LONDON — Keir Starmer’s keeping Britain out of the war in Iran — but he can’t duck the conflict’s grave economic consequences. In a sign of growing fears about the impact of the war on Britain, the prime minister chaired a rare meeting of the government’s emergency COBRA committee Monday night, joined by senior ministers and Governor of the Bank of England Andrew Bailey. Starmer’s top finance minister, Rachel Reeves, will update the House of Commons on the economic picture Tuesday, as an already-unpopular administration worries that chaos in the Middle East is shredding plans to lower the cost of living and get the British economy growing. For Starmer’s government — headed for potentially brutal local elections in May — the crisis in the Gulf risks a nightmare combination of a rise in energy prices, interest rates, inflation and the cost of government borrowing that threatens to undermine everything he’s done since winning office. Economists are now warning that even if Donald Trump’s promise of a “complete and total resolution of hostilities” with Iran were to bear fruit, the effects on the British economy could still last for months. Already there are signs of a split within Starmer’s party over how to respond. Labour MPs want the government to think seriously about action to protect households — but Starmer and Reeves have long talked up the need for fiscal responsibility, and economics are warning that there’s little room for maneuver. Fuel prices displayed at a Shell garage in Southam, Warwickshire on March 23, 2026. | Jacob King/PA Images via Getty Images Jim O’Neill, a former Treasury minister who served as an adviser to Reeves, told POLITICO the government should “not get sucked into reacting to every external shock” and “concentrate on boosting our underlying growth trend.” WHY THE UK IS SO HARD HIT Just before the outbreak of war, there was reason for Starmer and Reeves to feel quietly optimistic about the long-stagnant British economy. The Bank of England had expected inflation to fall back sustainably toward its two percent target for the first time in five years, giving the central bank the space to carry on cutting interest rates.  With the Iran war in full flow, it was forced to rewrite those forecasts at the Monetary Policy Committee’s meeting last week — and now sees inflation at around 3.5 percent by the summer. The U.K. is a big net importer of energy and also needs constant imports of foreign capital to fund its budget and current account deficits. That’s made it one of first targets in the financial markets’ crosshairs. The government’s cost of borrowing has risen by more than half a percentage point over the last month. That threatens both the real economy and Reeves’ painstakingly-negotiated budget arithmetic. Higher inflation means higher interest rates and a higher bill for servicing the government’s debt: fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates a one-point increase in inflation would add £7.3 billion to debt servicing costs in 2026-2027 alone. The effect on businesses and home owners is also likely to be chilling. Britain’s banks are already repricing their most popular mortgages, which are tied to the two-year gilt rate. Hundreds of mortgage products were pulled in a hurry after the MPC meeting last week, something that will hit the housing market and depress Reeves’ intake from both stamp duty and capital gains. Duncan Weldon, an economist and author, said: “Even if this were to stop tomorrow, the inflation numbers and growth numbers are going to look materially worse throughout 2026. “If this continues for longer… it’s an awful lot more challenging and you end up with a much tougher budget this autumn than the government would have been hoping to unveil.” DECISION TIME The U.K.’s economic plight presents an acute political headache for Starmer, as he faces a mismatch between his own party’s expectations about the government’s ability to help people and his own scarce resources. Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has promised to keep looking at different options for some form of assistance to bill-payers hit by an energy price shock. A pain point is looming in July, when a regulated cap on energy costs is due to expire and bills could jump significantly. One left-leaning Labour MP, granted anonymity to speak frankly, said: “They [ministers] need to be treating this like a financial crisis. They need plans for multiple scenarios with clear triggers for government support.” A second MP from the 2024 intake said “it’s right that a Labour government steps in, particularly to help the most vulnerable.” Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves at the first cabinet meeting of the new year at No. 10 Downing St. on Jan. 6, 2026 in London, England. | Pool photo by Richard Pohle via Getty Images This demand for action is being felt in the upper echelons of the party too, as Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy recently argued Reeves’ fiscal rules — seen as crucial in the Treasury to reassure the markets — may need to be reconsidered if prices continue to rise and a major support package is needed.  One Labour official said there are clear disagreements with Labour over how to go about drawing up help and warned “the fiscal approach is going to be a massive dividing line at any leadership election.” The same official pointed to recent comments by former Starmer deputy — and likely leadership contender — Angela Rayner about the OBR, with Rayner accusing the watchdog of ignoring the “social benefit” of government spending. Despite the pressure, ministers have so far restricted themselves to criticizing petrol retailers for alleged profiteering, and have been flirting with new powers for markets watchdog the Competition and Markets Authority. The government said Reeves would on Tuesday set out steps to “help protect working people from unfair price rises,” including a new “anti-profiteering framework” to “root out price gouging.” But Starmer signaled strongly in an appearance before a Commons committee Monday evening that he was not about to unveil any wide-ranging bailout package, telling MPs he was “acutely aware” of what it had cost when then-Prime Minister Liz Truss launched her own universal energy price guarantee in 2022.  O’Neill backed this approach, saying: “I don’t think they should do much… They can’t afford it anyhow. The nation can’t keep shielding people from external shocks.” Weldon predicted, however, that as the May elections approach and the energy cap deadline draws nearer, the pressure will prove too much and ministers could be forced to step in. The furlough scheme rolled out during the pandemic to project jobs and Truss’s 2022 intervention helped create “the expectation that the government should be helping households,” he said. “But it’s incredibly difficult. Britain’s growth has been blown off-course an awful lot in the last 15 years by these sorts of shocks.” Geoffrey Smith, Dan Bloom, Andrew McDonald and Sam Francis contributed to this report.

U.S. regulators this week proposed easing capital rules on big U.S. banks in a package of proposals that departs from globally agreed-upon standards. Now, it’s sparking calls from European trade groups to loosen the EU’s own version of the rules. On Thursday, U.S. bank regulators released a number of potential rule changes intended to align U.S. policy with a 2017 global agreement known as Basel III. Its provisions imply a 2.4 percent decrease in capital held by the largest U.S. banks and bigger cuts for smaller banks. European regulators, anticipating the U.S. move, had already been discussing loosening their own requirements, which currently call for raising the capital that banks must have on hand by around 8 percent by 2033. But the breadth of the U.S. proposal has prompted trade groups in Europe to push officials to move faster. Taken together, the moves could weaken the global regulatory framework instituted on both sides of the Atlantic after the 2008 financial crisis. “The U.S. proposal appears to mark a clear shift toward easing capital constraints to support lending and growth, while Europe seems to continue moving in a different direction,” said Sébastien de Brouwer, deputy CEO of the European Banking Federation, a trade group. The United States’ pullback is “making it more urgent than ever to review the EU framework to preserve competitiveness and financing capacity of European banks,” he said. Over the past few months, European regulators had started to reevaluate the competitiveness of the bloc’s banking sector, especially as major European economies have struggled to keep pace with U.S. growth. EU heads of government called Thursday night, in a statement agreed upon before the release of the U.S. proposal, for the European Commission “to propose targeted amendments to the prudential framework in order to enhance the capacity of the banking sector to finance the European economy.” The Commission is also authoring a report on the competitiveness of its banking sector, due after the summer, which will pave the way for legislative proposals. This is set to be a wide-ranging report that could relate to bank capital requirements or other policies. The European Central Bank has already made recommendations for simplifying the bloc’s banking rules ahead of the report, including calling for lighter Basel rules for small banks and for capital buffers to be merged. None of its recommendations were as sweeping as what the U.S. has proposed, however. The U.S. proposal departs from the intent of the original Basel accords, a long process in which global regulators worked to address the root causes of the global financial crisis, critics say. Regulators in 2017 reached an agreement around the framework for jurisdictions to mitigate risks. “This definitely goes against not just the ethos but the intent, spirit and goal of Basel III,” said Dennis Kelleher, CEO of Better Markets, an advocacy group that supports stronger financial regulation. “This proposal when finalized will inevitably ignite another global race to the regulatory bottom” One of the biggest departures relates to the unwinding of the “output floor,” which sets a minimum capital threshold for banks’ trading activities. The new proposal uses a new risk-weighting approach that would do away with the threshold. “This will encourage other jurisdictions to do the same, undermining a key reform and cornerstone of the Basel III agreement,” Federal Reserve board member Michael Barr said Thursday. In the 2017 international talks, the U.S. had argued in favor of a restrictive output floor. Major European banks argued that would hike their capital requirements above and beyond those of the U.S., given the makeup of European banks’ trading books, stymieing lending to the real economy. The threshold was ultimately set at a lower rate than what American negotiators wanted. European regulators had recently moved to delay implementation of the Fundamental Review of the Trading Book, the portion of Basel focused specifically on so-called market risk, or rules governing how to capitalize banks’ trading activities. “Removing the output floor for market risk is a divergence from international standards, and we will carefully assess the impact on internationally active banks, in particular, with respect to the ongoing discussions on EU FRTB implementation and banking competitiveness in Europe,” said Caroline Liesegang, head of prudential regulation and research at the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, which represents large banks. In the past, U.S. regulators had tended to “gold plate” the country’s rules for big banks, meaning they put in provisions above and beyond what Basel requires in order to acknowledge the United State’s central role in the global financial system and push for stricter global standards. In 2023, U.S. regulators failed to pass a capital proposal that would have raised aggregate capital by 16 percent and would have adhered more strictly to the international framework. On Thursday, U.S. regulators said the international standards should not be an unnecessary barrier to the needs of the U.S. financial system. “We should not seek to punish U.S. consumers and businesses by imposing higher costs of credit, or forcing credit availability outside of the banking system, particularly if this is done only to show greater alignment with Basel or any other international standard,” said Federal Reserve Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, who led the U.S. central bank’s crafting of the proposal. The dilution of the agreement and its pullback on capital “will make it more challenging for the U.S. to use Basel, as it so often has, to further its own agenda,” said Kathryn Judge, professor at Columbia Law School. In the U.K., which has since left the bloc, the capital rules are expected to have less of an impact on banks than EU peers. A spokesperson for the Prudential Regulation Authority, the U.K.’s main banking regulator, said that the thinking remains the same as in its final rules, which will see the market risk rules apply from 2028. The European Commission declined to comment. The Basel Committee said it doesn’t comment on individual jurisdictions. The Federal Reserve declined to comment. Bjarke Smith-Meyer and Elliot Gulliver-Needham contributed to this report.

LONDON — Britain will reduce its aid sent to Africa by more than half, as the government unveils the impact of steep cuts to development assistance for countries across the world. On Thursday the Foreign Office revealed the next three years of its overseas development spending, giving MPs and the public the first look at the impact of Labour’s decision to gut Britain’s aid budget in order to fund an increase in defense spending. Government figures show that the value of Britain’s programs in Africa will fall by 56 percent from the £1.5 billion in 2024/25 when Labour took office to £677 million in 2028/9. It follows the move to reduce aid spending from 0.5 to 0.3 percent of gross national income. However, the government did not release the details of the funding for specific countries, giving Britain’s ambassadors and diplomats time to deliver the news personally to their counterparts across the world ahead of any potential backlash from allies. Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper told MPs that affected countries want Britain “to be an investor, not just a donor” and “want to attract finance, not be dependent on aid,” as she pointed to money her department had committed to development banks and funds which will help Africa raise money. The decision shows a substantial shift in the government’s focus, moving away from direct assistance for countries, and funneling much of the remaining money into international organizations and private finance initiatives. Chi Onwurah, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Africa, told POLITICO that she was “dismayed at the level and extent of the cuts to investment in Africa and the impact it will have particularly on health and economic development.” She added: “I hope the government recognizes that security of the British people is not increased by insecurity in Africa and increased migration from Africa, quite the opposite.” Ian Mitchell from the Center for Global Development think tank noted the move was “a remarkable step back from Africa by the U.K.” NEW PRIORITIES Announcing the cuts in the House of Commons, Cooper stressed that the decision to reduce the aid budget had been “hugely difficult,” pointing to similar moves by allies such as France and Germany following the U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to dramatically shrink America’s aid programs after taking office in January 2025. She insisted that it was still “part of our moral purpose” to tackle global disease and hunger, reiterating Labour’s ambition to work towards “a world free from extreme poverty on a livable planet.” Cooper set out three new priorities for Britain’s remaining budget: funding for unstable countries with conflict and humanitarian disasters, funneling money into “proven” global partnerships such as vaccine organizations, and a focus on women and girls, pledging that these will be at the core of 90 percent of Britain’s bilateral aid programs by 2030. A box with the Ukrainian flag on it awaits collection in Peterborough, U.K. on March 10, 2022. | Martin Pope/Getty Images Only three recipients will see their aid spending fully protected: Ukraine, the Palestinian territories and Sudan. Lebanon will also see its funding protected for another year. All bilateral funding for G20 countries will end. Despite the government’s stated priorities, the scale of the cuts mean that even the areas it is seeking to protect will not be protected fully. An impact assessment — which was so stark that ministers claimed they had to rethink some of the cuts in order to better protect focus areas such as contraception — published alongside the announcement found that there will likely be an end to programs in Malawi where 250,000 young people will lose access to family planning, and 20,000 children risk dropping out of school. “These steep cuts will impact the most marginalized and left behind communities,” said Romilly Greenhill, CEO of Bond, the U.K. network for NGOs, adding: “The U.K. is turning its back on the communities that need support the most.” Last-minute negotiations did see some areas protected from more severe cuts, with the BBC World Service seeing a funding boost, the British Council set to receive an uplift amid its financial struggles, and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) — the aid spending watchdog that had been at risk of being axed — continuing to operate with a 40 percent budget cut. GREEN THREAT Though the move will not require legislation to be confirmed — after Prime Minister Keir Starmer successfully got the move past his MPs last year — MPs inside his party and out have lamented the impact of the cuts, amid the ongoing threat to Labour’s left from a resurgent Green Party under new leader Zack Polanski. Labour MP Becky Cooper, chair of the APPG on global health and security said that her party “is, and always has been, a party of internationalism” but today’s plans would “put Britain and the world at risk.” Sarah Champion, another Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons international development committee said that the announcement confirmed that there “will be no winners from unrelenting U.K. aid cuts, just different degrees of losers,” creating a “desperately bleak” picture for the world’s most vulnerable. “These cuts do not aid our defense, they make the whole world more vulnerable,” she added. Her Labour colleague Gareth Thomas, a former development minister, added: “In an already unsafe world, cutting aid risks alienating key allies and will make improving children’s health and education in Commonwealth countries more difficult.” The announcement may give fresh ammunition to the Greens ahead of May’s local elections, where the party is eyeing up one of its best nights in local government amid a collapse in support for Labour among Britain’s young, progressive, and Muslim voters. Reacting to the news that Britain will cut its aid to developing countries aimed at combatting climate change, Polanski said: “Appalling and just unbelievably short-sighted. Our security here in the U.K. relies on action around the world to tackle the climate crisis.”

The Bank of England warned it may have to take a tougher line on interest rates as the spike in energy prices caused by the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran pushes inflation higher. “Monetary policy cannot reverse this shock” to world energy supply, Governor Andrew Bailey said in a statement on Thursday, after the Monetary Policy Committee voted unanimously to leave the Bank rate unchanged at 3.75 percent. “Monetary policy must, however, respond to the risk of a more persistent effect on U.K. consumer price inflation,” Bailey added. The Bank had only last month declared victory over inflation, which has been above its 2 percent target for over four years. However, its latest analysis suggests headline inflation will rebound back above 3 percent in the next three months and could add as much as 0.75 percentage points to the consumer price index over the summer, as higher fuel bills percolate through the economy. “The MPC is alert to the increased risk of domestic inflationary pressures through second-round effects in wage and price-setting, the risk of which will be greater the longer higher energy prices persist,” the Bank stressed. However, it also acknowledged that the energy price spike is likely to hurt economic growth, and that it is “assessing the implications for inflation of the weakening in economic activity that is likely to result from higher energy costs.” Until the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, most analysts had predicted that a slowing economy and growing prospects of easing inflation would allow the MPC to cut rates at Thursday’s meeting. However, the invasion and the ensuing turmoil in world commodity markets have turned the situation on its head, by closing a vital chokepoint at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, through which irreplaceable volumes of oil, gas and fertilizer pass every day. As a result, the Bank warned that there is now a real threat of higher energy prices causing a broader rise in prices across the economy. Food prices face a similar risk. ALREADY OUT OF DATE? The situation is changing so fast that the Bank’s latest forecasts could already be out of date. The Bank said they were based on the situation as of March 16, when Brent oil futures were only at $100 a barrel. But a succession of strikes on key energy installations around the Persian Gulf since then has already pushed prices up by another 12 percent. “The news flow around the war in Iran looks more worrying for global markets with each passing day,” Deutsche Bank strategist Jim Reid said in a note on Thursday. Analysts argued ahead of the meeting that the Bank would prefer to err on the side of keeping policy tight in the face of the new risks, given lingering concerns about its credibility due to its slow response to the inflation shock in 2022. Inflation peaked at 11.1 percent back then, the highest rate posted by any major economy. The Bank’s change in outlook will make life doubly uncomfortable for the Labour government, which had hoped that its efforts to close the U.K. budget deficit would be rewarded with lower inflation and lower interest rates. Instead, the government’s key 10-year borrowing costs have risen by nearly half a percentage point since the war started, and they leaped again on Thursday, first in response to Iranian attacks on a Qatari gas field, then to the BoE’s statement. At 4.89 percent, the 10-year gilt yield is now at its highest in 15 months. The pound, by contrast, was steady against the dollar and euro after the decision. The Office for Budget Responsibility earlier this month already cut its forecasts for U.K. growth this year. That implies lower tax receipts which, combined with higher borrowing costs, threaten a new two-way squeeze on Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ fiscal arithmetic, less than six months after she had to raise taxes sharply at her latest budget.

President Donald Trump is demanding that the Federal Reserve immediately lower borrowing costs. But the war in the Middle East has now made any interest rate cuts much less likely in 2026 — not just in the U.S. but around the world. With oil prices surging past $100 a barrel and Gulf shipping routes disrupted by Iran, governments and investors are bracing for a repeat of the 2022 energy shock from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. And from Washington to Frankfurt, and London to Tokyo, the world’s central banks are likely to strike a more wary tone on inflation while assessing the fallout during a flurry of policy meetings taking place this week. The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a channel through which roughly a fifth of global oil passes, is pushing up costs not only for energy and transportation, but also for other key goods that are shipped through the waterway. The result could be a toxic mix for central banks: higher prices and lower employment, two problems they’re not equipped to address simultaneously. “My best guess, but spoken with no conviction at all, is that this gets sorted out somehow in the next few weeks, and by the middle of the year, oil prices have come back down a fair amount,” said William English, a former top staffer at the Fed who is now a professor at Yale University. “But there’s a real risk, of course, that things go on for longer and are more damaging. And in that case, all bets are off.” The specter of a prolonged global energy crunch could dash the hopes of consumers, businesses and investors worldwide for rate cuts this year — and in some cases, throw those plans in reverse. No immediate moves are likely except in Australia, which raised its target rate by a quarter-point on Tuesday. But markets have already repriced their bets on what comes next from monetary policymakers. Indeed, if the Fed does cut rates later this year, it might be one of the few major central banks that does so, given that other economies like Europe are more exposed to higher energy costs than the U.S. Before the war, investors saw a chance of cuts from the Fed, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England. Now they’re pricing in an altogether tighter policy stance: at least one ECB rate hike this year, a 60 percent chance of a BoE increase, fewer and later cuts from the Fed and more urgency in raising rates from the Bank of Japan. Central bankers will prefer to wait until they get a better gauge of the economic repercussions from the conflict because “the shock could turn out to be negligible or very large,” said EFG chief economist Stefan Gerlach. But few doubt the need for strong messaging as central banks are wary of repeating 2022, when energy price shocks combined with the after-effects from Covid and fiscal stimulus to morph into the worst inflation spike in half a century. “There will be a significant contingent worrying about upside inflation risks in light of the 2022 experience,” J.P. Morgan economist Greg Fuzesi said ahead of the ECB’s policy-making council’s meeting on Thursday. The Iran conflict is further complicating efforts by Trump to demonstrate to voters that the GOP is addressing cost-of-living concerns before this year’s midterm elections. Already, the war has caused a surge in politically salient gas prices and erased some of the progress toward more affordable mortgage rates. And it’s further muddied the picture for a central bank that the president has been pressing hard to take decisive action toward rate cuts. Now, when Chair Jerome Powell and other Fed officials meet on Wednesday, they’re expected to be more open to the idea of rate increases later this year, though that’s still not the likeliest outcome. As Yale’s English pointed out, higher costs might ultimately increase the case for rate cuts if they slow the economy significantly. “With the higher oil prices and the shock to the global economy, the likelihood of overheating seems reduced now, so that’s one of the reasons you might be comfortable waiting through some period of higher inflation,” rather than hiking rates in response, English said. “This might be enough to push the economy into real weakness, and in that case, they might well have to cut.” But if households and businesses start to worry about a new acceleration in inflation and start expecting higher prices, that dynamic can be self-fulfilling and might call for rate hikes. Hawkish policymakers are already signaling the ECB won’t hesitate this time. “A reaction by the ECB is potentially closer than many people think,” Peter Kažimír, Slovakia’s central bank governor, told Bloomberg last week. “We will be ready to act if needed.” President Christine Lagarde pledged to ensure that consumers “don’t suffer the same inflation increases like those we saw in 2022 and 2023.” Back then, the ECB was slow to react, helping inflation surge past 10 percent. Economists say today’s backdrop looks very different: In 2022, rates were near or below zero, balance sheets were bloated and fiscal policy was highly expansionary. “When inflation rose, it did so in an environment of strong demand supported by both fiscal and monetary stimulus,” said Gerlach. Now, tighter monetary and fiscal policy should limit the risk of energy shocks spilling through the economy into second-round effects. Still, Barclays analyst Silvia Ardagna says that if medium-term inflation expectations “deteriorate significantly,” she expects “the ECB to act more swiftly than in 2022, but to tighten policy gradually.” Nick Kounis, of Dutch bank ABN AMRO, also sees a more hawkish tone. “Uncertainty on the conflict is high, but if the current situation persists through to the April meeting, a hike becomes a distinct possibility,” he said. Many analysts say the first obvious central bank casualty of the war is likely to be the Bank of England, which was widely expected to cut this week but is now seen firmly on hold. That’s because the U.K. still hasn’t quite gotten on top of the inflation that was unleashed four years ago. Andrew Benito, an economist with hedge fund Point72 in London, reckons that the inevitable increase in fuel prices and household energy bills alone will add a full percentage point to headline inflation by summer, with “second-round” impacts on other prices pushing it even further away from the BoE’s target. That, says Deutsche Bank’s Sanjay Raja, will force the bank into some “uncomfortable trade-offs”: The U.K. economy has already slowed over the last year due to global trade uncertainty and various government tax hikes to close the budget deficit. Hiking rates when the economy is already struggling could risk needlessly making things worse. But any sign of complacency could be disproportionately punished by the markets, given that the BoE performed worse than any other major central bank during the last inflation shock (the headline rate peaked at over 11 percent). Raja expects BoE Governor Andrew Bailey to highlight the differences with 2022 — when inflation was accelerating rather than slowing — as one reason not to overreact to today’s price spike. However, he expects that Bailey, like the ECB and others, will talk tough about not letting business and households develop an inflationary mindset again. More important will be the Bank of Japan’s decisions and press conference on Thursday, due to the outsized influence of Japanese interest rates on global financial markets. For decades, Japan kept interest rates low and printed money furiously to escape deflation. As long as it did so, Japanese and foreign investors borrowed yen cheaply to throw at higher-yielding markets such as the U.S. Now, however, the BoJ’s concerns have finally switched from deflation to inflation, and BoJ Governor Kazuo Ueda is now in a hurry to “normalize” policy. Its key interest rate, at 0.75 percent, is the lowest in the developed world outside Switzerland. But Japan, too, faces a big headwind from higher energy prices because of its dependence on imports, and Gregor Hirt, chief investment officer for Multi Asset at Allianz Global Investors, argues that the BoJ will hesitate before raising rates again. The trouble with waiting and seeing is that the yen has already lurched lower, prompting alarm in Washington and sparking rumors of possible intervention to support it. “In order to stop further weakness, the BoJ may have to move up a rate hike to stabilize the currency,” Hirt said. Meanwhile, the war has presented the Swiss National Bank, which has kept interest rates at zero since June 2025, with a different kind of conundrum. One risk is that a global “flight to safety” drives the Swiss franc to even greater heights against the euro and others. That could make so many imports cheaper that the overall inflation rate could turn negative. Alternatively, the boost in energy prices could have the same malign impact on inflation as it will elsewhere. “The SNB will probably prefer to wait and see which of the two effects will have the greater impact on inflation prospects before acting in one direction or the other,” said ING economist Charlotte de Montpellier, who expects the Swiss central bank to stay on hold. That response, shot through with varying degrees of nervousness, looks likely to be the dominant one this week. But things will look very different if the war situation hasn’t improved by the next round of meetings.

Anton, a 44-year-old Russian soldier who heads a workshop responsible for repairing and supplying drones, was at his kitchen table when he learned last month that Elon Musk’s SpaceX had cut off access to Starlink terminals used by Russian forces. He scrambled for alternatives, but none offered unlimited internet, data plans were restrictive, and coverage did not extend to the areas of Ukraine where his unit operated. It’s not only American tech executives who are narrowing communications options for Russians. Days later, Russian authorities began slowing down access nationwide to the messaging app Telegram, the service that frontline troops use to coordinate directly with one another and bypass slower chains of command. “All military work goes through Telegram — all communication,” Anton, whose name has been changed because he fears government reprisal, told POLITICO in voice messages sent via the app. “That would be like shooting the entire Russian army in the head.” Telegram would be joining a home screen’s worth of apps that have become useless to Russians. Kremlin policymakers have already blocked or limited access to WhatsApp, along with parent company Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, Microsoft’s LinkedIn, Google’s YouTube, Apple’s FaceTime, Snapchat and X, which like SpaceX is owned by Musk. Encrypted messaging apps Signal and Discord, as well as Japanese-owned Viber, have been inaccessible since 2024. Last month, President Vladimir Putin signed a law requiring telecom operators to block cellular and fixed internet access at the request of the Federal Security Service. Shortly after it took effect on March 3, Moscow residents reported widespread problems with mobile internet, calls and text messages across all major operators for several days, with outages affecting mobile service and Wi-Fi even inside the State Duma. Those decisions have left Russians increasingly cut off from both the outside world and one another, complicating battlefield coordination and disrupting online communities that organize volunteer aid, fundraising and discussion of the war effort. Deepening digital isolation could turn Russia into something akin to “a large, nuclear-armed North Korea and a junior partner to China,” according to Alexander Gabuev, the Berlin-based director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center. In April, the Kremlin is expected to escalate its campaign against Telegram — already one of Russia’s most popular messaging platforms, but now in the absence of other social-media options, a central hub for news, business and entertainment. It may block the platform altogether. That is likely to fuel an escalating struggle between state censorship and the tools people use to evade it, with Russia’s place in the world hanging in the balance. “It’s turned into a war,” said Mikhail Klimarev, executive director of the internet Protection Society, a digital rights group that monitors Russia’s censorship infrastructure. “A guerrilla war. They hunt down the VPNs they can see, they block them — and the ‘partisans’ run, build new bunkers, and come back.” THE APP THAT RUNS THE WAR On Feb. 4, SpaceX tightened the authentication system that Starlink terminals use to connect to its satellite network, introducing stricter verification for registered devices. The change effectively blocked many terminals operated by Russian units relying on unauthorized connections, cutting Starlink traffic inside Ukraine by roughly 75 percent, according to internet traffic analysis by Doug Madory, an analyst at the U.S. network monitoring firm Kentik. The move threw Russian operations into disarray, allowing Ukraine to make battlefield gains. Russia has turned to a workaround widely used before satellite internet was an option: laying fiber-optic lines, from rear areas toward frontline battlefield positions. Until then, Starlink terminals had allowed drone operators to stream live video through platforms such as Discord, which is officially blocked in Russia but still sometimes used by the Russian military via VPNs, to commanders at multiple levels. A battalion commander could watch an assault unfold in real time and issue corrections — “enemy ahead” or “turn left” — via radio or Telegram. What once required layers of approval could now happen in minutes. Satellite-connected messaging apps became the fastest way to transmit coordinates, imagery and targeting data. But on Feb. 10, Roskomnadzor, the Russian communications regulator, began slowing down Telegram for users across Russia, citing alleged violations of Russian law. Russian news outlet RBC reported, citing two sources, that authorities plan to shut down Telegram in early April — though not on the front line. In mid-February, Digital Development Minister Maksut Shadayev said the government did not yet intend to restrict Telegram at the front but hoped servicemen would gradually transition to other platforms. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said this week the company could avoid a full ban by complying with Russian legislation and maintaining what he described as “flexible contact” with authorities. Roskomnadzor has accused Telegram of failing to protect personal data, combat fraud and prevent its use by terrorists and criminals. Similar accusations have been directed at other foreign tech platforms. In 2022, a Russian court designated Meta an “extremist organization” after the company said it would temporarily allow posts calling for violence against Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine war — a decision authorities used to justify blocking Facebook and Instagram in Russia and increasing pressure on the company’s other services, including WhatsApp. Telegram founder Pavel Durov, a Russian-born entrepreneur now based in the United Arab Emirates, says the throttiling is being used as a pretext to push Russians toward a government-controlled messaging app designed for surveillance and political censorship. That app is MAX, which was launched in March 2025 and has been compared to China’s WeChat in its ambition to anchor a domestic digital ecosystem. Authorities are increasingly steering Russians toward MAX through employers, neighborhood chats and the government services portal Gosuslugi — where citizens retrieve documents, pay fines and book appointments — as well as through banks and retailers. The app’s developer, VK, reports rapid user growth, though those figures are difficult to independently verify. “They didn’t just leave people to fend for themselves — you could say they led them by the hand through that adaptation by offering alternatives,” said Levada Center pollster Denis Volkov, who has studied Russian attitudes toward technology use. The strategy, he said, has been to provide a Russian or state-backed alternative for the majority, while stopping short of fully criminalizing workarounds for more technologically savvy users who do not want to switch. Elena, a 38-year-old Yekaterinburg resident whose surname has been withheld because she fears government reprisal, said her daughter’s primary school moved official communication from WhatsApp to MAX without consulting parents. She keeps MAX installed on a separate tablet that remains mostly in a drawer — a version of what some Russians call a “MAXophone,” gadgets solely for that app, without any other data being left on those phones for the (very real) fear the government could access it. “It works badly. Messages are delayed. Notifications don’t come,” she said. “I don’t trust it … And this whole situation just makes people angry.” THE VPN ARMS RACE Unlike China’s centralized “Great Firewall,” which filters traffic at the country’s digital borders, Russia’s system operates internally. Internet providers are required to route traffic through state-installed deep packet inspection equipment capable of controlling and analyzing data flows in real time. “It’s not one wall,” Klimarev said. “It’s thousands of fences. You climb one, then there’s another.” The architecture allows authorities to slow services without formally banning them — a tactic used against YouTube before its web address was removed from government-run domain-name servers last month. Russian law explicitly provides government authority for blocking websites on grounds such as extremism, terrorism, illegal content or violations of data regulations, but it does not clearly define throttling — slowing traffic rather than blocking it outright — as a formal enforcement mechanism. “The slowdown isn’t described anywhere in legislation,” Klimarev said. “It’s pressure without procedure.” In September, Russia banned advertising for virtual private network services that citizens use to bypass government-imposed restrictions on certain apps or sites. By Klimarev’s estimate, roughly half of Russian internet users now know what a VPN is, and millions pay for one. Polling last year by the Levada Center, Russia’s only major independent pollster, suggests regular use is lower, finding about one-quarter of Russians said they have used VPN services. Russian courts can treat the use of anonymization tools as an aggravating factor in certain crimes — steps that signal growing pressure on circumvention technologies without formally outlawing them. In February, the Federal Antimonopoly Service opened what appears to be the first case against a media outlet for promoting a VPN after the regional publication Serditaya Chuvashiya advertised such a service on its Telegram channel. Surveys in recent years have shown that many Russians, particularly older citizens, support tighter internet regulation, often citing fraud, extremism and online safety. That sentiment gives authorities political space to tighten controls even when the restrictions are unpopular among more technologically savvy users. Even so, the slowdown of Telegram drew criticism from unlikely quarters, including Sergei Mironov, a longtime Kremlin ally and leader of the Just Russia party. In a statement posted on his Telegram channel on Feb. 11, he blasted the regulators behind the move as “idiots,” accusing them of undermining soldiers at the front. He said troops rely on the app to communicate with relatives and organize fundraising for the war effort, warning that restricting it could cost lives. While praising the state-backed messaging app MAX, he argued that Russians should be free to choose which platforms they use. Pro-war Telegram channels frame the government’s blocking techniques as sabotage of the war effort. Ivan Philippov, who tracks Russia’s influential military bloggers, said the reaction inside that ecosystem to news about Telegram has been visceral “rage.” Unlike Starlink, whose cutoff could be blamed on a foreign company, restrictions on Telegram are viewed as self-inflicted. Bloggers accuse regulators of undermining the war effort. Telegram is used not only for battlefield coordination but also for volunteer fundraising networks that provide basic logistics the state does not reliably cover — from transport vehicles and fuel to body armor, trench materials and even evacuation equipment. Telegram serves as the primary hub for donations and reporting back to supporters. “If you break Telegram inside Russia, you break fundraising,” Philippov said. “And without fundraising, a lot of units simply don’t function.” Few in that community trust MAX, citing technical flaws and privacy concerns. Because MAX operates under Russian data-retention laws and is integrated with state services, many assume their communications would be accessible to authorities. Philippov said the app’s prominent defenders are largely figures tied to state media or the presidential administration. “Among independent military bloggers, I haven’t seen a single person who supports it,” he said. Small groups of activists attempted to organize rallies in at least 11 Russian cities, including Moscow, Irkutsk and Novosibirsk, in defense of Telegram. Authorities rejected or obstructed most of the proposed demonstrations — in some cases citing pandemic-era restrictions, weather conditions or vague security concerns — and in several cases revoked previously issued permits. In Novosibirsk, police detained around 15 people ahead of a planned rally. Although a small number of protests were formally approved, no large-scale demonstrations ultimately took place. THE POWER TO PULL THE PLUG The new law signed last month allows Russia’s Federal Security Service to order telecom operators to block cellular and fixed internet access. Peskov, the Kremlin spokesman, said subsequent shutdowns of service in Moscow were linked to security measures aimed at protecting critical infrastructure and countering drone threats, adding that such limitations would remain in place “for as long as necessary.” In practice, the disruptions rarely amount to a total communications blackout. Most target mobile internet rather than all services, while voice calls and SMS often continue to function. Some domestic websites and apps — including government portals or banking services — may remain accessible through “whitelists,” meaning authorities allow certain services to keep operating even while broader internet access is restricted. The restrictions are typically localized and temporary, affecting specific regions or parts of cities rather than the entire country. Internet disruptions have increasingly become a tool of control beyond individual platforms. Research by the independent outlet Meduza and the monitoring project Na Svyazi has documented dozens of regional internet shutdowns and mobile network restrictions across Russia, with disruptions occurring regularly since May 2025. The communications shutdown, and uncertainty around where it will go next, is affecting life for citizens of all kinds, from the elderly struggling to contact family members abroad to tech-savvy users who juggle SIM cards and secondary phones to stay connected. Demand has risen for dated communication devices — including walkie-talkies, pagers and landline phones — along with paper maps as mobile networks become less reliable, according to retailers interviewed by RBC. “It feels like we’re isolating ourselves,” said Dmitry, 35, who splits his time between Moscow and Dubai and whose surname has been withheld to protect his identity under fear of governmental reprisal. “Like building a sovereign grave.” Those who track Russian public opinion say the pattern is consistent: irritation followed by adaptation. When Instagram and YouTube were blocked or slowed in recent years, their audiences shrank rapidly as users migrated to alternative services rather than mobilizing against the restrictions. For now, Russia’s digital tightening resembles managed escalation rather than total isolation. Officials deny plans for a full shutdown, and even critics say a complete severing would cripple banking, logistics and foreign trade. “It’s possible,” Klimarev said. “But if they do that, the internet won’t be the main problem anymore.”

A federal judge has quashed the Justice Department’s criminal probe into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s Senate testimony regarding the central bank’s headquarters renovation, writing that the grand jury subpoenas were a “mere pretext” to pressure the Fed. “There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will,” Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote. “The Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President.” U.S. Attorney for D.C. Jeanine Pirro, whose office led the investigation, said in a press conference afterward that she would appeal the decision. She sharply criticized Boasberg, saying he “put himself at the entrance door to the grand jury, slamming that door shut, irrespective of the legal process, and thus preventing the grand jury from doing the work that it does.” “This process has been arbitrarily undermined by an activist judge,” she said. Pirro’s plan to appeal the decision could further delay the confirmation process of President Donald Trump’s pick to replace Powell, former Fed Gov. Kevin Warsh. Warsh’s nomination has been blocked by outgoing Sen. Thom Tillis until the investigation into Powell is resolved. The North Carolina Republican warned the administration on Friday afternoon against appealing the decision. “We all know how this is going to end, and the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office should save itself further embarrassment and move on,” Tillis posted on X. “Appealing the ruling will only delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed Chair.” The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump has severely criticized Powell for more than a year for his reluctance to lower interest rates, with the president accusing him of holding back the economy. Powell has said the subpoenas were part of Trump’s pressure campaign to force him to cut borrowing costs. The investigation into Powell’s testimony on the status of a costly renovation of the central bank’s headquarters kicked off a firestorm that threatens Trump’s aims to stack the Fed board with appointees who share his views on lowering short-term borrowing costs. Powell’s term as chair expires in May, and Pirro’s vow to appeal the decision could prolong a legal clash that will keep the Fed’s future leadership up in the air. Tillis, who has vowed to block any Fed picks until the Powell probe is publicly dropped, sits on the Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fed nominations. Republicans have a 13-11 majority on the committee, meaning that Tillis’s vote is needed to advance any nominee to the Senate floor if every Banking Committee Democrat votes against them. In a hearing before the committee last June, the panel’s chair, Tim Scott (R-SC), asked Powell about the status of the Fed’s renovations after a New York Post article characterized them as akin to the “Palace of Versailles.” Powell told senators that “there’s no new marble. There are no special elevators. There are no new water features. There’s no beehives, and there’s no roof terrace gardens.” That caught the eye of Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Bill Pulte, who urged lawmakers to look into the matter, and the White House launched its own probe into the project last summer. Several Senate Banking Republicans — including Scott — have said they do not believe Powell committed a crime with his testimony. Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), a Powell critic, said in a statement that the Fed chief “was wildly underprepared for his testimony, but, as I have said before, I’m not sure it rose to the criminal level.” Wall Street executives and top lawmakers have repeatedly cautioned Trump against actions that might undermine the central bank’s ability to independently set interest rates, which bolsters its credibility and is viewed as a stabilizing force for global markets. Trump has also tried to fire Fed Gov. Lisa Cook over unsubstantiated allegations of mortgage fraud — her fate will be determined by the Supreme Court — and the president has flirted numerous times with attempting to dismiss Powell. In January, Powell posted an extraordinary two-minute video to the central bank’s website claiming that the DOJ’s subpoenas represented a politically motivated attempt to pressure the central bank into lowering interest rates. The threat of criminal charges was a “consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” he said. The move was unusual because Powell has steadfastly refused to respond to Trump’s blizzard of insults since he returned to the White House. The president has publicly questioned Powell’s intelligence and competence, and has said his monetary policy decisions are driven by politics. In her combative press conference, Pirro called the judge’s decision on Friday “outrageous.” She cited a Supreme Court precedent that grand juries can investigate mere rumors. And she dismissed suggestions that she should look skeptically at allegations that may be politically motivated. “I’ll take a case from the devil if you can give me information that will lead me to possibly find a crime,” she said. “It doesn’t matter where the case comes from.” While Pirro suggested it is exceptional for a judge to block a grand jury subpoena, federal court rules allow them to do so if they believe a subpoena is “unreasonable or oppressive.” In his ruling, issued Wednesday and unsealed on Friday, Boasberg noted that numerous court precedents authorize judges to quash a subpoena when its “sole or dominant” purpose is improper. Boasberg, an appointee of President Barack Obama, conceded that the subpoenas issued to the Fed were relevant to a criminal investigation. But he said their obvious connection to attempts to exert unlawful pressure on Powell and other members of the Fed’s Board of Governors rendered the subpoenas unenforceable. “The President spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of this troublesome Fed Chair. He then suggested a specific line of investigation into him,” the judge wrote. “The President’s appointed prosecutor promptly complied.” Boasberg’s rejection of the subpoenas to the Fed is just the latest clash between the chief judge of the federal district court in the capital and the Trump administration. The judge’s earlier rulings in a dispute over Trump’s drive to rapidly deport alleged gang members under a two-century-old wartime authority led Trump to call for Boasberg’s impeachment. Some House members embarked on that effort last year, but it has not progressed. Pirro said that in addition to an appeal, which would go to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, prosecutors intend to ask Boasberg to reconsider his ruling because it included some inaccurate dates. That could delay any appeal because judges typically cannot alter rulings while they are under appeal.

WARSAW — President Karol Nawrocki said Thursday evening he intends to veto government legislation that lays out the how Poland should spend its €43.7 billion allocation under the EU’s loans-for-weapons scheme known as SAFE. Prime Minister Donald Tusk’s government lacks the necessary votes in the country’s parliament to override the veto. The standoff will inevitably escalate the political feud between Tusk and the president over Poland’s political orientation. Nawrocki, like the nationalist-populist opposition Law and Justice (PiS) party that supports him, views Brussels with skepticism, unlike the pro-EU Tusk administration. Poland is the only country where SAFE has become a political issue. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in December that EU countries had already gobbled up the whole €150 billion from SAFE and were clamoring for more. “The President has lost the chance to act like a patriot. Shame!” Tusk posted on X shortly after Nawrocki announced his decision. The PM said the government will convene for an extraordinary session Friday morning to prepare a response. GOVERNMENT ALLEGES “NATIONAL TREASON” The EU program provides low-interest, long-term loans with a 10-year grace period for principal repayments. The funds are raised by Brussels on capital markets and offer significant savings compared to national borrowing — a crucial issue for Poland, which plans to devote 4.8 percent of its GDP to defense this year. Following Nawrocki’s veto decision, Poland’s SAFE allocation will remain guaranteed, but the rules for spending it will likely be less flexible than they would have been under the legislation Nawrocki blocked. The government had planned to use the money to boost financing for the Border Guard and the police or to upgrade infrastructure. Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski said before the decision: “If the President vetoes SAFE and we still implement it … I will propose that a plaque with the inscription be placed on every rifle, tank, gun, drone, and anti-drone: ‘Dear soldier of the Polish Army, [President] Nawrocki did not want to give you this.’” Key figures in the Tusk government hammered Nawrocki in the media and online following the decision, calling it “national treason.” The veto also defies the military, whose top brass have spoken out in favor of the SAFE loans. Chief of the General Staff Wiesław Kukuła in February described SAFE as a “game changer” for the military. PRESIDENT RAISES SPECTER OF “MASSIVE FOREIGN LOANS” In his speech, Nawrocki reiterated the arguments he has been rolling out against SAFE for weeks now, claiming the Security Action for Europe loans would saddle Poland with long-term debt and expose the country to exchange-rate risks.  “The SAFE mechanism is a massive foreign loan taken out for 45 years in a foreign currency, with interest costs that could reach as much as PLN180 billion [€42 billion]. Poland would therefore have to repay an amount roughly equal to the value of the loan itself in interest, with Western banks and financial institutions standing to profit from it,” Nawrocki said. The president also argued the scheme could allow Brussels to attach political conditions to Poland’s defense financing and would benefit foreign arms-makers disproportionately.  “SAFE is a mechanism under which Brussels, through the so-called conditionality principle, could arbitrarily suspend financing while Poland would still have to continue repaying the debt. That’s why it must be said clearly: Security subject to conditions is not security. Poland’s security cannot depend on decisions taken elsewhere,” Nawrocki declared. “I have decided that I will not sign the law that would allow Poland to take out a SAFE loan. I will never sign legislation that strikes at our sovereignty, independence, and economic and military security.” Instead, Nawrocki renewed his proposal for a domestic alternative to SAFE that would mobilize money to finance arms purchases without loans or interest payments — by involving the National Bank of Poland’s vast gold reserves. With 550 tons of gold stored in domestic and foreign vaults, the NBP is one of Europe’s top gold hoarders. Central bank chief Adam Glapiński said last week that the NBP holds around 197 billion złoty in “unrealized gains resulting from the increase in the value of the bank’s gold reserves,” and is considering using part of that to support defense spending. The operations would involve transferring the profits generated by the NBP to a dedicated vehicle, the Polish Defense Investment Fund. Glapiński also said the gains would be realized by transactions reducing the share of gold in the bank’s portfolio. 2027 ELECTIONS ON HORIZON Tusk and his ministers have lambasted the gold idea as highly speculative and said it was inconsistent with the central bank’s role as the guardian of Poland’s financial stability. The government has also said that nearly all of Poland’s SAFE money will go to domestic manufacturers, creating jobs and stimulating economic growth. The clash over SAFE comes as Poland prepares for a parliamentary election next year in which PiS hopes to defeat Tusk’s pro-EU coalition. Polls suggest that Tusk’s party, the liberal Civic Coalition, might come first but could lack the votes to form a majority.  The PiS, meanwhile, could secure a majority if it allies with the far-right Confederation party and with the even-more-extreme, antisemitic Confederation of the Polish Crown.

President Donald Trump’s military campaign against Iran has Washington’s Asian allies scrambling to address an energy crisis that could destabilize many of their economies within weeks. And so far their appeals for guidance or assistance from the Trump administration are going unheeded. Asian countries are some of the most exposed to the energy crisis sparked by the Iran war because they rely heavily on oil and liquefied natural gas that passes through the Strait of Hormuz, which has effectively ground to a halt since the first U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran two weeks ago. In that time, Japan, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea and others have struggled to decode Trump’s yo-yoing statements about the goals of the operation and when it will end, according to three Asian officials and one former U.S. official who were granted anonymity to discuss the tensions. “We’re not receiving any communication from the Trump administration,” said one of the people, a Washington-based Asia diplomat. Asked what the Trump administration could do, the person said, “Ideally, just end the conflict.” Another one of the officials from an Asian country pointed out that there are actions short of that that the U.S. could take to ease the pressure on energy markets, such as enlisting other countries to participate in its effort to guarantee insurance for tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The Trump administration has given no indication that it plans to take such actions. The International Energy Agency said Wednesday its member countries would release 400 million barrels of oil from their emergency stocks in the largest such reserves distribution in its history, but it’s unclear how much this will ease the pressure on Asian countries. Many Asian economies lack large domestic reserves and are thus particularly exposed to price spikes and supply disruptions. “Our oil reserves are enough for about one month of domestic consumption,” the Washington-based Asian diplomat said. President Donald Trump said Wednesday that Washington’s attacks on Iran’s navy should assuage concerns about the safety of ships transiting the Strait, but that does not to appear to have done much to ease jitters. The second Asian official said some of Trump’s comments suggesting he is digging in for a long conflict are ratcheting up concern. His country’s alarm level will be dictated, “by how long this goes on,” the official said. Trump said Wednesday that the U.S. has hit a significant number of Iranian military targets and suggested the war could be over quickly. He has also said it could take four to six weeks, but has also called for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” which could take much longer. Countries across the Indo-Pacific are taking measures to limit the impact of a looming cut in oil and gas from the Persian Gulf if supplies don’t resume in the next two weeks. The Philippines and Vietnam have revived Covid-era work-from-home directives to ease consumer demand for gasoline. India has imposed a 20 percent cut in LNG supply to the country’s industrial sector, New Delhi announced Wednesday. The Japanese government announced Wednesday it will release some of its strategic petroleum reserves to compensate for a shortfall in imports. The U.S. could see long term effects of leaving its Asian allies to fend on their own. “Foreign embassies need and expect information that explains what the U.S. is doing, reassurance that this is a short-term problem and what our plan is to help,” said Scot Marciel, former principal deputy assistant secretary for the State Department’s Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs during the Obama administration. “Not doing that just adds to a pretty strong sense in the region that the administration is not really making a lot of effort to be a good partner.” The White House said allies will ultimately benefit from what is a temporary disruption. “President Trump has been clear that these are short-term disruptions,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said. “President Trump is in close contact with our partners around the world, and the terrorist Iranian regime’s attacks on its neighbors prove how imperative it was that President Trump eliminate this threat to our country and our allies.” The Trump administration has limited options to cushion the impact of the supply interruption on the economies of allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific. An oil commodity trader at a major U.S. investment bank said America’s LNG production is already running at maximum and there is no emergency flex capacity that American producers can bring to bear to supply Asia. “There is no short term, immediate thing that the U.S. can do for Asia — there is no pipeline or trucking that can get more gas from here to there,” said the trader, who was granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the issue. Last week the Trump administration said it would temporarily allow India to accept Russian oil. India, a larger refiner, also supplies petroleum products like gasoline and diesel fuel to other Asian countries. Asian countries are competing with each other as they try to pivot to other sources of oil and gas. The jockeying is hitting the wall of recent restrictions on output by regional refineries due to the lack of crude oil coming from the Persian Gulf. China could potentially wrangle a short-term easing in supply constraints in Asia if it taps its close ties with Tehran to ensure that China-bound cargoes pass through the Strait of Hormuz unmolested by Iranian forces. Those shipments may already be happening, according to CNBC reporting Tuesday. Trump has spent the past week attempting to cool nerves in the global energy market, as the price of oil has spiked by more than 29 percent since the U.S. and Israel first launched attacks on Iran. “I think you’re going to see great safety. We have decimated that country. They’re paying a big price now,” Trump said Wednesday, responding to a question about whether oil companies should transit the Strait. But Iran has continued to hit ships in the vital waterway. On Wednesday “unknown projectiles” hit and sparked a fire on a Thai cargo vessel in the Strait while two other ships were hit in the nearby Persian Gulf, the New York Times reported. The leaders of G7 countries — which includes Japan — agreed in a call on Wednesday to prepare for future freedom of navigation operations though such efforts are not possible now “as it remains an active theater of war,” according to a French account of the discussion. While the U.S. has been concerned that Iran has begun to lay mines in the Strait of Hormuz, Trump said Wednesday the U.S. believes Iran hasn’t yet done so. He said the U.S. has hit 28 mine-laying ships. Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi will have the chance to raise her concerns and others on the continent when she arrives in Washington next week for a summit with Trump that was planned before the war broke out but has taken on new meaning amid the turmoil. “The president made a decision on Iran without consulting allies, and they’re bearing the brunt of it. So the president obviously needs to appreciate the cost that Japan will bear” when he meets with Takaichi next week, Rahm Emanuel, former U.S. ambassador to Japan, said.

Hungarian opposition leader Péter Magyar is accusing the Kremlin of supporting the election campaign of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán with a new barrage of disinformation videos that are supposed to appear on Thursday. Orbán is the EU leader closest to Russian President Vladimir Putin — and a persistent obstacle to Brussels’ support for Ukraine — but he now faces the toughest fight of his political career in Hungary’s April 12 election, where polls put him about 10 points behind Magyar.   Magyar — a former member of Orbán’s Fidesz party, who understands its playbook — said on Tuesday he’d received information that the attack would take the form of “14 AI-generated smear videos,” and complained that the disinformation campaign had been produced “with the help of Russian intelligence services.” People in Magyar’s Tisza party and analysts in Budapest have long expected the race to get dirty as it enters the final stretch. Magyar’s tactic is to sound the alarm on the alleged impending smear attacks against Tisza before they land, hoping to blunt their impact. That’s the same strategy he adopted in mid-February, when faced with the prospect that his opponents could release a sex tape featuring him. He went public and accused Fidesz of planning to release a tape “recorded with secret service equipment and possibly faked, in which my then-girlfriend and I are seen having intimate intercourse.”   For now, that intervention seems to have worked, and such a video has not yet been released. BLOWING THE WHISTLE On Thursday, just as Magyar arrives to campaign in a constituency on the Danube close to Budapest, his team expects Fidesz to target the local candidate and her family with AI-generated videos which will be promoted via fake accounts. Magyar announced his concerns on social media, and called on Orbán “to immediately halt the planned election fraud and order Russian agents out of Hungary.” “By advancing what’s going to happen, we hope to neutralize it … whenever we had any information, [Magyar] made it public right away,” Zoltan Tarr, Tisza’s No. 2 and a long-time Magyar confidant, told POLITICO. “The system is not 100 percent waterproof or leakproof. And we always get some hints of what will be Fidesz’s next move,” he added. It’s too early to assess whether this strategy of going public will be successful for the sex tape and future smear campaigns, said Péter Krekó, executive director of Political Capital, an independent policy research consultancy. But he added that anticipating Fidesz’s moves had worked “really well” to build Magyar’s “Teflon image” because no scandals had yet “burnt” him. Tisza has also raised the specter of foreign interference, openly accusing Orbán of inviting Russian spies to meddle in the election, following reports by independent media VSquare and journalist Szabolcs Panyi. Fidesz denies the allegations. “The left-wing allegation linked to journalist Szabolcs Panyi, claiming Russian interference in the elections, is false,” the Hungarian government’s international communications office told POLITICO in a statement. “No information supports the presence or activities in Hungary of the specific individuals named by Szabolcs Panyi, or of any other persons allegedly engaged in such activities. Other countries’ intelligence services also have no concrete information regarding this matter.” Fidesz members insist Magyar is financed by Ukraine with the aim of installing a puppet government that will be loyal to Kyiv and Brussels. They accuse Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of interfering in the election by blocking Russian oil imports via the Druzhba pipeline and threatening the life of Orbán. The latter allegation came after the Ukrainian leader insinuated he would refer Orbán to Ukrainian troops for a direct talk “in their own language.” The leading Fidesz lawmaker in the European Parliament, Tamás Deutsch, turned the tables and accused Tisza of spreading false information. “As part of this serious interference, the pro-Ukrainian and pro-Brussels Tisza party is spreading disinformation through sympathetic media outlets in Brussels and Hungary,” he told POLITICO. “Hungary and its government will not accept pressure or interference in its democratic processes and will do their utmost to stand up for the interests of the Hungarian people.” FORCING RESIGNATIONS Because the deadline to register candidates for the April 12 vote has passed, the names on the party lists can’t be changed. For this reason, analysts say, Fidesz may now try to dig up dirt on Tisza candidates in the 106 constituencies to knock them out of the race with no hope of replacement. “There are some people who have had certain issues in their lives in the past. Nothing criminal, but perhaps they had a company that had to be closed down, or they went through a divorce, or something similar. These things then can be used as hooks to try to infiltrate the psyche of the candidate, creating false narratives around them,” said Tisza’s Tarr. The campaign that Magyar alleges will be launched on Thursday targets a candidate for the fifth district in Pest, Orsolya Miskolczi. He has not given further details, but Kontroll, a media platform close to Tisza whose publisher is Magyar’s brother, suggested in an article that Fidesz will try to link Miskolczi to a high-level corruption scandal in the Hungarian National Bank, where her husband worked as a legal advisor. The Financial Times on Wednesday reported the Kremlin had endorsed a plan by a communications agency under western sanctions to support Fidesz in the election, including by targeting controversial Tisza candidates. The objective of such smear campaigns “is to push us as far as possible and break us, or force us to give up,” Tarr said, adding the muckraking also targets family members and takes a psychological toll. “They are singling out some of us in the hope that one might resign,” he added.