By Bas van Geffen, senior macro strategist at Rabobank
A cargo ship was hit by an unknown object near the coast of Oman yesterday. The vessel took some damage, but the company reported that “crew, vessel, and cargo are all safe.”
The ship has since left the strait, and tankers continue to transit. Still, these attacks force a rethink about the safety of the Strait of Hormuz, just as shipping from the Gulf region was starting to pick up again. The International Maritime Organization temporarily halted its evacuation plan for ships leaving the Gulf, and several tankers changed course – possibly after instructions from Iran.
US officials stated the ship had been struck by an Iranian drone. And one of these officials said the hit was likely deliberate: the drone had manoeuvred to the side of the ship before it attacked. Plus, the incident happened just hours after the IRGC had warned ships to only use the routes that Iran had approved. Vessels that do not are “not covered by the safe passage guarantee.”
That could of course be coincidence. However, if Iran was indeed behind the attack, the IRGC warning was perhaps not out of concerns that there might still be mines in those shipping lanes, but because there aren’t. That is, perhaps, ships were exiting at a faster rate than Iran had foreseen, as it tries to retain as much leverage as possible during the talks with the US. Or maybe Iran was unhappy that Oman cooperated with the US and the UN, by allowing vessels to transit through its side of the strait.
The attacks are the latest in a series of tests whether the memorandum of understanding will be upheld by both sides. The Israeli incursion into Lebanon is another. Iran has said that Israel must leave Lebanon today, but Prime Minister Netanyahu has no intention to withdraw.
However, energy markets seem to believe the deal will hold. At $73.8 for a barrel of Brent, crude prices are still towards the lower end of this week’s trading range, despite the latest incident in Hormuz.
Indeed, as fragile as the deal may be, both Iran and the US have a motive to stick to it – even though US officials blamed Iran for the incident, they also immediately downplayed the incident. The MOU allows Iran to sell oil and Iran may be able to get some resources back into the hurting economy. Meanwhile, President Trump admitted that US “economic catastrophe” loomed within four to six weeks, if the MOU had not been signed and the stalemate had continued.
So, earlier this week, we updated our scenarios. We now expect talks to continue – possibly for longer than the 60 days that were originally agreed to in the MOU. However, ultimately the set of outcomes is limited to Iran or the US getting the better deal, or new tensions if neither side is willing to accept defeat. We assume the latter outcome as our base case failing a shift in Iranian deliverables on tolls, uranium, and Hezbollah. However, it is a close call and the timing is near-impossible to predict.
Whilst not of “catastrophic” proportions yet, the Iran war is clearly starting to show in US economic data. US PCE inflation rose to 4.1% in May, in line with expectations. Underlying inflation has been accelerating since late last year, and that trend was kept intact.
Core inflation came in at 3.4%, which is the fastest pace in 2.5 years’ time. In the Powell-era, this used to be the Fed’s favourite inflation indicator. Warsh’s favourite metric gives the Fed a little more respite, perhaps. The trimmed-mean PCE inflation rate, ticked up to 2.4%, a level it has been hovering around since the turn of the year. But the key driver behind accelerating core inflation were services prices, notably in financial services, insurance, and transportation services. Pressure from tariff hikes has continued to build gradually as well. So, overall, stickiness seems to have broadened somewhat.
Despite these higher prices, US consumers continue to spend. Real personal spending increased by 0.3% m/m, which was a little better than expected – however that does come on the back of a slight downward revision of the April data.
Another potential risk to consumer spending is the shifting sentiment about AI and tech stocks. Fresh doubts about the AI rally left the Kospi index 7% lower on the week, after a rollercoaster ride that triggered circuit breakers on the way down. The mood soured on Tuesday and Wednesday. Then, Micron’s bumper earnings report reassured investors somewhat. But tech stocks are leading the decline again today.
The Korean index indicates growing caution about AI and tech. That is not limited to the Korean index, but global markets are still more composed. European equities are broadly opening in the red – albeit much less dramatically than the Kospi’s 5.8% loss on the day, or the 4.2% decline in the Japanese Nikkei.
These doubts about the sector are despite -or because of?- European plans to become digitally sovereign. Earlier this month, the European Commission adopted a “tech sovereignty package.” And the EU joined the US’ Pax Silica this week, which excludes China from supply chains for AI-capable semiconductors.
The agreement is a non-binding declaration of intent. Nonetheless, it will certainly anger China. The declaration follows on earlier discussions on trade imbalances, which the EU now sees as a more urgent problem. The Commission is looking to implement a law that requires EU companies to diversify their supply chains, which is mainly aimed at de-risking from China – even though Brussels did not name the country specifically. Beijing has already said it would retaliate.
And blocking China from AI supply chains is insufficient. If the European Commission is serious about tech sovereignty, then it must also be prepared to pick a fight with the US over its role in European technology – or at least accept that subsequent steps towards autonomy could lead to retaliatory measures from Washington.
More pressing, perhaps, are the trade tensions surrounding the renewal of the USMCA, the free-trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada. Although the agreement does not expire on 1 July, it does face its first mandatory six-year joint review. The FT reports that the car industry could derail the agreement – or may at least put a strain on negotiations.
The US has effectively banned Chinese cars, and the US automobile industry will pressure President Trump to uphold that ban. However, Canada and particularly Mexico have embraced Chinese cars. The Canadian minister of Industry has recently met with Chinese carmakers to explore investments in Canadian production capacity. That may be incompatible with US policy, and review of the USMCA. At the same time, any new trade deal may become a bit less attractive to Canada if Chinese investments make the Canadian auto industry less dependent on the traditional North American supply chain.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/26/2026 - 11:00John Bolton, former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty on Friday to one count of retaining national security information related to his work during the first Trump administration.
Bolton appeared Friday morning for a re-arraignment in Greenbelt, Maryland before Obama-appointed judge Theodore D. Chuang. He faces a prison sentence of up to 60 months and has agreed to pay $2.25 million, according to prosecutors. Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 28.
Bolton was originally charged in October of 2025 with eight counts of transmission of national defense information and ten counts of retention of national defense information. The charges centered on diary-like entries from his time in the Trump White House that were allegedly kept at his residence.
Prosecutors accused him of sharing more than 1,000 pages of information through his personal email with two unauthorized individuals - reportedly his wife and daughter - though these transmission allegations are not part of the plea deal.
Related: Eyebrow-Raising Details Emerge From FBI Raid On John Bolton's Home
According to the indictment, Bolton used personal email and messaging accounts to transmit Top Secret intelligence about foreign adversaries, future attacks, and U.S. foreign-policy relations. He also kept classified files at his home, including sensitive intelligence about foreign leaders and U.S. intelligence sources.
Bolton described the national security information as an 'electronic diary' that he shared with two members of his family.
His lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said last year that Bolton was innocent.
"The underlying facts in this case were investigated and resolved years ago," he said. "These charges stem from portions of Amb. Bolton’s personal diaries over his 45-year career - records that are unclassified, shared only with his immediate family, and known to the FBI as far back as 2021."
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/26/2026 - 10:45LIVE NOW:
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 26, 2026****************************
President Trump's agreement or MOU with Iran has infuriated the likes of Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, and Randy Fine while earning praise from the America First camp: Joe Kent, Steve Bannon, Jack Posobiec, etc.
Voters (both republican and democrat) seems content with the deal and the hope it may usher in a “return to normal”. as admin officials share positive polling towards Trump’s MOU. Here’s deputy assistant to the President Pat Adams:
Poll reveals President Trump’s approval rating has surged as voters deliver verdict on Iran and the economy
"Donald Trump's approval rating is the second-best of 2026, according to the latest Daily Mail/JL Partners survey taken from June 19 to June 21."https://t.co/ckDeYgDeNl
In light of the deal, and the MAGA shakeup its caused, tonight, Curt Mills, Executive Director of the American Conservative, and Will Chamberlain, Senior Counsel at the Article III Project, square off on whether Trump's Iran deal advances American interests, and whether Israel's current approach to the conflict is helping or hurting the United States.
Chamberlain has sharply criticized the agreement, arguing that "the deal is absolutely terrible," saying it provides Iran with "huge, immediate financial benefits and protection for Hezbollah in exchange for opening the Strait, and nothing else."
We have the text, the deal is absolutely terrible, there's no getting around it. The text gives Iranians huge, immediate financial benefits and protection for Hezbollah in exchange for opening the Strait - and nothing else.
President Trump should renege.
Mills, a staunch critique since the launch of the war, takes the opposite view: Get out now, cut the losses, and move forward with a more restrained foreign policy that prioritizes avoiding deeper American involvement in the Middle East.
Mills has likewise been the target of perhaps the most apoplectic opposer to a peace deal, Mark Levin, who branded him “Iranian-Regime First Curt Mills”.
Sounds good 👍🏻. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the Iranian people’s business. The United States has countless other problems https://t.co/WzQmkKkINj
— Curt Mills (@CurtMills) June 17, 2026Hosted by author Michael Malice, the debate will examine whether the agreement represents prudent statecraft or a dangerous concession, whether Washington should continue closely aligning its Middle East policy with Israel's objectives, and what an America First foreign policy should look like.
Banger. Rolls off the tongue https://t.co/0kMoBquFhu
— Curt Mills (@CurtMills) June 23, 2026The discussion begins tonight on ZeroHedge at 7pm ET. Tune in on the ZH homepage, X feed, or YouTube channel.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/26/2026 - 10:30Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,
Bastian Schweinsteiger, the former Bayern Munich, Manchester United and Germany midfielder, has been accused of racism by Ivory Coast manager Emerse Fae for comments he made as a pundit ahead of one of the team's 2026 World Cup matches.
While previewing Germany's group-stage match against Ivory Coast, Schweinsteiger described the opponents' style as "a bit African football, a bit unorthodox, a bit wild, a bit perhaps also not so conditioned by tactics" and warned that Germany "must be prepared for it to be unpredictable."
The accusation has ignited debate over whether pundits can still describe regional playing styles without facing bigotry charges. Schweinsteiger was performing the basic job of a television analyst: giving viewers a clear picture of what to expect from an opponent known for athleticism and direct play. Instead of focusing solely on Ivory Coast's on-pitch results, the story quickly shifted to policing his choice of words.
German football legend Bastian Schweinsteiger sparked controversy after Germany's match against Ivory Coast, describing the Ivorian team's style as "a bit of wild African football," drawing widespread criticism and accusations of racism. pic.twitter.com/rEaj619hLQ
— African News feed. (@africansinnews) June 24, 2026After the Germany match, Fae was asked about Schweinsteiger's preview and responded "I think it's sad. Schweinsteiger was a very good player. I have always loved him as a midfielder and the way he understood football. When I heard his comments, I was disappointed in the man. It is odd he would speak that way. We could call it racist, if we were calling a spade a spade."
Ivory Coast head coach Emerse Fae has strongly criticised former Bayern Munich and Germany star Bastian Schweinsteiger for comments the 2014 World Cup-winner made last weekend, describing them as "racist".
More from @mjshrimper ??
Free to read: https://t.co/tXvjxM1n7x pic.twitter.com/TRFwbkJlpq
Fae added: "I don't agree with him, but I have no other solution other than to work with things as they are. All I can show is that on the pitch African teams are not just physical, we are technical and tactical. I can only hope it is a clumsy statement, rather than something going on in his mind. If that's what he thinks, he is free to do so."
The attempt to frame routine style analysis as racism has met strong resistance from fans who see a clear double standard. Commentators have long discussed Brazilian flair, Italian pragmatism or German structure without controversy. Applying similar shorthand to an African side now triggers accusations that many view as overreach.
This isn't racist at all. Everyone says that about every single good African nation. Theres a European style of football, there's a Latin American style of football, an Asian style of football and of course there's an African style of football. It isn't racist
— Bavarian Tapatio (@Bavariantapatio) June 26, 2026Which part of Basti's statement was incorrect
— filipmeister ?? (@F1peFCB) June 26, 2026Isnt this basically the same shit we say about italy for years?
Where exactly is the racist part in his sentence?
Many replies argue that describing distinct continental or national styles is normal football talk, not prejudice, and that elevating every stylistic observation to a racism debate stifles honest commentary.
There is a lot of 'lost in translation' in this story. 'Unorthodox, wild, not conditioned by tactics' are normal phrases in German football. They are used to described teams like Augsburg, Union or St. Pauli for decades.
— John Kommentaro (@JohnKommentaro) June 26, 2026Too much victim mentality within africans, always claiming oppression. African football is objectively wild its just reality, not racism
— Mandzukic (@mandzukicheader) June 26, 2026Football's played a bit differently in every corner of the world. Every style's got its pros and cons. African teams tend to break free from tactical constraints more often than, say, Germany. That unpredictability is exactly what gives teams like that trouble. it's awesome.
— Mister Moe (@MisterMoeX) June 26, 2026Inventing racism where there is none makes the whole issue look like a joke. It's ridiculous and actively harms the fight against actual, real-world racism.
— Lego Zidane (@legozidane) June 26, 2026Schweinsteiger did not invent the idea of regional football identities. Analysts have used terms like "African football" for years to capture characteristics such as athleticism, directness and unpredictability that can disrupt more rigid systems.
The same principle applies to every other part of the world game. Treating one continent's style as uniquely off-limits for description creates an uneven standard.
The broader problem is the expanding reach of identity politics into sports media. Pundits are expected to deliver clear, unvarnished takes on tactics, strengths and weaknesses. When a single descriptive phrase triggers accusations of racism, the space for straightforward analysis shrinks. Viewers lose out on informed discussion, and commentators face pressure to self-censor.
Sports broadcasting should not require analysts to filter every observation through a political lens. Schweinsteiger gave a concise preview of an opponent. That is exactly what the role demands. Branding such comments racist because they reference "African" traits turns normal football talk into a minefield.
The alternative is sanitized coverage where analysts tiptoe around obvious realities for fear of manufactured outrage. That serves no one - not the players, not the viewers, and not the game itself.
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
Tyler Durden Fri, 06/26/2026 - 10:15