Three seats, in three provinces, four thousand kilometres apart. Same night, same question, same answer. All three went Liberal. Prime Minister Mark Carney didn’t just hold his ground. He solidified his majority government.

First, what’s a by-election?

A quick word for anyone who doesn’t follow Canadian politics.

Normally, every seat in the country is contested at once, in a general election. A by-election is what happens between those. One member of Parliament dies, retires, resigns or takes another job, and their seat sits empty until the voters of that one district are called back to the polls to choose someone else to fill it.

That’s all Monday was, technically. Three vacancies. One MP was appointed to the Senate. One quit federal politics after a failed run at a provincial party leadership. One left to become Canada’s ambassador to the European Union.

Nothing about that arrangement guarantees drama. Turnout is usually low, the stakes are usually local, and governments usually lose these things — voters treat them as a free shot at whoever is in charge, because the government of the day doesn’t change no matter how they vote.

Except this time the government’s grip did change. Here’s why.

Read more

On August 22, the United States imposed a 50 per cent tariff on $27.6 billion worth of Canadian goods. On September 8, Canada answers with counter-tariffs on $27.6 billion of American goods, rate for rate: 15, 25 and 50 per cent, each matched to the corresponding U.S. rate. Steel, dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, electronics. Furniture, clothing and apparel move to 50 per cent. Cheese lands at 25.

The symmetry is the point. It is also the easy part.

Start with what happened before the tariffs. Ottawa negotiated for months and then stopped, on the grounds that Washington was asking too much and offering too little. That is an unglamorous sentence describing a genuinely difficult decision. Suspending talks means accepting a period of damage with no fixed end date, and doing it while every affected sector calls your office. Governments rarely choose the option that guarantees pain now for leverage later. This one did, and the alternative — signing something bad and calling it certainty — would have been worse and permanent.

Matching dollar for dollar, rate for rate is not theatre, though it will be described that way. It does two things. It tells the American side that escalation is not free, which is the only argument that has ever moved a tariff file. And it does something more concrete at home: it puts Canadian producers on better competitive footing against American goods inside our own market. A Canadian steelmaker locked out of the U.S. at 50 per cent still has to sell somewhere. Leaving the domestic market wide open to the same American producers who just got a protected home market would be a strange way to defend Canadian jobs.

Read more

The United States has spent the past year and a half renaming places it can’t have: A gulf it shares with two other countries. A strait that is not so straight forward. A cabinet department that has gone by another title since Truman. And on Thursday, a lake shared and owned 53% by Canada, when the president signed an executive order re-designating Lake Ontario as “Lake America.”

He announced it was official and effective immediately. The order itself gives the Interior Department and the Board on Geographic Names thirty days to actually do it. That gap between the announcement and the machinery is, in miniature, the entire subject of this column.

Mark Carney’s reply was to observe that the name comes from the Wendat word Ontari’io, that it is more than four hundred years old, and that it predates both Canada’s Confederation and America’s Declaration of Independence. Trump, for his part, noted that he now had a gulf and a lake, and mused that the Atlantic and Pacific might be next.

There is a logic to all of this. Renaming is cheap, it is fast, and it delivers the sensation of control without the inconvenience of exercising any. No budget has to be defended, no ally to be persuaded. You announce the new word, and the federal maps update within a month.

Meanwhile, Canada announced real names of 48 star scientists it had recruited away from American institutions.

They came through the first intake of the C$1.7-billion Global Impact+ Research Talent Initiative, announced by Carney’s government at the end of last year. Sixty-four hires in all, drawn from around the world, with 48 coming from the United States. They are not marginal figures padding a press release. They include an MIT astronomer who has spent her career designing the methods by which humanity might detect life on another planet, a leading RNA biologist from the University of Massachusetts, and a pioneer of computational protein design from UNC Chapel Hill, working in a field recognized by the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. There are professors from Harvard, Carnegie Mellon and Berkeley.

Canada’s industry minister, Mélanie Joly, put it simply: if you want to know how her country is responding to a changing world, look at the senior scientists who have chosen Canada. She did not gloat, and she did not need to. The list of names does that for her.

This is what a great power actually loses when it starts losing. Not territory. Not naming rights. Not the symbolic satisfactions of a redrawn map.

Read more

According to Oxford Economics, the GCC’s aggregate GDP growth for 2026 has dropped by 4.6 percentage points, to negative 0.2%. That is not a rounding error. Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, and the UAE took the sharpest hits because their hydrocarbon export infrastructure runs through the Strait of Hormuz. Once storage fills, production shuts down — there is no workaround. While Saudi Arabia and Oman absorbed comparatively less damage due to their export routes being less exposed to the Strait, they are not completely immune.

Beyond the energy numbers, the war has done something harder to quantify: it has broken a narrative.

For over 15 years, the GCC’s investment proposition rested on the implicit claim that this region had found a way to stay afloat the floods of instability that characterizes the broader Middle East, including Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and Gaza. That claim is now complicated. Not destroyed — complicated. The distinction matters, because the policy response to complication is different from the policy response to destruction and collapse. A collapsed investment environment requires reconstruction from the ground up — new institutions, new legal frameworks, new market-making. The GCC does not face that. What it faces is a credibility deficit: a gap between the pre-war narrative and the new, post-war evidence. That kind of deficit is closed not by rebuilding what existed, but by demonstrating, with specificity, reliable data, and independent verification, that the conditions which made the region attractive still hold — and that the one condition which failed, the assumption of insulation from external military conflict, is being structurally addressed rather than diplomatically papered over or paid for.

Three of the Gulf’s largest economies are already reviewing their overseas investment portfolios, sports sponsorships, and external financial commitments. When a government’s sovereign wealth fund signals retrenchment, private capital does not interpret that as a regional problem. It interprets it as a warning about the region.

That is the starting point. Everything else depends on whether governments in the GCC treat it as such.

What Investors Are Actually Asking

Foreign institutional investors are not waiting for the war to end before forming views. They are forming them now, on the basis of what GCC governments do and say while the conflict is still active.

The question driving investment committee decisions is not whether the region has good fundamentals. It is a harder question: what is structurally different now that would prevent a repeat? Not what has been rebuilt, but what has been redesigned.

This distinction — between reconstruction and redesign — is the lens through which every post-war policy initiative should be evaluated. Reconstruction restores confidence to a point. But redesign earns confidence on new terms.

There are five areas where redesign is both necessary and credible:

Read more

At 12:01 a.m. Eastern on August 22, the United States began collecting tariffs under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — a Depression-era provision that had sat dormant for roughly ninety years and had never before been used to actually impose duties on anyone. Three presidential proclamations signed on July 20 attached an additional 50 per cent duty, levied as a share of each shipment’s value, to hundreds of Canadian-origin tariff lines worth about C$27.6 billion a year. Washington’s stated grievances were Canada’s dairy import quotas under supply management, provincial liquor boards’ handling of American alcohol, and Canadian measures affecting motor vehicles. A three-day suspension granted on August 18, while negotiators worked, expired without a deal.

The rate is not the important part. The authority is.

Section 338 lets the president act by proclamation alone against any country he determines is discriminating against American commerce. That is a far lower bar than the tools Washington normally reaches for. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — the basis of the China tariffs — requires a formal investigation by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which underpins the existing 50 per cent American duties on Canadian steel, aluminum and copper, requires a Commerce Department finding that imports threaten national security. Section 338 requires neither. It is capped at 50 per cent, and it carries no expiry date.

Its sudden usefulness has a cause. In February, the Supreme Court struck down the tariffs this administration had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a 1977 statute granting the president economic powers during declared national emergencies and never previously used to set tariffs. With that route closed, a forgotten clause of a 1930 law became the fastest instrument left on the shelf.

And critically, the Section 338 duty applies whether or not the goods qualify for preferential treatment under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) — the 2020 successor to NAFTA that governs most North American trade and, until now, was widely treated as a shield against exactly this sort of action.

That last point is the one Canadian boardrooms should be reading twice.

Ottawa’s response, announced by Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne on August 25 and effective September 8, is calibrated to mirror the American action “dollar for dollar, rate for rate” — meaning Canada taxes the same value of trade, and applies to each American product the same rate the United States applied to its Canadian counterpart. In practice that means counter-tariffs of 15, 25 and 50 per cent across some 700 product categories drawn from those hit by both the Section 338 and Section 232 measures, covering C$27.6 billion in imports from the United States. Steel and aluminum counter-tariffs double from 25 to 50 per cent. Alongside it comes C$7.5 billion in new and enhanced support — including a C$2 billion Canada Strong Diversification Fund delivered through the Strategic Response Fund — on top of the nearly C$25 billion Ottawa has already committed since the tariff conflict began.

The response is proportionate and correct. Unilateral tariff action has to carry a cost, and a matched, targeted package gives Canada a negotiating instrument without disrupting its own energy, resource and industrial supply chains. But retaliation is a tactic. It is not a strategy, and Canadians should stop treating the two as interchangeable.

Read more

There is growing discussion that Rafael Grossi is exactly the kind of leader the United Nations needs: a skilled multilateral diplomat, a technically accomplished nuclear expert, and a seasoned negotiator. He has the credentials, the backing of his government, and the respect of many across the international community.

He now also has one disadvantage he cannot control—and it plays football.

There is no evidence that a country’s performance and conduct at the FIFA World Cup will determine who becomes the next Secretary-General of the United Nations. Nor is that the argument. The question is subtler, and perhaps more important:

Can a nation’s conduct on the world’s biggest sporting stage shape the perceptions that quietly influence its diplomatic reputation?

If the answer is yes, then Argentina’s performance—both on and off the pitch—during the FIFA World Cup 2026™ - Canada, Mexico and the United States may have created an unexpected headwind for one of its most accomplished diplomats.

When the Argentinian player, Leandro Paredes, became embroiled in heated confrontations with Spanish players, helping ignite a mass altercation after the final whistle, billions of people were watching. The images spread instantly across the globe, reinforcing a narrative that had been building throughout the tournament.

By the time Argentina reached the final, social media platforms had become saturated with criticism from supporters of numerous competing nations. Across X, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, and football forums, fans questioned whether Argentina had benefited from unusually favorable treatment throughout the competition. They argued that referees appeared more forgiving of Argentina’s physical play, that VAR decisions often seemed to break in its favor, and that the team’s route through the earlier rounds had been comparatively less demanding than those faced by other contenders. Others pointed to repeated confrontations, gamesmanship, and conduct they believed crossed the line from competitive intensity into poor sportsmanship.

Whether those criticisms were justified is almost beside the point. Soft power has never depended solely on objective reality.

Football supporters are passionate, partisan, and often emotional. Every World Cup generates accusations of bias and controversy. But perceptions do not need to be factually correct to become politically significant. They simply need to become widespread enough to influence how a country is viewed.

That is the essence of soft power.

When governments campaign for international leadership positions, they do far more than present résumés. They present national brands. Delegates evaluating candidates inevitably consider not only an individual’s qualifications but also the country that nominated them. Consciously or unconsciously, they ask themselves: What does this nation represent? How does it behave under pressure? Does it project discipline, restraint, credibility, and respect for international norms?

These questions never appear on an official ballot. But that does not mean they are absent from the room.

Read more

The second half of that passage has become one of the most widely shared quotations in American trade politics. It has been reproduced by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Enterprise Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, and, after enough people doubted its authenticity, verified by Snopes. What almost never travels with it is the first sentence — the fig leaf.

That omission matters, because the fig leaf is where the actual claim lives. Strip it away and you have a president saying trade wars are economically costly, which is unremarkable. Restore it and you have something sharper and more insulting: a president accusing protectionists of using tariffs as a substitute for courage. In Reagan’s construction, the politician who talks tough about allied imports is doing so precisely because he is unwilling to do the hard, expensive, unpopular work of confronting countries that might actually shoot at Americans. Toughness toward friends is what you perform when you lack the nerve for toughness toward enemies.

That is not an economic argument dressed up in patriotic language. It is a charge of cowardice.

It is also an argument about a word. “Protectionism” describes itself in terms of defence, which is most of its political appeal — the name does the persuading before the policy is examined. Reagan’s contention was that the label inverts the thing. A measure sold as shielding the nation raises its costs, narrows its markets, and corrodes the alliances it would need in an actual emergency. On his account, the protection is the part that does not survive contact with the evidence. Everything that remains is the flag.

Why he said it that week

The timing was not incidental, and the reason has more to do with Ottawa than Washington.

Read more

In most Canadian diplomatic missions around the world, two people sit at adjacent desks performing vital, high-stakes work for the Government of Canada. One is a Canadian foreign service officer deployed from Ottawa. The other is a Locally Engaged Staff (LES), who does no less—if not more—but hired in the host country where the embassy, high commission, or consulate operates.

Side by side, these two professionals navigate complex geopolitics and administrative hurdles. They process the same high-volume visa applications, draft briefings for the same visiting dignitaries, coordinate trade delegations, and respond to urgent consular crises affecting stranded Canadian citizens in times of international volatility.

Yet, despite performing nearly identical duties within the exact same institutional environment, only one has their service recognized. A Canadian permanent resident working for Canada abroad can count every day of overseas government service toward maintaining their permanent residency—and even toward Canadian citizenship—without having to be physically present in Canada. Their locally engaged colleague sitting at the adjacent desk receives no such recognition.

That distinction makes little operational, strategic, or economic sense. It represents a profound policy disconnect within Canada’s human capital strategy—and it is an institutional flaw that Ottawa should fix without altering the fundamental integrity of its economic immigration system.

The Structural Blind Spot in Express Entry

Canada’s economic immigration framework, managed through the flagship Express Entry system and specifically the Canadian Experience Class (CEC), operates on a simple, well-tested proposition: individuals who have demonstrated an ability to succeed in the Canadian workplace should be given a streamlined, competitive opportunity to settle in Canada permanently.

To qualify for the CEC under current regulations, an applicant’s qualifying skilled work experience must be physically acquired inside Canada. Even remote work performed for a Canadian employer only counts toward the CEC requirement if the worker is physically residing within Canadian borders while performing the labor.

When applied to private sector corporations or remote international contractors, this territorial rule serves a clear purpose. It acts as a rough proxy for social and economic integration, ensuring that candidates have physically navigated the Canadian labor market, adapted to workplace culture, and contributed to the local economy before obtaining permanent residence.

However, when applied to Canada’s diplomatic and consular footprint abroad, this territorial requirement becomes an absurd legal fiction.

Locally Engaged Staff are not peripheral contractors or informal external labor. Under existing federal frameworks, LES are individuals appointed and employed outside Canada whose official duties are directly related to the diplomatic, consular, and trade operations of the Government of Canada. Global Affairs Canada (GAC) employs thousands of LES across more than 170 missions worldwide. They operate inside Canadian sovereign territory or diplomatic premises, utilize secure federal IT infrastructure, adhere to Treasury Board regulations, and undergo rigorous reliability and security clearances administered directly by the Canadian state.

They speak English, French, or both fluently, alongside their own local languages. They possess deep institutional memory that keeps missions functioning smoothly as Canadian diplomatic staff rotate every two to three years.

To claim that an LES professional who has spent half a decade processing visas or coordinating Canadian international trade has acquired zero “Canadian work experience”—simply because their office desk sits in Erbil, Nairobi, Tokyo, Bogotá, or London rather than an office building in Ottawa—is to value arbitrary geographic coordinates over verified institutional reality.

The Case for Reform: High-Return Statecraft

Recognizing overseas LES service within economic immigration is not an act of charity, nor should it be framed as a humanitarian concession. It is a pragmatic, highly self-interested policy upgrade that solves operational bottlenecks for both Global Affairs Canada and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC).

Read more

At half past seven on Friday evening, Dominic LeBlanc, the Canadian cabinet minister responsible for relations with the United States, walked out of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative into a bank of cameras and said Canada had more work to do. He went back in. Janice Charette, Canada’s chief trade negotiator and a former head of the federal public service, never left. With them were Marc-André Blanchard, the prime minister’s chief of staff and once Canada’s permanent representative to the United Nations, and Mark Wiseman, the ambassador in Washington.

Somewhere in that building, the final hours were being spent with Howard Lutnick, the U.S. commerce secretary who, according to two sources close to the talks, was still sore about the Gordie Howe bridge — a crossing between Detroit and Windsor that Canada built and paid for, and whose opening Washington held up for weeks over a dispute about toll revenue until Ottawa agreed to start sharing sooner than planned.

That is what the last night of the world’s largest bilateral trading relationship looked like. Not a summit. Four Canadians in an office in Washington, working past midnight, trying to talk an American cabinet secretary out of a grudge about a bridge.

The US president, meanwhile, was on the tarmac at Joint Base Andrews, telling reporters he only makes good deals, that talks were moving along, and that somebody had to take care of American farmers.

Shortly before midnight, the office of Jamieson Greer — the U.S. Trade Representative, a trade lawyer who helped negotiate the very agreement now being tariffed around — read a statement to reporters on a conference call. Canada had declined to sign. By one minute past twelve, American customs officers were collecting an extra 50 per cent duty on a list of Canadian goods running past ten pages.

For readers who don’t live on this continent

Some scale, because the numbers here are unusual even by the standards of major trading partners.

Canada and the United States exchanged roughly $880 billion in goods and services last year. About $2 billion in goods crosses the border every day, along with 330,000 people. The border itself runs 8,900 kilometres and has no soldiers on it. Some 800,000 Canadians live in the United States. Canadian troops fought alongside Americans in Afghanistan after September 11. Canada has about 40 million people compared to America’s 340 million and an economy roughly a tenth the size, and it sends nearly 72 per cent of its exported goods to that one neighbour — a dependence with no real parallel among large economies.

The two countries have also bickered forever, mostly about the same two things: Canadian softwood lumber, and American access to Canada’s protected dairy market, which runs on a quota-and-tariff system Canadians call supply management and which every U.S. administration since Reagan has complained about. None of that is new. What’s new is the register.

The governing agreement is CUSMA — the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement, known as USMCA in Washington and T-MEC in Mexico City, each country putting itself first. It replaced NAFTA in 2020 and was negotiated by Donald Trump himself, in his first term, and celebrated by him at the time as a triumph. Its central mechanism is rules of origin: prove enough of your product’s content is North American, and it crosses duty-free. A joint review of the whole agreement is due this year, which is the negotiation everyone is really positioning for.

There is one more thing outsiders should know because it explains the temperature. Trump has spent the past year and a half repeatedly suggesting Canada should become the 51st American state. Canadians have not found this funny.

Canada’s prime minister since March 2025 is Mark Carney, who ran the Bank of Canada through the financial crisis and then the Bank of England through Brexit — the only person to have governed two G7 central banks. He took the job after Justin Trudeau resigned and won an election fought almost entirely on the question of who could handle Washington. He is, by training and temperament, the least excitable and most grounded politician in the country, and possibly one of the few in the world.

On Saturday, he said Canada had been attacked.

What’s actually on the list of the new tariffs?

Washington values the affected trade at about US$20 billion a year. Ottawa says $28 billion. The Associated Press puts it at roughly five per cent of everything Canada ships south, which sounds survivable and probably is.

Then you read the annexes linked to the list.

The three presidential proclamations are titled for dairy, alcohol and motor vehicles. What they actually catch is cement, clothing, beer, wine, wood products, electronics, sporting goods, tongue depressors and hockey sticks — a product category that sits on a tariff schedule roughly the way olive presses would on an Italian one. Dan Kelly, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the country’s small-business lobby, says about 40 per cent of small Canadian exporters sell something on that list, and that members have told him it will end their American sales outright, in some cases their businesses. Candace Laing, who heads the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, called it a body blow to North American competitiveness, which is the phrase trade associations reach for after the polite ones run out.

But the money isn’t what makes this different, and neither is the merchandise. It’s one line in the customs guidance: these duties apply whether or not a good qualifies under CUSMA.

Consider what that undoes. For a year and a half, rules-of-origin paperwork was the thing keeping certain Canadian factories open. Get the North American content right, document it, cross free. That was the shelter. As of this morning, a Canadian company can do all of it correctly, satisfy a treaty both governments signed and ratified, and still be charged fifty per cent at the border.

CUSMA isn’t dead. It still governs enormous volumes of trade. But it no longer tells a Canadian exporter what he will pay, and that is a different species of problem than a high tariff. It is the problem every country with an American trade agreement should be watching because the precedent doesn’t stop at this border.

Four statutes in eighteen months

Here is why Friday’s trade negotiations were never really winnable, and they have nothing to do with anyone’s skill in the room.

American presidents cannot simply invent tariffs; they have to borrow authority from a statute Congress passed. In February, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3, Chief Justice John Roberts writing, that one of those statutes — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 sanctions law used against Iran and Russia — gave the president no tariff power at all. Tariffs are taxes, the taxing power belongs to Congress, and a phrase about regulating importation was not the clear handover you would need. Roughly $175 billion had already been collected under those tariffs.

Within hours of losing, the White House proclaimed a new 10 per cent global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, announcing next day it would rise to 15, the legal ceiling. Section 122 expires after 150 days unless Congress acts. Congress didn’t. So in July, as that clock ran out, Greer’s office produced another 10 per cent out of a Section 301 investigation opened in March, which had concluded that Canada and other partners were failing to keep goods made with forced labour out of the American market. And on July 20, Trump had already reached past all of it to Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — a Hoover-era provision aimed at foreign discrimination against American commerce that most trade lawyers say no president has ever used to impose a duty, and that has in any case sat untouched since the 1940s.

Four authorities in eighteen months. The tariff never moves. The statute is whatever’s left in the drawer.

Section 338 will be litigated and may well lose. That is a real possibility and worth watching. It is also close to useless to a plant manager in Cambridge, Ontario deciding this month whether to order a press, because a favourable ruling in 2029 does not meet payroll in 2027. Ask the lumber people how the courtroom option feels. Brian Menzies, executive director of the Independent Wood Processors Association of British Columbia, has watched that duty climb from eight per cent to forty-five over nine years, with something like $11 billion in deposits parked at the border and small operators who pledged their houses as collateral to post the bonds. He isn’t asking for victory anymore. He’s asking for certainty.

Certainty is what Canada was negotiating for on Friday. Not the rate; the reliability. Carney, whose entire professional training was in choosing words that don’t move bond markets, described the American position this way: the signature was written in pencil.

The last hour

Both governments have told their version and the versions don’t match, which is what happens when the room is closed and each side must face its own public by breakfast.

Read more

On 17 August, L’IMAD Holding announced a voluntary conditional cash offer for the 24.58 per cent of AD Ports Group it does not already own, at AED 6.25 a share — a 23 per cent premium to the previous close, implying an equity value for the company of roughly $8.7 billion and a cost for the outstanding stake of around $2.1 billion.

The offer remains subject to regulatory process and it would be premature to describe the acquisition as completed. Its interest lies elsewhere in any case.

L’IMAD, through its wholly owned subsidiary ADQ, already holds 75.42 per cent of AD Ports and, therefore, already controls it. What the remaining quarter buys is not control but latitude: the freedom to finance, restructure, and develop a strategically important infrastructure business without a public minority shareholder base and the quarterly expectations that come with it.

That distinction would be worth noting in any market. It is more consequential in the Gulf this summer because the six months preceding the offer subjected the assumptions behind Abu Dhabi’s economic transformation to an unusually severe test — and because the results of that test are more ambiguous than either the optimistic or the alarmist reading allows.

Some context on the institution. L’IMAD emerged quietly in late 2025, its first disclosed transaction a controlling stake in Modon Holding in October; its board and mandate were announced publicly in January 2026, and on 30 January, Abu Dhabi consolidated ADQ’s assets and investments under the L’IMAD umbrella. ADQ persists as a corporate entity within the structure and still serves as the transaction vehicle, as the AD Ports offer demonstrates. The resulting platform spans more than 25 investment companies and over 250 subsidiaries, roughly $300 billion in assets, and includes many of the businesses most closely identified with the emirate’s diversification: TAQA, Etihad Airways, Etihad Rail, PureHealth, Wio Bank, AD Ports, etc. It is chaired by Crown Prince Sheikh Khaled bin Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, with Jassem Bu Ataba Al Zaabi as group chief executive.

The consolidation clarified a division of labour. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority (ADIA), estimated at roughly $1.1 trillion, remains the globally diversified reserve investor. Mubadala, which reported $385 billion at the end of 2025, combines international investment with the development of future industries. L’IMAD sits closest to the operating economy, owning and directing the companies through which that economy physically functions. On commonly cited estimates, the three together oversee nearly $1.8 trillion.

It is worth being precise about what L'IMAD therefore is. Though routinely described as a sovereign wealth fund, it behaves less like a pool of capital seeking returns in global markets than like a state holding company — nearer to Singapore's Temasek than to ADIA. That distinction is not pedantry; it determines what the institution can actually do when an asset comes under pressure.

But the more interesting feature of the structure is not its size; it is that geographic exposure has been deliberately allocated. ADIA diversifies across the world because its mandate is to hold national wealth outside the region. L’IMAD is concentrated in the Emirates because that is precisely what it exists to own. Reading L’IMAD’s geographic concentration as a flaw in its diversification strategy mistakes the design for a defect.

That design was tested from 28 February, when a joint American and Israeli air campaign against Iran drew Iran’s angry response and attacks into the Gulf within hours.

Read more

When Dr. Rébar Jaff wrote last year that it was time to relocate the United Nations Headquarters from New York to a fully-bilingual Canadian city like Montreal or Ottawa, he raised some eyebrows, nodded some heads, and got a few dismissals here and there. Fourteen months on, the argument hasn’t just held up — it has hardened into something undeniable. Secretary-General António Guterres entered 2026 warning, for the second time in under a year, of the UN’s “imminent financial collapse.” The organization started the year with its Working Capital Fund completely drained, and by spring Guterres was warning it could run out of cash entirely by summer. The United Nations cannot survive as a hostage to American domestic politics and threats to universal values.

The crisis that has unfolded since is precisely what Dr. Jaff warned about. The UN faces not just a budget shortfall but an existential threat rooted in its geographic dependence on an increasingly unreliable host. The United States—once the organization’s champion—has weaponized its contributions, turning what should be mandatory obligations into political leverage. President Trump’s withdrawal from UN agencies and his refusal to honor financial commitments hasn’t eased; if anything, it has widened. In January 2026, the administration confirmed it would withdraw from 66 international organizations altogether—35 non-UN bodies and 31 UN entities—while separately confirming it would withhold roughly a fifth of the US regular budget assessment. This isn’t an aberration; it’s the culmination of decades of erosion.

Read more

Call the space between them the credibility gap. It is rarely discussed in these terms, but it belongs on the same balance sheet as debt-to-GDP ratios and foreign reserves, because it behaves the same way: quietly, until it doesn’t. A widening credibility gap doesn’t show up as a headline. It shows up as capital that goes to a competitor country instead, as a trade delegation that hedges its language in a closed-door meeting, as a multilateral partner who supports a policy on paper but never quite defends it in public. By the time the gap is visible, it has already been priced in by everyone except the government it belongs to.

Read more

Every strategic era rests on assumptions so widely shared that nobody bothers to say them out loud. For a generation, the Gulf’s assumption was insulation — the belief that wealth, skilled diplomacy, and careful equidistance could keep the region next to the world’s conflicts without ever getting pulled inside them. No doctrine ever wrote that down. It didn’t need to. It was just the quiet premise sitting under every sovereign fund allocation, every mega-project, every airline route map that treated the Gulf as the world’s connecting lounge.

On the last day of February 2026, that premise came apart in a matter of

Read more

There are things we only really understand after years in the room—after the meetings, the delegations, the late-night debriefs where everyone quietly agrees that something didn’t land, even if no one can quite say why.

Across decades of work spanning Western and Eastern governments, international organizations, and institutions throughout the world—especially the Middle East and the Gulf—from fragile humanitarian settings to high-level policy discussions inside government systems, one pattern stands out above any other: when diplomacy fails between Western and Middle Eastern actors, it is rarely because of what was said. It is because of what was not understood.

We tend to explain these failures in familiar terms—strategy, ideology, resources, history. And all of that matters. But over time, these explanations often reveal themselves as sitting one layer too high. They describe the structure of disagreement, not its mechanics.

The real breakdown is usually quieter. It happens in interpretation.

In how meaning is carried, received, and quietly lost between people who are, more often than not, speaking in good faith but not speaking the same language of context.

Read more