What you need to know

Iran war enters a new phase as diplomacy starts and infrastructure becomes the new battlefield

The Iran war appears to be entering a harsher, and potentially more consequential, stage, one in which the contest is no longer centered only on missiles, militias, or even the Strait of Hormuz, but on the functioning of the states and the infrastructure that keeps modern economies alive.

With less than a day left before President Donald Trump’s stated deadline for Iran to accept terms broadly defined by Washington, the U.S. is making clear that it still wants a deal, while also laying the groundwork for a much wider escalation if no agreement is reached.

That shift matters because it would move the war into a different category. Until now, much of the campaign has been framed around military assets, nuclear-linked sites, missile infrastructure, and the question of maritime access through Hormuz.

But the language now coming from the White House, combined with reporting on contingency planning for broader infrastructure strikes, points to a strategy of coercive diplomacy backed by the threatened degradation of the Iranian state’s everyday economic and logistical functions. In other words, Washington is leaving the diplomatic door open, but only narrowly, and under mounting pressure. The tone is less one of open-ended bargaining than of a final demand delivered under the shadow of deeper war.

Iran, for its part, does not appear to be offering the kind of short-term compliance Washington wants.

Tehran has answered the White House with a 10-point plan that seeks something much broader than a temporary ceasefire: a permanent end to the war, guarantees against renewed attack, sanctions relief, an end to Israeli strikes in Lebanon, and a wider halt to fighting against Iranian allies.

In exchange, Iran says it would reopen the Strait of Hormuz under a regulated transit regime, including a reported $2 million fee per ship to be shared with Oman.

That proposal suggests that Tehran is trying to turn limited maritime de-escalation into a broader political settlement covering sanctions, regional warfare, and the longer-term terms of coexistence.

That is why the current diplomatic gap looks so wide. The U.S. appears to be demanding rapid compliance under pressure, while Iran is demanding strategic assurances that Washington may be unwilling, or politically unable, to provide. That makes the immediate issue not simply whether Hormuz opens, but whether the two sides can bridge the gap between a transactional pause and a durable political settlement. At the moment, there is little sign that they can.

The likeliest near-term outcome is therefore neither clean de-escalation nor immediate total war, but a dangerous bargaining phase in which both sides escalate selectively while still testing the possibility of a deal. That is a fragile equilibrium, and fragile equilibria in war often break suddenly.

On the battlefield, the war is broadening in ways that could have much larger global effects. Israel has continued to hit high-value targets in Tehran and strategic energy-linked sites, including a second strike on South Pars and further attacks near Bushehr. The reported proximity of strikes to the Bushehr nuclear power plant adds a new layer of risk. Even without direct damage to the reactor itself, attacks near such a site raise fears of miscalculation, panic, and the internationalization of the crisis through nuclear-safety concerns. At the same time, Iranian missile and drone fire has continued not only against Israel but across the Gulf, with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, and Bahrain all reporting interceptions.

The most important operational development today may be the apparent strike on Jubail industrial zone in Saudi Arabia. This could prove more consequential for the world economy than the current number of ships moving through Hormuz. Jubail is not just another industrial site. It is one of the kingdom’s central petrochemical and industrial hubs, deeply tied to refining, chemicals, fertilizers, metals, power generation, and downstream manufacturing, with nearly 300 active factories. It produces about 7% of all petrochemicals in the world, and refines about 770,000 barrels per day. The attack there will likely spread disruption through plastics, industrial gases, fertilizer supply, and manufacturing chains far from the Gulf. In that sense, the economic center of gravity may now be shifting beyond crude-export disruption toward a broader infrastructure war over the industrial systems that sit downstream of energy production.

That is what makes the current phase so dangerous. For weeks, global attention has focused on whether Iran would shut Hormuz completely. But a restricted strait, while serious, is only one kind of shock. If major petrochemical nodes in Saudi Arabia and gas-linked industrial sites in Iran are now part of the target set, the damage spreads further horizontally across sectors rather than vertically through crude alone.

Hormuz itself remains constrained rather than fully closed. Two QatarEnergy-linked LNG tankers were halted and only 15 ships were authorized through in the previous 24 hours. Recent reporting also indicates that the U.N. Security Council is set to vote on a watered-down Bahrain-backed resolution that no longer authorizes force, but instead encourages defensive coordination and ship escorting to protect commercial navigation. That is an important sign of the limits of international consensus. Even now, after weeks of disruption, outside powers appear more willing to hedge and coordinate defensively than to back an offensive campaign to force the strait open.

Secondary theaters are also very active. In Iraq attacks intensified across the Kurdistan Region and against U.S. facilities, while Iran-backed militia-linked targets in Anbar and Kirkuk were struck from the air. In Lebanon, Israeli strikes continued, including on Beirut’s southern suburbs, while Hezbollah fire into Israel persisted at a lower, but still active, level. These fronts are not the main theater, but they matter because they give Iran and its allies ways to raise the cost of escalation without necessarily triggering immediate all-out regional collapse. They also complicate any negotiation, since Tehran’s terms appear to include not just the war over Hormuz but the broader network of violence involving its allies.

Where, then, might this go? The most plausible path over the next one to two weeks is a continued brinkmanship war under a shrinking diplomatic window. Washington will probably try to preserve the formal possibility of a deal while increasing pressure on Tehran to accept narrower terms. Israel is likely to keep striking command, intelligence, airport, and energy-linked targets inside Iran. Iran is likely to continue calibrated missile and drone attacks against Gulf states, Israel, and U.S.-linked positions in Iraq, while trying to use maritime access as leverage rather than surrender it unconditionally. In that scenario, Hormuz remains restricted, markets stay stressed, and the danger lies in a single successful strike on a major industrial or urban node pushing the war into a new category.

The best case is still possible, but it is getting narrower. That would require both sides to decide that the costs of immediate escalation are too high, and to settle for an interim arrangement that leaves the deeper issues unresolved. Iran would not get the full political settlement it wants, and Washington would not get full strategic capitulation. But they might arrive at a narrower pause: fewer strikes, some restraint in Lebanon and Iraq, and a modest widening of passage through Hormuz. The worst case, however, is becoming easier to imagine. If Trump’s deadline passes without agreement and Washington follows through on threats to attack broader Iranian infrastructure, Tehran may conclude that partial accommodation no longer buys safety. It could then escalate against Gulf energy and industrial targets, tighten maritime access still further, and activate allied fronts more aggressively. At that point, the war would cease to be mainly a fight over a chokepoint and become a regional infrastructure war with global economic consequences.

The ultimate complex system

Fuel rationing spreads as governments move from warnings to emergency controls

The energy shock caused by the Iran war is no longer confined to tankers in the Gulf or to price charts in commodity markets. Across a growing number of countries, governments are moving from appeals for conservation to direct intervention: rationing fuel, curbing public-sector activity, shortening business hours, and prioritizing essential users over private consumption.

We now see alternating driving days in Myanmar, diesel price caps and export controls in Thailand, remote-work encouragement in Vietnam, supplier-led rationing in Kenya, pressure on household LPG use in India, and fuel-conservation campaigns in South Korea and Japan. The exact policies differ, but the direction is the same. States are trying to stretch limited supplies, suppress panic, and prevent fuel scarcity from turning into broader economic disorder.

In Bangladesh, fuel rationing is already in force, universities have been shut, and the state has gone so far as to deploy security forces to major oil depots as shortages and panic buying intensify. Bangladesh, which depends heavily on imported energy, has also been considering wider hybrid or online learning in order to reduce transport use and conserve fuel.

Sri Lanka has gone further still. Private motorists are operating under a weekly cap of 15 liters [4 gallons], while the government has shifted schools and parts of the public sector to a four-day week in an effort to cut fuel demand. It is a reminder that in import-dependent economies, energy scarcity quickly becomes a broader administrative problem, affecting transport, education, and the basic tempo of state activity.

In the Philippines, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. declared a national energy emergency, while some executive-branch offices were moved to a temporary four-day workweek.

Egypt offers another version of the same story. There, the response has combined fuel and electricity rationing with visible restrictions on urban life: earlier closing times for shops and cafes, dimmed lighting, and broader conservation measures as Cairo tries to contain the fiscal and social effects of higher import costs.

Europe, meanwhile, is edging closer to the same debate. Across the wider EU, low storage levels and concern over diesel and jet-fuel availability are turning what began as a Gulf shipping crisis into a domestic economic threat. The International Energy Agency has said the disruption is already severe and will hit Europe more forcefully in April and May. The European Commission has warned that the bloc must prepare for a long-lasting energy shock and is considering all measures, including rationing and further reserve releases. Shell’s chief executive, Wael Sawan, has also warned that Europe could face fuel shortages as early as April if disruptions through the Strait of Hormuz persist. Slovenia has imposed a daily cap of 50 liters [13.2 gallons] for private drivers and 200 liters [52.8 gallons] for businesses and farmers, becoming the first European Union country to introduce explicit fuel-purchase restrictions during the crisis.

In Britain, ministers have been weighing emergency powers that could be used to manage fuel sales if conditions deteriorate.

Major economies are now trying to present a united front. In an unusual joint format, G7 finance ministers, energy ministers, and central bank governors said after a 30 March meeting under the French presidency that they stood ready to take all necessary measures to preserve energy-market stability and limit spillovers into the wider economy.

The broader point is that rationing is no longer a hypothetical policy tool for a distant worst-case scenario. In parts of Asia, Africa, and Europe, it is already here.

Move fast and break things

Democrats target Hegseth as Pentagon briefing is called off

A Democratic effort to turn the Iran war into a domestic political burden for the Trump administration gathered momentum on 7 April, after Representative Yassamin Ansari of Arizona said she would move to impeach War Secretary Pete Hegseth over his role in the conflict.

Ansari plans to introduce articles of impeachment accusing Hegseth of violating his oath and constitutional duties through his handling of the war.

The announcement came as the Pentagon cancelled a scheduled press conference featuring Hegseth and General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Public reports said the briefing, which had been expected on Tuesday morning, was called off without any official explanation. In the midst of an expanding war, and with scrutiny of decision-making in Washington rising, such a cancellation is likely to prompt speculation about internal disagreement, operational sensitivity, or an effort to avoid difficult questions.

The politics are plain even if the legislative math is not. Ansari’s move will almost certainly fail as an impeachment vehicle, but that is not its only function.

It gives Democrats a more forceful line of attack, ties Hegseth personally to the conduct of the Iran campaign, and keeps attention fixed on the administration’s wartime choices.

For Hegseth, the immediate risk may be less removal than accumulation: another controversy added to an already turbulent wartime tenure. Recent reporting has portrayed the Pentagon under his leadership as unsettled, not least after the recent removal of senior Army leaders in the middle of the conflict.

Trump widens pressure on Iranian elites in America

The Trump administration appears to be broadening its campaign against Iranians linked to Tehran’s ruling class, revoking visas and residency rights for a small but politically resonant group of people with ties to the regime.

The tougher approach reflects Washington’s wider wartime posture toward Iran. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has presented the measures as a matter of national security, arguing that the U.S. should not grant residency or entry to foreigners who support a hostile regime. The administration has already targeted people alleged to be associated with the families of Qassem Soleimani and Ali Larijani, indicating that it is focusing on figures viewed as close to the Iranian state or its security apparatus.

There are also newer reports that officials may be weighing a much broader sweep, potentially affecting thousands of Iranians in the U.S. who are considered part of the country’s political or economic elite.

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

France repatriates gold from New York in symbolic shift

France has completed the removal of its gold reserves from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, marking a notable, if largely symbolic, shift in the geography of sovereign gold holdings.

The transfer, carried out quietly over an extended period, reflects a broader trend among central banks to repatriate bullion long stored abroad. For decades, the vaults beneath Manhattan have served as one of the world’s principal custodians of foreign gold, offering security, liquidity, and proximity to global financial markets. France, like many European states, historically stored a portion of its reserves there as part of post-war monetary arrangements tied to the U.S.-led financial system.

Officials in Banque de France have framed the move as a matter of “sovereign management” rather than a political snub. Gold reserves, unlike foreign exchange holdings, carry symbolic weight as well as financial value. Bringing them back under national control is often presented as a way to reinforce public confidence in monetary stability, particularly in periods of geopolitical uncertainty.

The decision aligns France with a pattern seen across Europe over the past decade. Countries such as Germany and the Netherlands have undertaken similar operations, citing the desire for greater transparency and direct access to reserves. While these moves have occasionally been interpreted as a sign of waning trust in U.S. custodial arrangements, officials on both sides of the Atlantic have consistently rejected that interpretation.

In practical terms, the relocation is unlikely to disrupt markets. Gold stored at the New York Fed is held on a custodial basis and is not actively traded unless instructed by the owning central bank. Its physical location, therefore, has little bearing on day-to-day financial flows. The shift is better understood as part of a gradual recalibration of reserve management strategies in a more fragmented geopolitical environment.

Whether the move signals deeper unease within the Western financial architecture remains open to interpretation, but would be a reasonable assumption. It may equally reflect domestic political considerations, where the optics of “bringing gold home” carry resonance beyond the technicalities of reserve management.

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

If you’re a decision maker at your company, you need to be on the bleeding edge of, well, everything. But before you go signing up for seminars, conferences, lunch ‘n learns, and all that jazz, just know there’s a far better (and simpler) way: Subscribing to The Deep View.

This daily newsletter condenses everything you need to know about the latest and greatest AI developments into a 5-minute read. Squeeze it into your morning coffee break and before you know it, you’ll be an expert too.

Subscribe right here. It’s totally free, wildly informative, and trusted by 600,000+ readers at Google, Meta, Microsoft, and beyond.