Deep Press Analysis

The regime in Tehran is facing an existential threat, transforming internal social protests into a full-scale geopolitical confrontation with Washington. President Trump's statements about readiness to "help" protesters are perceived by Iranian leadership not as a humanitarian gesture, but as a prelude to forced regime change. Threats from the Iranian parliament speaker to attack American bases and Israel indicate rising stakes: Tehran is signaling readiness for regional war in case of external intervention. For energy markets, this rhetoric creates a long-term risk premium, as any kinetic conflict in the Persian Gulf threatens oil transportation routes. Domestic political logic in the US dictates that Trump must demonstrate strength, but actual intervention carries unpredictable consequences and the risk of getting drawn into a protracted conflict. Iran is attempting to consolidate society around the image of an external enemy, but the scale of protests points to a broken social contract. The most likely scenario is intensified sanctions pressure and cyber operations from the US, further destabilizing the Iranian economy. Geopolitically, the situation is pushing Iran into closer embrace with China and Russia as guarantors of regime survival.

Brussels is demonstrating deep distrust in the long-term political stability of the United Kingdom by introducing unprecedented safeguard mechanisms into trade agreements. The demand for financial compensation in case London exits new arrangements ("Farage clause") is aimed at hedging risks of populists coming to power. For Keir Starmer's government this creates a difficult dilemma: agreeing to such terms will be perceived by domestic opposition as surrender of sovereignty and limitation of future parliaments' powers. The EU's economic logic lies in protecting its investments in infrastructure and standards necessary for trade simplification. Politically, this step cements Britain's dependence on European regulation, making any future break economically prohibitive. This is a signal to markets that the "Brexit reset" will be tightly regulated and lack flexibility. Investors should account for political turbulence risk in Britain ahead of 2029 elections as a factor affecting supply chain resilience. This precedent may be used by the EU in negotiations with other external partners facing high political volatility risk.

Expected revenue growth at major Wall Street banks signals the beginning of a new super-cycle in M&A and capital markets deals. Investor optimism is based on expectations of financial sector deregulation by the Trump administration and release of pent-up demand. Key drivers are deals in artificial intelligence and private equity requiring large-scale financing and advisory services. However, high bank stock valuations (especially Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) already price in the perfect scenario, ignoring macroeconomic risks. If inflation proves persistent or geopolitical tensions escalate, current multiples could face correction. For the corporate sector this means easier access to capital, but also increased competition for assets. Growth in banks' fee income also indicates revival of corporate activity, which usually precedes real economic growth. Return of risk appetite shows that financial elites have adapted to the new political reality and are ready to monetize it.

Chevron management's strategy of building personal relationships with the Trump administration gives the company monopoly advantage in Venezuela. While European competitors are constrained by sanctions and ethical considerations, the American company gets a "green light" for expansion. This is an example of implementing the "America First" doctrine in the corporate sector, where loyalty to power converts into market share. Resumption of production in Venezuela under US company control serves a dual purpose: lowering global oil prices and displacing Chinese influence from the region. However, Chevron faces significant legal and reputational risks associated with operating in a zone of political instability after forced regime change in Caracas. Investors should consider that business dependence on political patronage makes it vulnerable to changes in political winds in Washington. Geopolitically this reinforces the return of the Monroe Doctrine, where Latin American resources are viewed as a US strategic reserve. For the oil market this is a signal of potential growth in heavy crude supply needed by American refineries.

The Trump administration's attempts to justify interest in purchasing Greenland by alleged Russian and Chinese military activity run into strong resistance from allies. Scandinavian diplomats with access to NATO intelligence data reject Washington's claims, pointing to lack of evidence. This creates a crack in transatlantic unity and undermines trust in US intelligence when used for political purposes. Washington's true motive lies in control over Arctic resources and the strategically important GIUK gap amid melting ice. Denmark and Greenland's refusal of the deal despite pressure demonstrates the limits of US influence on sovereign decisions of European partners. For China this is a signal that the US will aggressively block any of their Arctic infrastructure projects. Russia gains an opportunity to use these disagreements for propaganda, pointing to "imperialist" US ambitions. The situation raises geopolitical tension in the Arctic, turning the region from a zone of cooperation into an arena of great power competition.

An unprecedented attack by the executive branch on the independence of the Federal Reserve has moved into the realm of criminal prosecution. The formal pretext is an investigation into headquarters renovation expenses, but the real goal is to force Jerome Powell to lower interest rates. This undermines the institutional foundations of US financial stability, as politicization of monetary policy threatens an inflation surge in the long term. Powell, breaking tradition of silence, publicly accuses the administration of pressure, indicating a deep constitutional crisis. Markets may respond with increased volatility and rising Treasury yields due to fears of loss of Fed control over inflation. For investors this is a signal that in the new political reality no institution is safe from direct White House interference. Potential resignation or replacement of Powell with a loyal figure would open the way to implementation of Trump's populist economic program.

The Trump administration is making systematic efforts to reshape the electoral landscape ahead of the 2026 midterms, fearing loss of control over Congress. Administrative levers are being used: pressure on states to redraw districts, lawsuits, and purges in election-related agencies. The strategy aims to secure structural advantage for the Republican Party and minimize risks of impeachment or congressional investigations. Experts warn of chaos and erosion of trust in democratic processes, which could lead to civil unrest. For business and markets this means higher political risks and uncertainty in the legislative environment in the medium term. Attempts to change the rules "on the fly" indicate the administration's lack of confidence in its electoral support. Institutional erosion creates preconditions for long-term political instability in the United States.

Escalation of violence in Iran and internet shutdowns indicate the regime is losing control and shifting to scorched-earth tactics. The Trump administration's consideration of military strikes in response to repression increases the likelihood of direct US-Iran conflict. This could lead to retaliatory strikes on American bases and allies in the region, as well as disruption of oil supplies through the Strait of Hormuz. Human rights reports of hundreds killed create moral pressure on the West to respond beyond sanctions. However, military intervention carries the risk of rallying Iranian society around the flag, as has happened before. For global markets the situation creates a significant geopolitical premium in energy prices. Domestically in the US it gives Trump an opportunity to divert attention from internal problems, but carries risks of being drawn into a new Middle East war.

A technical failure during strikes on terrorist targets in Nigeria damages the reputation of the American military-industrial complex and the effectiveness of the new military doctrine. Using expensive Tomahawk missiles against scattered militant groups raises questions about the appropriateness of expenditures and quality of intelligence. The operation's failure undermines local authorities' trust in the US as a security guarantor and may strengthen anti-American sentiment in the region. It also provides propaganda ammunition to competitors (China and Russia) promoting their weapons and services in Africa. The hidden logic of the strikes may have been to demonstrate the strength of the new administration, but the result was the opposite. The incident highlights the risks of remote warfare without reliable on-ground presence. For defense contractors this may mean tighter quality control and contract revisions.

Mass exodus of federal employees (335,000 people) and targeted cuts in key agencies (Agriculture, IRS, Social Security) reflect the plan to dismantle the "deep state". Loss of experienced specialists threatens paralysis of regulatory functions and decline in public service quality, which will hurt the economy and security in the long term. At the same time, staff increases in security agencies (ICE) indicate reorientation of the state apparatus toward repressive functions. For business this means weakening of oversight in some areas (environment, finance) and increased pressure in others (immigration). The risk lies in loss of institutional memory and competencies that cannot be quickly restored. Politically this allows Trump to fill vacancies with loyalists, but administrative efficiency of government will inevitably decline. Social consequences include growing tension among federal workers and potential disruptions in payments and services to the population.

The US plan to revive Venezuela's oil industry under American control poses a direct threat to OPEC's market share. The emergence of a new major player managed from Washington could crash oil prices, benefiting American consumers but devastating cartel budgets and US shale industry. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members face a dilemma: cut production and lose revenue, or enter a price war. Geopolitically the US seeks to deprive China of access to Venezuelan oil, redirecting flows. This strengthens Western energy security but destabilizes the established balance of power in the energy market. Long-term restoration of production in Venezuela will require massive investment, opening opportunities for American oilfield service companies. However, the risk is that low prices could make domestic US projects unprofitable.

The proposal to introduce a wealth tax in California triggered consolidation of Silicon Valley's tech elite, overcoming their political differences. The threat to capital is forcing even liberal donors to unite with conservatives to oppose the initiative. This signals possible capital flight and headquarters relocation from the state, undermining California's tax base and innovation potential. Discussion in private chats shows tech leaders' readiness to actively intervene in politics to protect their interests. For other states (Texas, Florida) this opens a window to attract business. Socially the initiative deepens the divide between the wealthiest residents and the rest of the population amid economic inequality. Politically, the success or failure of this measure will be a marker of the viability of left-wing agenda in the US.

The appointment of Owen West, linked to Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to head the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) marks a radical shift in Pentagon procurement policy. Emphasis is shifting toward integration of commercial startups and bypassing traditional defense bureaucracy in favor of fast solutions (e.g., cheap drones). This benefits tech companies and Silicon Valley venture capital, but creates risks for traditional defense giants. Involvement of people from finance and Musk-related structures indicates an attempt to apply business approaches to national defense. However, there is a risk of conflict of interest and lowering reliability standards in pursuit of speed and cheapness. Strategically this is an attempt by the US to maintain technological superiority against China through flexibility and innovation.

South Africa's naval exercises with Russia, China and Iran are a demonstrative challenge to US hegemony in the region. Pretoria is using its BRICS status to balance Washington's pressure despite risks of losing American aid and trade preferences. This demonstrates the failure of US attempts to isolate its geopolitical rivals in the Global South. Joint maneuvers enhance military interoperability of US rivals and expand their presence in the strategically important Cape of Good Hope region. For the Trump administration this is a "red rag" that may lead to harsh economic sanctions against South Africa. Economically this creates risks for international companies operating in the region due to possible deterioration of investment climate. Geopolitically it solidifies the formation of an anti-Western bloc involving key regional powers.

The unexpected alliance between tech giant OpenAI and its critic Common Sense Media is aimed at seizing control of the AI regulation narrative. By agreeing on a compromise legislative initiative, OpenAI seeks to avoid harsher restrictions that could be imposed by politicians or competitors. This is a classic example of "regulatory capture", where industry shapes the rules of the game itself, creating entry barriers for new players. The deal allows OpenAI to appear as a socially responsible company, minimizing reputational risks. For society this means the emergence of basic child protection standards, but without the most radical demands (e.g. right to sue). Politically it reduces pressure on California lawmakers by shifting the decision to a referendum. For AI investors this signals stabilization of the regulatory environment, which is positive for long-term planning.

Washington's aggressive foreign policy toward Venezuela is provoking a deep split in the Western Hemisphere, forcing regional countries to choose between ideological solidarity and economic pragmatism. Major left-wing governments of Brazil, Mexico and Colombia condemned the US capture of Nicolás Maduro, but their reactions range from open indignation to cautious diplomacy. Right-wing regimes in Argentina, El Salvador and Ecuador, on the contrary, welcome Trump's interventionism, counting on preferences and investments. For the US such polarization carries the risk of losing long-term influence on key partners, especially amid growing Chinese presence in the region. Mexico is in the most vulnerable position: the need to maintain trade ties with the US conflicts with the traditional doctrine of non-intervention. This geopolitical fault line creates uncertainty for investors working in Latin American markets, as political instability may lead to supply chain disruptions. Countries' desire for "self-preservation" may stimulate creation of new regional alliances without US participation. Washington's economic pressure is likely to intensify, forcing wavering countries to adjust their foreign policy courses. In the long term this threatens fragmentation of regional security and growth of migration flows.

The US withdrawal from international climate agreements and active stimulation of fossil fuel production signal a radical reversal of the global ecological agenda. The administration is betting on short-term economic gains from oil and coal exports, ignoring long-term climate risks and decarbonization commitments. This decision undermines international efforts to keep global warming in check, creating a precedent for other major emitters like China and India to slow their environmental programs. For energy markets this means temporary reduction in regulatory pressure on the US oil and gas sector and potential increase in hydrocarbon supply. However, such policy increases risks of carbon tariffs from the European Union and other green-transition partners. Investors in renewables should expect cuts in federal subsidies, slowing domestic industry growth, but potentially stimulating capital flow to more favorable jurisdictions. Refusal of global cooperation strengthens US isolation on international forums, reducing Washington's influence in issues beyond ecology. The projected increase in greenhouse gas emissions will inevitably lead to more frequent extreme weather events, raising insurance and infrastructure risks for business.

Escalation of violence in Iran amid severe economic crisis and currency collapse creates preconditions for serious regime destabilization. Brutal suppression of protests with hundreds killed indicates Tehran views internal dissent as an existential threat comparable to external pressure. The Trump administration's threats of possible military intervention or strikes on strategic sites put Iranian leadership before a choice between further escalation and attempting to seal the country from the outside world. Internet shutdowns and information blockade point to preparation for even harsher measures, complicating real situation assessment for external observers and markets. For the oil market, instability in Iran — a major producer — creates risk of supply disruptions, though sanctions already significantly limit exports. Potential strikes on nuclear or military infrastructure could provoke retaliatory actions by pro-Iranian proxy forces in the region, threatening shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Internal division in Iran may lead to power paralysis, creating a security vacuum in the Middle East. Regime change probability remains uncertain, but current dynamics indicate exhaustion of the system's resources to maintain population loyalty solely through force.

The direct US military intervention in Venezuela has become an alarming signal for Mexican leadership, fearing similar actions by Washington against drug cartels on its own territory. The Sheinbaum administration is forced to maneuver between protecting national sovereignty and avoiding conflict with an aggressive northern neighbor. Mention of Mexico in the indictment against Maduro as a transit hub increases pressure on Mexico City to intensify the fight against organized crime. For investors this creates risks of increased peso volatility and uncertainty in trade relations ahead of USMCA review. Trump's threats to strike Mexican territory, even if remaining rhetoric, undermine trust in the stability of Mexican state institutions. Internal disagreements in Sheinbaum's cabinet regarding the response to US actions indicate a deep crisis in national security strategy. Economic dependence on the US limits Mexico's ability to give a hard response, which may lead to forced concessions on migration and border security issues. The situation requires business to closely monitor diplomatic rhetoric, as any escalation can instantly affect cross-border logistics and investment climate.

Systematic Russification of the education system in occupied Ukrainian territories is a tool for long-term demographic and cultural integration of regions into the Russian Federation. Forced imposition of Russian narratives and militarization of the educational process aim to erase Ukrainian identity from the young generation, creating a basis for future loyalty. Harsh measures against parents resisting the new program, including threats of child removal, demonstrate the totalitarian nature of administration in occupied territories. This creates a humanitarian crisis and provokes population outflow, changing the demographic structure of regions. For the international community these actions are a violation of conventions and an additional argument for maintaining and tightening the sanctions regime. In the long term, even in case of de-occupation, the region will face the problem of mental reintegration of youth subjected to intensive ideological processing. This policy confirms Russia's intention to permanently entrench itself in these territories, making any peace negotiations with return of lands extremely difficult. Social tension and local resistance create permanent instability, requiring significant resources from occupying authorities for control.

Iranian authorities have moved to direct confrontation with Washington, threatening strikes on American bases and Israel in case of intervention in suppressing internal protests. The unprecedented scale of violence and internet shutdowns indicate critical regime vulnerability, fearing a repeat of the "color revolution" scenario with external support. Trump's statements about readiness to "save" protesters raise the stakes, turning internal conflict into a potential trigger for regional war. For oil markets this is a signal of maximum geopolitical premium, as escalation may affect key energy transportation routes. Iranian opposition and diaspora are intensifying lobbying efforts, calling on the West for more decisive action, which may lead to tighter sanctions. Inside Iran, consolidation of the power bloc is occurring, ready for any sacrifices to preserve power, ruling out the possibility of peaceful transition. The risk of civil war or large-scale uprising is growing, creating a long-term zone of instability in the Middle East.

Denmark and Greenland face unprecedented pressure from the United States, which considers the Arctic a key zone of strategic interests and resource base. Trump's desire to "buy" or take control of Greenland threatens NATO integrity and sovereignty of European states. This creates a dangerous precedent for revising borders and territorial status within the Western alliance, undermining trust between allies. Washington's interest is driven not only by geopolitics but also by access to rare earth metals necessary for technological confrontation with China. For the EU this is a signal of the need to develop its own Arctic strategy and strengthen defense capabilities without relying on the US. Economic pressure on Denmark may lead to review of trade and military agreements, negatively affecting stability in Northern Europe. Greenland's political class faces a difficult choice between loyalty to Copenhagen and potential investments from the US, which may strengthen separatist sentiments.

The US administration is using control over Venezuela's oil resources as leverage against Cuba, seeking to destroy the alliance of authoritarian regimes in Latin America. Cutting off energy supplies puts Havana on the brink of economic collapse, which may provoke a social explosion on the island. Trump's ultimatum aims to force Cuban leadership to abandon support for Maduro and other anti-American forces in the region. This creates risks of a new migration wave toward the US, which may become an internal political problem for Washington. For Russia and China this is a challenge to their influence in the region, as they lose key partners without the ability to quickly compensate for resource shortages. The US geopolitical strategy aims at complete redrawing of the influence map in the Caribbean basin. The probability of the fall of the communist regime in Cuba is increasing, which would open the market for American capital, but the process will be accompanied by chaos.

The Venezuelan opposition's attempt to award Trump the Nobel Peace Prize is a symbolic gesture of legitimizing his forceful methods in foreign policy. However, the Nobel Committee's firm rejection emphasizes institutional resistance of European elites to the populist management style and violation of international norms. This episode demonstrates the gap in value orientations between the US administration and traditional European institutions. For Trump this is a reason to intensify criticism of international organizations as "biased" and "outdated". The situation also shows that Machado is ready for extreme measures to gain Washington's support, even at the cost of reputation in human rights circles. This may split the Venezuelan opposition and reduce its support among European leftists. In a broader sense, this signals that "deals" and "exchanges" of statuses do not work within established international procedures that retain their autonomy.

Restoration of Syrian government control over Aleppo and expulsion of Kurdish formations marks a new stage in consolidation of power in post-Assad Syria. This benefits Turkey, seeking to weaken Kurdish influence at its borders, and the new government in Damascus, strengthening sovereignty. However, this creates risks for the Kurdish population and may lead to a new round of ethnic violence and humanitarian crisis. Weakening of the Kurds, traditional US allies in the fight against ISIS, may create a security vacuum that radical Islamist groups will try to fill. For Russia and Iran, retaining influence in the region, this is an opportunity to strengthen their positions through support of the central government. Israel is closely watching the situation, fearing increased Iranian presence. In the long term, Syria's stability remains in question due to numerous internal and external players with conflicting interests.

The sharp increase in casualties in Iran is being used by American conservative circles as justification for more aggressive US intervention. Emphasis on "massacre" and "state terror" creates a moral basis for conducting forceful operations considered by the Trump administration. This increases pressure on the White House to move from threats to action, which may include targeted strikes or cyberattacks. For the domestic US audience this is presented as a fight for freedom against the "empire of evil", consolidating Republican voters. Regional US allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia see this as a chance to finally weaken their main geopolitical opponent. However, such rhetoric increases the risk of full-scale conflict, which could lead to a spike in oil prices and destabilization of the global economy. Using human rights rhetoric for realpolitik purposes demonstrates an instrumental approach to human rights.

The criminal investigation into Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is an unprecedented attack by executive power on the independence of the central bank. Using the pretext of inflated renovation estimates, the Trump administration seeks to undermine trust in Fed leadership and possibly force Powell's resignation. The true goal is to gain control over monetary policy and interest rates, which is critically important for implementing Trump's economic program. This creates enormous institutional risks for the US financial system, as politicization of the Fed may undermine investor confidence in the dollar and government bonds. Markets will perceive this as a signal of possible loss of inflation control in favor of political populism. The conflict between the White House and the Fed is moving into the phase of open war, the outcome of which will determine the economic landscape for years to come.

Hamas's statement about readiness to transfer power to a technocratic committee indicates the success of pressure through Trump's plan and the creation of a "Peace Council". This opens the way to creating a new governance architecture in the Gaza Strip under international control with participation of Arab countries and the West. The terrorist group's refusal of administrative functions may reduce violence levels and facilitate humanitarian aid delivery. However, the key question remains disarmament, which Hamas ties to the creation of a Palestinian state, unacceptable to the current Israeli government. This creates the risk that power transfer will be nominal, with real control remaining with militants. For the region this is a step toward de-escalation, but the new structure's sustainability depends on external players' readiness to finance reconstruction and ensure security.

Direct blackmail of Cuba by Trump, based on cutting off oil supplies from Venezuela, aims at rapid change in the island's geopolitical orientation. Washington seeks to finally eliminate the "axis of resistance" in Latin America, depriving Havana of its economic survival base. Mention of Marco Rubio as a possible "President of Cuba" (even jokingly) sends a signal of US desire for complete regime change, not just concessions. This puts Cuban leadership in a deadlock: either capitulation and loss of sovereignty, or economic collapse and hunger. For Russia and China this means losing a strategic foothold near US borders. Economic blockade may lead to humanitarian catastrophe, responsibility for which will be placed on Cuban authorities.

New York Governor Hochul's initiative to increase tariffs for energy-intensive data centers reflects the growing global problem of electricity shortages due to the AI boom. This creates a precedent for other regions and countries that may introduce similar measures to protect household consumers from price increases. For tech giants this means higher operating costs and possible revision of infrastructure placement plans. Regulatory pressure on the AI sector is shifting from ethics to resources and infrastructure. This may slow AI adoption rates but also stimulate investment in energy-efficient technologies and own generation sources. For the energy market this is a signal of the need to modernize grids and revise tariff policy under digital economy conditions.