Trump City and his vision for America

It's been an intense week around the world and not just because we’ve reached the knock-out stage of the World Cup.

In Venezuela relief efforts following the devastating earthquake have laid bare the shortcomings of the current government.

Additionally, in western Libya another political conflict is surfacing as a power struggle has broken out over control over the country’s intelligence agency.

And alongside the Afghanistan - Pakistan border a new round of cross border strikes took place following a deadly terror attack in the southern port city of Karachi.

Now,

Lets get into it

Criticism swells over government’s earthquake response

What happened: A major double-earthquake hit the Venezuelan coast last week leading to thousands of casualties. In the aftermath the government’s response was slow, leading to more preventable casualties.

Why it matters: Ever since taking on the role of interim president, Delcy Rodriguez has been trying to polish the image of the Chavista regime while mending ties with the Trump admin. The government’s failure to adequately respond to the earthquake and set up rescue and aid efforts are causing a major dent in that image.

What it means: As criticism grows and shock among the people starts to turn into anger, pressure will continue to build on Delcy to finally commit to elections. Opposition leader Maria Corina Machado is already planning a return to the country.

Read the full analysis:

Shaking the foundation: When earthquakes disrupt Latin America governments

The Venezuelan ruling apparatus is worried about being weakened politically following destructive earthquakes, and rightly so. Latin America offers plenty of examples of authoritarian states collapsing after failing to respond to a natural disaster.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Power struggle erupts within Libya’s intelligence agency

What happened: In an exclusive interview with our desk, Presidential co-Chair Musa al-Koni has revealed he registered an objection to the appointment of Abdel Majid Mlegta as the new chief of the Libyan Intelligence agency.

Why it matters: The candidacy of Mlegta is seen as an attempt by prime minister Abdulhamid Dabaiba to strengthen his own hand in the security services and therefore ensure himself a political role in any upcoming political change that might develop in the country.

What it means: As it is being speculated that Haftar’s Libyan National Army will not be keen to approve of Mlegta as chief of the intelligence agency, this move carries the risk of disrupting the current US-backed process to unify the east and west of the country. The coming days will show whether Mlegta’s will be able to hold onto the position.

Read the full analysis:

Libyan Presidential Council co-Chair claims he was “illegally” overruled in Intelligence Chief appointment

A political battle has broken out in Tripoli over control of the Libyan Intelligence Agency, which has become a fault line that risks escalating in western Libya, with broader repercussions in eastern and western relations at a time when the U.S. is pushing forward with a new unity deal.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

A new round of retaliatory strikes kicks off following a terror attack.

What happened: Pakistan and the Taliban government of Afghanistan fired on each other’s territory this past week in retaliatory strikes. The violence started when Pakistan hit targets in Afghanistan, which it said belonged to the group behind a terror attack in Karachi last week. The Taliban responded in kind by launching drone strikes on southern Pakistan, targeting what it claimed to be IS-K positions. 

Why it matters: Relations between Pakistan and the Taliban have deteriorated sharply over the past month, leading to regular flare ups of violence, often with dozens of casualties. A full on border war between the two has become a very real risk.

What it means: With this latest back-and-forth, a new normal is setting in along the border. Whenever either of the two is hit by a terror attack, the other country will be blamed and targeted as part of a retaliatory strike, greatly affecting regional security.

Oman and Iran navigate the future of the Strait

In two weeks, the deadline included in the Iran-U.S. MoU to resume maritime traffic in the Gulf back to pre-war levels will be up.

This deadline is likely to be missed, as Tehran is wary not to lose its leverage and seeks to define its future role in the Strait of Hormuz.

Oman is Iran's prime interlocutor in this endeavour to revise the strait's administration. GPD's latest article breaks down why the two coastal states hold divergent positions, despite their good relations.

Joint talks on Hormuz expose diverging interests between Oman and Iran

Often overlooked, Oman also has a voice in how traffic flows through the Strait, and both Oman and Iran will have to reconcile their opposing visions for the future of Hormuz.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

As always, thank you for reading and for your continued support.

Feel free to reply with feedback or suggestions.

See you next week,

The Geopolitical Desk team

P.S. Please forward this to anyone who might find it useful. If you’re reading this second-hand, you can sign up for our free newsletter here.

Professionals across energy markets, diplomacy, risk advisory and investment use GPD Intelligence to track geopolitical developments before they move markets.

If you find this coverage valuable, you can unlock the full Intelligence briefings and scenario analysis.

It's been a hot one across Europe this week, with record breaking heat across both the United Kingdom and France.

Summer is truly here, and with it comes a new British Prime Minister as Keir Starmer announces he is stepping down as Labour leader. 

Additionally, we monitor the evolving situation in Sudan, and how a new fight is gearing up in the center of the country that could determine the pace of negotiations.

We also have new in-depth analysis on Iran’s military conduct during the Ramadan War, seeing how it performed against the U.S., and how both sides might adjust their tactics if the MoU breaks down. 

Lastly, The Geopolitical Desk is active on both X and Instagram, where we post our new articles as soon as they are published, provide exclusive insights, and deliver custom content. Hope to see you all over there!

Now,

Lets get into it

A battle brewing around El Obeid

What happened: The Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Sudan are gathering forces for a potential attack on the central city of El Obeid, which is currently held by the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF).

Why it matters: With both the RSF and the SAF weakened by three years of constant fighting, both sides are moving towards renewed negotiations to end the war. However, the RSF and their leader, Hemedti, want to strengthen their position at the negotiating table and see the capture of El Obeid as a way to increase their leverage. 

What it means: The battle likely means that negotiations will not be able to begin until it is over, which could take months. The RSF's siege of the western city of El Fasher lasted for weeks and proved devastating for the city. El Obeid could suffer a similar fate, leading to thousands more casualties, all in pursuit of a stronger negotiating position.

Read the full analysis:

El Obeid: The hinge of Sudan’s war

The RSF is preparing to attack the city of El Obeid as a means to gain leverage in peace talks. The result may be more war and mass killings.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

The United Kingdom loses its PM

What happened: U.K. Prime Minister and Labour Party leader Keir Starmer announced his plans to step down as leader of the party, triggering a leadership election that is likely to be won by newly elected Makersfield MP Andy Burnham.

Why it matters: Starmer's Labour government, which commands a large majority in the U.K. Parliament, has struggled to govern over the past year. Starmer was criticised for being indecisive and attempting to emulate the migration policies of the far-right Reform Party, while also facing multiple crises involving former U.S. Ambassador Peter Mandelson's connections with Jeffrey Epstein. Starmer had tried to head off challenges to his leadership for months, but ultimately stood down following Andy Burnham's rise as an MP.

What it means: Burnham is Labour's most popular politician and appears likely to become the party's next leader and Prime Minister. Many hope he can reinvigorate Labour's declining support, as it continues to struggle against opposition parties on both the right and the left.

A breakdown of military strategies in the Ramadan War

In a recent report from The Geopolitical Desk, we break down how Iran fought a war it could not win outright but could not afford to lose, and how it threaded that needle. The analysis unpacks the effectiveness and limits of Tehran's military strategy while answering critical questions, including:

• Why Iran's underground missile cities, mobile air defence, and asymmetric naval tactics consistently outperformed Western pre-war estimates.
• How Tehran's strategy shifted mid-war, from an indiscriminate "shock doctrine" campaign to a calibrated, retaliatory posture, and why Iranian strategists may abandon that restraint in a future round.
• Where Iran fell short of its own war aims, from an untouched U.S. Navy to an energy shock that never reached market-moving scale.

While hostilities have ended with the signing of a memorandum of understanding, the risk of a return to conflict remains just below the surface. The report also examines how both Tehran and Washington are likely to adjust their military postures based on the war's lessons, and what that recalibration could mean for the Gulf and the wider region.

Originally available only to paid subscribers, The Geopolitical Desk has made the report available free of charge to everyone for a limited time.

Read the full analysis:

How Iran survived a war it could not win

Years of planning by the Islamic Republic for a theoretical war with the United States was finally put to the test. Now with the ceasefire, both Iran and the U.S. will look at what went right and what went wrong.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

What happens next after the MoU deal?

Exclusive for intelligence subscribers, this recent report from The Geopolitical Desk details the situation surrounding the recent Iran-U.S. MoU and the risks facing its full implementation.

Both the United States and Iran have reasons to try to see this MoU develop into a full agreement, as it would help rebalance a long and difficult relationship. However, the current internal political complexities in each country, combined with the continuing war in Lebanon, make the MoU’s success unlikely.

In this report, we analyse the greatest risks facing each country and what this deal could mean for the future of the Gulf.

Read the full report:

After the MoU: A long road toward a final deal

The agreement between Iran and the United States is exactly what it says it is, an understanding of the situation. Both sides, however, still have different ideas of how that situation should be resolved, generating only further uncertainty about the future of the Gulf.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

As always, thank you for reading and for your continued support.

Feel free to reply with feedback or suggestions.

See you next week,

The Geopolitical Desk team

P.S. Please forward this to anyone who might find it useful. If you’re reading this second-hand, you can sign up for our free newsletter here.

Professionals across energy markets, diplomacy, risk advisory and investment use GPD Intelligence to track geopolitical developments before they move markets.

If you find this coverage valuable, you can unlock the full Intelligence briefings and scenario analysis.

As the United States and Iran signalled a mutual interest in finding an end to the conflict, older conflicts once again made international headlines.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has now lasted longer than the First World War, returned to the forefront as Ukrainian drones struck oil infrastructure in the Russian capital.

The U.S.-Iran war has commanded much of the world's attention over the past three months, diverting focus from ongoing crises in places such as Libya, Tunisia, and Ukraine.

In Libya, the Trump administration, through the efforts of Massad Boulos, has pushed forward with negotiations, while Tunisia has been rattled by its recent loss at the World Cup.

Ukraine's bold attack on Moscow served as a reminder that the conflict remains just as volatile as it was years ago, and that Iran is only one of many international challenges confronting Trump.

Even there, Trump may be forced back into the conflict sooner than he would like, with the recently signed MoU already showing signs of strain.

Now,

Lets get into it

Kicking the ball down the road

What happened: After months of muscle diplomacy, the U.S. and Iran signed a 14-point MoU formally ending hostilities and ceasing maritime traffic restrictions in the Gulf. 

Why it matters: The MoU signals to markets the end of the Iran war, but in practice leaves an extendable 60 days for technical teams to resolve the utterly complex issues of limiting Iran's nuclear programme and lifting multi-layered U.S. sanctions. 

What it means: The MoU is a thinly defined roadmap where both sides only agreed on the overlapping section of a Venn diagram. Israeli strikes on Lebanon, U.S. backtracking forced by domestic politics, and IRGC desire to prove continued leverage are likely to spoil talks to achieve a final deal and bring renewed but manageable uncertainty to global markets.

Read the full analysis:

A closed deal doesn’t mean an open strait

While many hope the U.S. and Iran are now aligned in regards to opening the strait, the reality is both countries have created two different realities that they refuse to compromise.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Thirst for restraint: Water and the limits to the Iran War

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has long described water as the “strategic commodity” of the Middle East, and the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran has highlighted how water has emerged as both a powerful potential weapon and also a durable drag on conflict escalation.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Massad Boulos continues to push negotiations in Libya

What happened: U.S. Special Advisor for Africa Massad Boulos revealed in an interview with British media that he plans to unite the Dabaiba and Haftar families in a new unity government.

Why it matters: The announcement is the first public acknowledgement of the talks, which Libya Desk has covered in its previous reporting over the past few months. It also confirmed Boulos' plan to have Libyan National Army (LNA) Deputy Commander Saddam Haftar become Chairman of the Presidential Council, while Government of National Unity (GNU) Prime Minister Abdulhamid Dabaiba would retain his position.

What it means: There are still plenty of roadblocks to any future unity agreement, but the announcement and reports that negotiations are moving forward suggest that Boulos is confident in the progress made so far.

Read the full analysis:

The Boulos process is farther than it looks

Despite clear roadblocks, the U.S. Senior Advisor for Africa has been able to get both sides to deepen negotiations.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Tunisia faces increased anger over football loss

What happened: Tunisia's national football team lost 5-1 to Sweden in its opening match. Following the defeat, the coach was dismissed as Tunisians across the country expressed anger towards the government.

Why it matters: Tunisian President Kais Saied has clamped down on dissent in the country as it continues to face a major economic crisis. Frustration over the defeat was less about the match itself and more a pressure valve for Tunisians across the country to express their anger without fear of reprisal.

What it means: It was a rare instance of unity in a heavily divided country, and the sport, which is extremely popular, could become a lightning rod for protests if the team continues to struggle. Saied has been able to retain power by exploiting political divisions within the country, but the unifying nature of the sport could ultimately threaten to bring protesters onto the streets if the team is eliminated.

Read the full analysis:

The defeat that broke Tunisia’s silence

For many in the North African country, the national team’s loss at the hands of Sweden was the final straw.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Russia and Ukraine strike each other’s capitals

What happened: At the beginning of the week, Russia launched a series of drone and missile strikes on multiple Ukrainian cities, including Kyiv, damaging the Pechersk Lavra Monastery, one of the holiest sites in Eastern Christian Orthodoxy. Ukraine responded by launching multiple drones at the Russian capital, Moscow, notably striking a large oil refinery and creating toxic clouds above the city.

Why it matters: Ukraine demonstrated that it has developed the capability to strike deep into Russia and is willing to retaliate against attacks on its major cities. It also highlights how Ukraine's strategy of domestically producing inexpensive combat drones is paying off, as they are contributing to its recent success on the battlefield.

What it means: This does not mean the war is likely to end soon, despite many Moscow residents waking up shocked to realise they were under attack. Russians have remained relatively insulated from the war so far, and attacks like this are unlikely to turn public opinion against it. However, it does demonstrate that Ukraine has been able to build resilience despite reduced support from the United States, and that Russia is likely to face an increasing threat of future Ukrainian attacks the longer this war lingers.

As always, thank you for reading and for your continued support.

Feel free to reply with feedback or suggestions.

See you next week,

The Geopolitical Desk team

P.S. Please forward this to anyone who might find it useful. If you’re reading this second-hand, you can sign up for our free newsletter here.

Professionals across energy markets, diplomacy, risk advisory and investment use GPD Intelligence to track geopolitical developments before they move markets.

If you find this coverage valuable, you can unlock the full Intelligence briefings and scenario analysis.

We are back after a short break. The past few weeks the Trump administration has argued that a deal with Iran is close, imminent even, yet the hope that the war might end continues to hit the hard reality of the situation.

An Iranian attack on Kuwait's international airport, continued fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, and now IRGC claims that it fired warning shots at U.S. ships show that any lasting peace deal is still a long way away.

The Geopolitical Desk has continued to track the Iran war in order to keep readers informed about the political and economic repercussions on Iran and the wider region, and how every major stakeholder is determining their next steps.

This week, we're also looking at how Australia is trying to expand its footprint in the Pacific Islands by increasing relations with the Solomon Islands and what the recent elections in Ethiopia mean for tensions in the north of the country.

Let's get into it.

Can the "ceasefire" between the U.S. and Iran lead to lasting peace?

What happened: The conflict in the Middle East has seen a series of dramatic developments in recent weeks. U.S. President Donald Trump has continued to say that negotiations between the U.S. and Iran are close to a breakthrough, despite the fact that they have yet to address the issues of control over the Strait of Hormuz and the state of Iran’s nuclear program, which are ultimately the only two issues that actually matter to this conflict.

Why it matters: Despite nominal ceasefires and talk of a lasting peace deal, Israel carried out an airstrike in southern Lebanon and, in the Gulf, Iran launched a strike against Kuwait’s main International Airport, killing one and injuring 63. The IRGC has also claimed it launched warning shots against U.S. ships, which the U.S. Navy has denied. In the U.S. there is growing anger over the war, where the U.S. House of Representatives passed a symbolic vote in the Republican-led Congress that would direct Trump to remove armed forces from the region, a move that has no real legal enforcement.

What this means: To help readers navigate the sprawling cast of actors shaping what comes next, GPD has published a stakeholder map examining the positions of more than 20 countries and the realistic paths forward from the current impasse. Understanding those paths also means understanding Iran from the inside.

Our recent reporting also examines the country's internal condition in the war's aftermath, including the political struggles playing out within the Iranian government, where the conflict has reshuffled power in ways that are not yet fully visible from the outside, and the deepening economic hardship facing ordinary Iranians, whose living conditions have deteriorated sharply as sanctions, strikes on infrastructure and currency collapse compound one another.

Read the full analysis:

After the ceasefire: An Iran War Stakeholder assessment

A special report for Intelligence subscribers that breaks down the positions and possible paths forward for over 20 countries trying to navigate around the U.S.-Israel-Iran war

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Intact but unreformed: Iran after the Ramadan War

The Islamic Republic survived this conflict in more or less the form it entered it. That is simultaneously its achievement and its structural trap.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Iran’s economy under fire

The war on Iran’s economy has been running for decades. U.S.-Israeli strikes on economic infrastructure in 2026 brought cascading effects on the country’s economy. The result will not be collapse, but it is something more dangerous for ordinary Iranians than the war itself.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

Solomon Islands re-exmaines their security relationships

What happened: The new Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands, Matthew Wale, visited Australia and announced that the government would review its secret 2022 Defense agreement with China. Wale, in a press conference with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, said he could not immediately reveal the details of the document due to a non-disclosure clause.

Why it matters: The Solomon islands under its former leadership of Manasseh Sogavare and Jeremiah Manele had been drawing the country away from its traditional western partners like the U.S. and Australia toward China, with Sogavare signing an agreement with China in 2022 that many feared would allow China to build a naval base in the south Pacific. Wale, who is described as a “China Hawk”, and his signaling toward Australian likely means the country will once again move back toward western states.

What this means: Competition for influence between Australia and China in the Solomon Islands is likely to continue, with Wale proving that fortunes can turn quickly. The quick switch from years of Pro-China Prime Ministers to Pro-Western one, shows that the Islands could potentially turn back to China in the future. The Islands are ultimately put into a difficult position, as China looks to expand its influence in the region, and Australia seeks to maintain its position as the main security guarantor in the region.

Abiy looks to strengthen his position with election victory

What happened: Ethiopia held general elections, with current Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party expected to win in a landslide. Counting is currently underway, as parts of the north had voting suspended due to the government fighting active insurgencies in the region.

Why it matters: Abiy has maintained strong control of Ethiopia's government since he took power in 2019, and pushed back major challenges to his rule, including a deadly civil war in the northern Tigray province that many human rights organisations warned amounted to genocide. If Abiy’s party wins the expected landslide it is likely to get, it would further reinforce his control of the country as he looks to try and push Ethiopia's goal of getting access to the sea.

What this means: With a renewed parliamentary majority, Abiy would likely use it to push forward his claims of gaining direct control over a seaport. Entirely landlocked, the country relies on the port of Djibouti, and Abiy has long argued that Ethiopia needs direct access to guarantee its national security. This has meant Abiy has continued to antagonise Eritrea, a small isolated state that gained independence from the country in 1993, and with the extra backing from the elections, Abiy could launch an invasion of the country. This however, could immediately see the return of civil war in Tigray, which would drag the north back into full scale war.

As always, thank you for reading and for your continued support.

Feel free to reply with feedback or suggestions.

See you next week,

The Geopolitical Desk team

P.S. Please forward this to anyone who might find it useful. If you’re reading this second-hand, you can sign up for our free newsletter here.

Professionals across energy markets, diplomacy, risk advisory and investment use GPD Intelligence to track geopolitical developments before they move markets.

If you find this coverage valuable, you can unlock the full Intelligence briefings and scenario analysis.

This week, GPD published two pieces of analysis that examine some of the structural changes that are unfolding across the world economy.

The first examines the Eastern Mediterranean's renewed role as a gas hotspot, one that is quietly reshaping the energy map of the Levant and creating new alignments between states that have historically been adversaries.

The second takes a hard look at what it means for the global economy when the United States, the architect of the post-war international order, is actively dismantling the rules it spent decades enforcing.

These are two expressions of a world in which the old architecture is losing its load-bearing capacity, and new arrangements — some promising, some dangerous — are filling the space.

Let's get into it.

The rise of Eastern Mediterranean gas

What happened: The reemergence of the Eastern Mediterranean as a significant gas province through the development of offshore fields, as well as the commercial and diplomatic architecture being built around them, provides a strong indicator about what the region's energy potential means for the states involved and for the broader European energy picture.

Why it matters: The Eastern Mediterranean gas story has been developing for over a decade, but it has consistently been overshadowed by the region's security dynamics and geopolitical competition. What our analysis shows is that the energy picture has matured to the point where it is itself becoming a driver of those dynamics — shaping alignments between Israel, Cyprus, Greece and Egypt in ways that would have seemed implausible a generation ago, and offering Europe an alternative supply architecture at precisely the moment when the Iran crisis has made diversification a strategic imperative rather than a preference.

What this means: As most energy sector operators, infrastructure investors and anyone tracking the geopolitics of European gas supply already know, the Eastern Mediterranean is no longer a periphery. The fields are real, the commercial frameworks are being built and the political incentives driving cooperation between historically complicated neighbours have rarely been stronger. The question is no longer whether this gas reaches European markets, but on what timeline, through which routes, and under what political conditions. Our analysis maps the answers.

Read the full analysis:

A new Levant: The rise of Eastern Mediterranean gas

The Eastern Med has been an interest for investment for years, but recent geopolitical tensions in the Persian Gulf are directing more eyes on the region.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

America against its own order

What happened: The United States' relationship with the international order it built after 1945 has been frought, against the backdrop of an American administration that is not merely disengaging from that order but actively working against its foundational principles. Our latest piece on the topic is not an argument about Trump's personality or rhetoric, but a structural analysis of what happens when the order's guarantor becomes its most consequential challenger.

Why it matters: The post-war network of institutions, treaties, norms and enforcement mechanisms centred on American power was always more fragile than it appeared. Its durability depended not just on U.S. military and economic primacy, but on American willingness to be constrained by the rules it had written. What the current moment reveals is that this willingness was always contingent. When the domestic political calculus changed, so did the commitment. The Iran war's conduct, the assault on multilateral institutions, the retreat from alliance obligations and the normalisation of unilateral action have not happened in a vacuum. They are the logical extension of a political movement that concluded the order was no longer serving American interests as defined by its current leadership.

What this means: The world does not yet have an alternative architecture capable of replacing what American-led order provided. The gap between the erosion of the old system and the construction of whatever comes next is the defining geopolitical risk of this decade. It creates space for revisionist powers, for regional actors to pursue interests they previously could not, and for the kind of institutional vacuum that history suggests is rarely filled cleanly. The analysis is essential reading for anyone trying to understand not just the current crisis, but the environment in which every subsequent crisis will unfold.

Read the full analysis:

From shining city to fortress: America against its own order

The United States under Donald Trump has severely damaged the very order it had created, but a retreat from global norms does not mean a retreat from global power.

The Geopolitical DeskThe Geopolitical Desk

As always, thank you for reading and for your continued support.

Feel free to reply with feedback or suggestions.

See you next week,

Oliver Crowley
Co-Founder, The Geopolitical Desk

P.S. Please forward this to anyone who might find it useful. If you’re reading this second-hand, you can sign up for our free newsletter here.

Professionals across energy markets, diplomacy, risk advisory and investment use GPD Intelligence to track geopolitical developments before they move markets.

If you find this coverage valuable, you can unlock the full Intelligence briefings and scenario analysis.