Economic interdependence was once expected to guarantee peace. It now fuels resentment

As Singapore prepares to assume the ASEAN chairmanship, corporate boards face a strategic inflexion point. To thrive in a fractured global order, directors must move beyond traditional risk management and embed geopolitical foresight into the heart of corporate strategy.

With the return of Trump and the fracturing of Western unity, Professor Barry Buzan argues the world has crossed a threshold — and that naming it clearly may be the first step to navigating it.

Despite escalating pressure, repeated negotiations, and even military confrontation, the United States and Iran remain locked in a persistent deadlock. The ongoing negotiations following the US strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on February 28, 2026, illustrate the core problem: while Iran has signalled willingness to de-escalate—such as proposing to reopen the Strait of Hormuz—it has resisted addressing the nuclear issue upfront, seeking instead to defer it. The United States, by contrast, insists that nuclear constraints must be the starting point of any agreement. This divergence is not merely technical—it is structural. It reflects a deeper reality: the nuclear issue is not just another policy variable, but the most politically and symbolically charged component of the conflict. As a result, even intense pressure and partial compromises have failed to produce a breakthrough.