front because it lies, in effect, outside the main U.S.-Iran pause. Israel has continued striking Hezbollah-linked targets, including a reported strike in Beirut that the Israeli military said killed Ali Yusuf Harshi, described as both the personal secretary and nephew of Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem. Hezbollah-linked fire from Lebanon also continued, with Israeli media reporting missile launches and drone alerts affecting both northern Israel and areas around Tel Aviv and Ashdod.

Iraq remains tense, though quieter than some feared. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau summoned Iraq’s ambassador to the U.S. after attacks on American diplomatic compounds and an ambush on a U.S. diplomatic convoy. Washington said Iran-aligned Iraqi militias carried out drone attacks near the Baghdad Diplomatic Support Center and Baghdad International Airport on 8 April. There were also strikes on Iranian Kurdish targets in Iraqi Kurdistan early this morning. But there do not appear to have been new militia attacks on U.S. interests, nor fresh U.S. or Israeli strikes on militia targets, over the past 24 hours. That relative restraint matters, because Iraq remains one of the most likely arenas for any renewed escalation.

For now, the most likely scenario is not a return to full-scale open U.S.-Iran war, but a continuation of this coercive bargaining phase. Talks in Islamabad may proceed, or at least remain the main diplomatic reference point, without producing a genuine ceasefire structure. Washington is likely to keep its current formula: no new direct U.S. strikes for the moment, a continued forward posture, and repeated warnings that force can quickly resume. Iran, meanwhile, is likely to continue rejecting the American narrative of victory and remain unwilling to concede on broader political questions, especially those involving Lebanon and uranium enrichment.

The most important change since yesterday is that the center of gravity has shifted away from immediate direct U.S.-Iran exchange and toward infrastructure, shipping, and economic resilience. The military pause on the main axis is real, but limited. What is becoming clearer is that a conflict does not need constant headline-grabbing strikes to inflict major strategic damage. Attrition against pipelines, ports, refineries, airspace, and shipping lanes can be enough.

That is what makes the present moment so unstable. The reduction in direct strikes inside Iran and the apparent lull in attacks on the GCC are meaningful, but they do not amount to true de-escalation.

The conflict is being rerouted through systems rather than resolved. The next serious escalation may come not only through missiles, but through chokepoints, infrastructure damage, and cumulative commercial paralysis.

Iran’s industrial base buckles under sustained bombing campaign

Iran’s war damage is no longer confined to military sites. After weeks of coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes, the country’s industrial backbone, petrochemicals, metals, energy infrastructure, and heavy manufacturing, has been systematically degraded, with consequences that reach well beyond the battlefield.

The most immediate blow has fallen on petrochemicals, a pillar of Iran’s export economy. Major complexes in Mahshahr and Asaluyeh have been hit repeatedly, halting production at facilities that support both domestic industry and foreign-currency earnings. These sites are not merely export hubs; they also produce feedstocks for plastics, fertilizers, and industrial chemicals. Their disruption ripples across the wider economy, depriving downstream manufacturers of vital inputs.

Energy infrastructure has also suffered sustained damage. Strikes on the South Pars gas field and associated refineries have reduced Iran’s gas output, with at least 12% of production affected during the early phase of the campaign. That matters because natural gas is not only an export commodity but also the main fuel for electricity generation and heavy industry. Power shortages are now compounding industrial shutdowns, forcing factories offline even where physical damage has been limited.

The metals sector, which matters both for civilian construction and military production, has been badly hit. Iran’s two largest steel producers, Khuzestan Steel and Mobarakeh Steel, have suffered extensive damage to furnaces, storage facilities, and power systems. Some estimates suggest that most national steel capacity has been disabled, removing a crucial input for everything from infrastructure projects to weapons production. Parallel strikes on aluminum production, including the country’s largest smelter at Arak, have further weakened Iran’s ability to produce basic industrial materials.

More consequential still is the targeting of industrial ecosystems rather than isolated plants. Arak, one of Iran’s most important manufacturing cities, produces a large share of the country’s heavy equipment, including boilers, turbines, pressure vessels, and industrial machinery. Strikes in this area, including on firms such as Azarab Industries, threaten Iran’s capacity to repair its own damaged infrastructure. In effect, the bombing campaign has begun to break the cycle through which industrial systems recover from major shocks.

This is where sanctions magnify the damage. Even before the war, Iran faced severe restrictions on importing advanced machinery, catalysts, and spare parts. With domestic production facilities now degraded, the country is trapped in a bind: it cannot easily rebuild what has been destroyed, nor can it source replacements abroad at scale. The result is not simply destruction, but prolonged industrial decline.

The macroeconomic effects are already visible. Industrial disruption has contributed to supply-chain breakdowns, rising prices, and growing unemployment. Some estimates suggest the economy could contract by around 10% this year, while inflation, already high, has accelerated sharply. Factories that remain physically intact are struggling to operate because of input shortages, energy constraints, and financial stress.

The strategic logic behind the strikes appears plain enough. Rather than focusing solely on military assets, the campaign has targeted the economic foundations that sustain Iran’s war effort: revenue-generating petrochemicals, energy systems, and the industrial capacity needed to produce and repair military hardware. This amounts to a form of economic attrition warfare, designed to weaken Iran’s ability to regenerate combat power over time.

Whether this strategy achieves its political aims remains uncertain. What is clearer is the scale of the damage. Iran has not merely lost factories; it has lost parts of the industrial system that connects them, including energy, inputs, machinery, and repair capacity. Rebuilding such a system, even in peacetime, would take years. Under sanctions and continued instability, it may take considerably longer.

The ultimate complex system

Hormuz disruption threatens a wider economic shock

Markets may still be underestimating the scale of the economic damage caused by the throttling of traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

As we keep emphasizing, what is unfolding is not merely an oil shock. It is a broader disruption to a narrow maritime corridor that underpins energy, chemicals, industrial gases, aviation fuel, and global shipping all at once. Shipping data published on 9 April suggested that traffic through the strait is still at less than 10% of normal levels, with only seven ships transiting in the previous 24 hours, compared with a usual daily volume of between 100 and 150. Shipping firms remain cautious and, even where passage is possible, it is heavily restricted and far from genuinely free navigation.

The numbers are troubling enough on their own. The strait normally carries around a fifth of global oil and LNG flows, and Barclays has estimated that the current disruption is affecting roughly 13m-14m barrels a day of oil supply. The International Energy Agency says Hormuz is also the route for about 19% of global LNG trade. World Bank material cited this week indicates that roughly 14% of global fertilizer exports, including urea, sulfur, phosphate, and ammonia, originate in the Gulf and pass through the strait. Helium is another weak point. Qatar accounts for nearly a third of global helium supply, and disruptions there have already pushed prices sharply higher.

That matters because these are not marginal commodities. Oil and gas sit at the center of power generation, transport, petrochemicals, and refining. Fertilizer feeds directly into food production. Helium is essential for semiconductor fabrication, scientific equipment, and parts of the advanced manufacturing chain. When these flows are interrupted at the same time, the result is not a single-sector squeeze but a layered supply shock that spreads from farms to factories to data centers. International Monetary Fund managing director Kristalina Georgieva said this week that the war’s effects would mean slower growth and higher inflation, with energy and fertilizer disruptions posing particular risks.

Europe’s aviation sector is also emerging as a major vulnerability. The Financial Times reported on 10 April that European airports could face “systemic” jet-fuel shortages within three weeks if the Strait of Hormuz is not fully reopened. Around 40% of the European Union’s jet fuel and diesel flows normally transit the strait, and parts of Europe have already experienced localized strain, including a temporary jet-fuel shortage at four Italian airports that had to be covered by alternative suppliers. That makes the Hormuz disruption not simply an energy shock, but a direct threat to aviation, freight, tourism, and wider business activity across the continent.

One of the most dangerous features of the current crisis is the mismatch between physical disruption, law, and financial reality.

Iran is reportedly considering tolls for transiting Hormuz, possibly as high as $2m per ship.

But that idea collides with sanctions law.

That is why this crisis is larger than the price of crude. The problem is not only whether cargoes can physically pass. It is whether insurers will cover them, whether shipowners will accept the risk, whether banks will process the payments, and whether industrial buyers can absorb repeated delays and rerouting costs.

Shipping firm Maersk has said the ceasefire offers no full maritime certainty, while Hapag-Lloyd estimates that normalizing its network would still take six to eight weeks after regional stabilization.

If free passage is not restored quickly and unconditionally, the world economy faces something more serious than a temporary energy panic.

It faces a systemic supply shock running through fuel, food inputs, industrial materials, aviation, and high-tech manufacturing all at once. Markets may have rallied on hopes of diplomacy, but the underlying logistics picture remains badly impaired. So long as Hormuz remains only partially open, politically conditioned, or legally hazardous to use, the global economy will remain far more exposed than headline market moves suggest.

Monroe Doctrine with the Trump Corollary

Cuba’s crisis deepens

Cuba is in the grip of a severe energy and economic crisis, which dominates daily social and political life on the island. Fuel shortages have caused prolonged blackouts, major disruption to transport and health services, and rising political pressure on the government. A recent Russian oil shipment appears to have offered only temporary relief, with power cuts in some areas previously lasting more than 16 hours a day.

Havana has tried to relieve pressure by announcing one of its largest prisoner releases in years. Cuba has begun releasing more than 2,000 prisoners, presenting the move as a humanitarian gesture. Rights groups, however, say the process remains opaque, and there is still no firm evidence that political prisoners are being freed in significant numbers.

There has also been visible public mobilization in Havana around the crisis. Hundreds of women marched to denounce the U.S. energy embargo and sanctions, which Cuban officials blame for worsening shortages of fuel, medicine, transport, and production. The demonstration came alongside a visit by two U.S. lawmakers, who publicly criticized the economic pressure campaign and called for a different U.S. approach.

At the leadership level, President Miguel Díaz-Canel said he does not intend to step aside. In remarks aired by NBC, he said he would not resign, suggesting that the government is seeking to project steadiness despite the worsening crisis.

In practical terms, Cuba is facing an acute fuel emergency that is damaging daily life. The government is trying to gain time through prisoner releases, controlled messaging, and foreign oil deliveries, while pressure from Washington remains a central part of the picture.

All indications are of a system that looks increasingly brittle and strained.

Move fast and break things

U.S. judge rebukes Pentagon press policy in clash over media access

A federal judge has sharply criticized the Pentagon’s revised press-access policy, escalating a dispute between the judiciary and the administration of Donald Trump over the treatment of journalists covering the military.

Judge Paul Friedman ruled that the Department of Defense’s updated guidelines violated both the spirit and the letter of a prior court order. The revised policy, introduced under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, had sought to tighten control over which reporters could access Pentagon briefings and facilities, citing operational security and discipline.

Friedman rejected those arguments. In unusually blunt language, he accused the administration of attempting to “dictate” media coverage, warning that such efforts resemble “the mark of an autocracy, not a democracy.” The ruling suggests the court views the policy not as a neutral administrative adjustment, but as a potentially unconstitutional restriction on press freedom.

At issue is the balance between military control over sensitive information and the rights of journalists to report freely on defense matters. The Pentagon had argued that evolving security risks, including information warfare and real-time battlefield reporting, justified stricter credentialing and oversight. Critics, including several major news organizations, countered that the measures amounted to viewpoint discrimination and risked sidelining critical coverage.

The decision may force the Pentagon to revert to earlier, more permissive access rules, at least temporarily. It also opens the door to further litigation over the scope of executive authority in managing press relations, particularly in national security contexts.

The administration has not yet indicated whether it will appeal.

Europe's center of gravity shifts east, politics moves right, hostility to migrants from the south rises, as ties with the U.S. fray, and fear of Russia increases

Hungary faces its biggest political test in years

Hungary is heading toward a pivotal parliamentary election on Sunday, 12 April 2026.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has held power for 16 years, is facing his strongest challenge from Péter Magyar and his Tisza party.

This is no ordinary campaign. The election has become a referendum on Orbán’s entire governing model: nationalist rule at home, repeated clashes with Brussels, close ties with Moscow, and the argument that only he can keep Hungary secure in an increasingly unsettled Europe. Magyar, a former insider from Orbán’s own political camp, is offering a center-right alternative rather than a conventional liberal opposition. That helps explain why he has emerged as such a formidable challenger.

The main issues in the race are economic stagnation, corruption, strained public services, and Hungary’s troubled relationship with the European Union. Orbán’s critics say that years of rule-of-law disputes and patronage politics helped freeze large sums of EU funding and left the economy under pressure. Magyar is campaigning on repairing ties with Brussels, releasing those funds, and cleaning up governance, while preserving some popular conservative positions, including a hard line on migration.

One important late campaign issue has been Hungary’s relationship with Russia. Leaked audio published this week appeared to show Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto offering to send Russia a document related to Ukraine’s EU accession. The authenticity of the recordings has not been independently verified, but the episode has reinforced the view that this election is also about whether Hungary remains on Orbán’s semi-detached, Moscow-friendly course or moves back toward the European mainstream.

Orbán remains a serious contender. He still commands strong support among rural voters and older Hungarians, and he benefits from incumbency, media reach, and an electoral map that has long worked in Fidesz’s favor. That is why, even with Tisza leading in several polls, we still regard the result as uncertain. Hungary may be giving Orbán his hardest electoral fight in years, but that does not amount to a certain defeat.

The broader point is clear. Hungary is in the midst of its most consequential political contest since Orbán consolidated power. If he wins, he is likely to continue his current model of illiberal nationalist rule and friction with the EU. If Magyar prevails, Hungary could move toward a more cooperative relationship with Brussels, a less Russia-friendly posture, and a period of political and economic renewal.

Center of Gravity sign up link: https://www.namea-group.com/the-daily-brief