TheChek News Flow

Turmoil in the Strait of Hormuz and now the Red Sea mean the kingdom and world energy markets are relying more heavily on the Suez Canal

DUBAI—Saudi Arabia’s vast oil exports increasingly depend on one last narrow exit.

Since the Iran war began, the kingdom has ramped up exports across the country to its Red Sea coast, bypassing the Strait of Hormuz, and shipped them through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait to Asian customers. Now, threats from Houthi militants—and several attacks against Saudi vessels in recent days—risk choking off that workaround, forcing more Saudi barrels onto a longer, costlier and technically challenging journey through Egypt’s Suez Canal and around Africa.

This week, at least four tankers carrying Saudi crude abruptly reversed course before reaching Bab al-Mandeb at the southern end of the Red Sea to head north toward Suez, while Saudi Arabia has begun offering more crude cargoes for loading from Egypt’s Mediterranean ports, according to ship-tracking firm Vortexa. In the first three weeks of July, seaborne oil transit via the Suez Canal ran at its highest volume in 2½ years, while imports to the Sumed pipeline—which runs parallel to the canal—were up 50% from the previous month, Vortexa data showed.

The diversions mark the latest redrawing of global oil flows after months of war have forced producers, traders and shipowners to abandon familiar routes for ever costlier detours. Gulf producers from the United Arab Emirates to Kuwait have been racing to build routes bypassing the Strait of Hormuz. On Saturday, Iraq said it would sign an agreement with Syria to build a pipeline project to carry Iraqi oil to the Mediterranean Sea.

The stakes for the global economy are high: Persistent risks to regional shipping could push oil well above $100 a barrel, analysts say, stoking inflation and straining an already fragile global economy.

Nor is the Suez route beyond the conflict’s reach. In recent days, senior officials from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have warned that if Washington intensifies its attacks or considers a ground invasion, Iran could seek to shut Bab al-Mandeb and the Red Sea, including targeting vessels, according to people familiar with the matter. Saudi and Egyptian efforts have so far failed to persuade the Houthis, an Iran-backed faction in Yemen, to step back.

“The Saudis can get oil out of the Red Sea, but the issue is that this is a much longer and more expensive route to get to markets in Asia,” said Gregory Brew, senior analyst for Iran and energy at Eurasia Group. “For the oil market this means more pressure on prices.”

Saudi media said Friday that a Saudi vessel was struck in the Red Sea. Saudi military officials said they carried out military strikes on Houthi targets in the area of the port city of Hodeidah in response. Earlier in the week, a tanker off southern Saudi Arabia caught fire after being struck by an unknown projectile, as the Houthis claimed attacks on two Saudi-flagged vessels using missiles and drones.

On Thursday, President Trump warned that if the Houthis strike additional vessels, both their forces and Iran’s will face “major military punishment.” The U.S. military said late Thursday it had carried out its 13th consecutive night of strikes on Iran, hitting military command centers, drone-storage facilities and maritime capabilities.

The new Red Sea threat compounds a double hit of disruption to global energy markets: Flows through Hormuz have slowed to a trickle, while Ukraine has intensified attacks on Russian oil infrastructure. After months of war eroded the market’s inventory buffers, crude prices have risen sharply to reflect the risk of further losses. On Friday, Brent futures were trading around $97 a barrel, after jumping above $100 a barrel on Thursday.

Brew said continued fighting could keep oil near $100. Goldman Sachs analysts said in a report this week that prices could climb to $120.

Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, said sustained Houthi attacks could materially reduce Red Sea oil flows and “shift the sentiment of ‘the market always finds a workaround’ camp.”

The Houthi threat jeopardizes the relief valve that has kept one of the world’s biggest oil exporters connected to its customers and helped prevent global prices from surging even higher during the Iran war.

Since the conflict erupted, Saudi Arabia has used its East-West Pipeline to lift shipments from Red Sea terminals to around 4.9 million barrels of oil a day from roughly 700,000 to 1 million barrels a day, according to Richard Bronze, head of geopolitics at London-based consulting firm Energy Aspects. That is the equivalent of roughly 5% of global supply. Of that volume, roughly 3.5 million barrels a day have been sailing through the Bab al-Mandeb, mostly to buyers in Asia.

If that southern passage becomes too dangerous, the remaining escape route runs north through Egypt. But Suez is an outlet, not a full substitute. It can keep Saudi oil moving only by routing ships through Egyptian terminals and a canal too shallow for some heavily laden vessels, before sending Asia-bound barrels westward across the Mediterranean, past Gibraltar and around the Cape of Good Hope. The extra distance raises freight and insurance costs, ties up ships and can delay deliveries by weeks.

A so-called Suezmax tanker, designed around the canal’s restrictions, can carry roughly 1 million barrels through it. A very large crude carrier, or VLCC, can hold about 2 million barrels but sits too deep in the water when fully loaded to use the canal.

To pass, a VLCC can discharge roughly half its cargo on the Gulf of Suez. That oil is then pumped about 200 miles across Egypt through the Sumed pipeline, which runs parallel to Suez, to the Mediterranean. The lightened tanker transits the canal and can collect the oil on the other side, or another ship can load it. Alternatively, shippers can split the cargo between two Suezmax tankers.

For Asia-bound cargoes that do go north, the map then becomes more punishing. The detour to Asia can add a delay of some 20-30 days, Bronze said. With ships being tied up for weeks, longer voyages also push up freight and war-risk insurance rates.

Product tankers carrying diesel and jet fuel depend more heavily on Suez than the VLCCs that dominate long-haul crude trades, according to Standard Chartered, making fuel markets particularly vulnerable. That risk comes as fuel prices are already elevated following Ukrainian attacks on Russian refineries.

The northern outlet itself was born from an earlier crisis. The Suez Canal opened in 1869 but was closed from 1967 to 1975 following the Arab-Israeli war. The shutdown accelerated plans for the Sumed pipeline, which began operating in 1977 as an overland link carrying oil between the Red Sea and the Mediterranean.

The latest disruption exposes the limits of bypassing the Middle East’s chokepoints. Geography may offer an alternative route, but regional alliances can put that route at risk, too.

“If Iran can coordinate with the Houthis and strategically close or open both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb to put pressure on the United States and the other Gulf states, it is a much more potent lever they have at their disposal,” said Edward Fishman, director of the Center for Geoeconomic Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

That Christopher Nolan would hit a home run with “The Odyssey” was as predictable as Odysseus’s return to Ithaca. What’s maybe a little more surprising is that he has hit a grand slam. The movie earned a staggering $124 million its opening weekend, with its IMAX showings sold out for the rest of the millennium (or close enough to it). Internationally, the film was Nolan’s biggest opening to date. Yet those numbers don’t tell the full story. This past week, Christopher Nolan has seemed like James Cameron the week “Titanic” opened — a filmmaker who’s conducting the entire planet. “The Odyssey” has become “Barbenheimer” all by itself. With rare exceptions, an army of critics (and even academic historians!) has been raving, shoring up the artistic credibility of Nolan’s three-hour Homerian epic. “The Odyssey” now looks destined to be a major player (maybe the major player) in the awards race. The film’s staggering success guarantees that Nolan, more than ever, can call the shots to make any movie he wants, leading the industry in any direction he favors.

Nolan has now scaled that peak of populist mystique shared by only a few directors in movie history: Spielberg, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Tarantino. A Christopher Nolan film is inevitably an Event, and that extends to the way we watch it. The audience — our anticipation and excitement, the afterglow of our response — is woven into the Event. In that sense, every Nolan film is a self-fulfilling prophecy — not a masterpiece, necessarily, but a work so singular in its vision that it creates the big-swing aura of a masterpiece, each with its own world-building majesty. Whether or not any given Nolan film totally “works” is, in a way, almost irrelevant. He’s making head trips for the masses, and so every Nolan film automatically qualifies as his new Ultimate Trip.

Thus, “Dunkirk” wasn’t just another big-scale war film. It was the Time-Bending Spectacle of WWII as God’s-Eye Diorama. “Inception,” when you get into the nitty-gritty of its sci-fi details, isn’t a movie that completely makes sense, but that hardly mattered, because it was the High-Flying Action Dreamscape That If You Watch It Three Times Stoned May Look Logical. As for “Tenet”…well, no one quite defends “Tenet.” That was the one that went too far through the looking glass of its own Nolan-ness.

The director who Nolan most closely resembles, and at times feels like the heir to, is Steven Spielberg. Both became superstar filmmakers by branding themselves as blockbuster wizards of escapism and fantasy, which they execute with a finesse that turns escapism into art. But both also maintain a virtuosic relationship with reality. You could say that “Oppenheimer” was to Nolan what “Schindler’s List” was to Spielberg: a cathartic plunge into the abyss of history.

Yet if you contrast Nolan with Spielberg, it’s remarkable how differently their films have been received. Spielberg, by any account, has made his share of duds (“1941,” “Hook,” “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skill,” “The BFG”) and forgettable chaff (“Always,” “The Terminal,” “Ready Player One”), as well as effective movies that few pretended were great (“Empire of the Sun,” “Minority Report,” “The War of the Worlds,” “West Side Story”). He’s a genius, but Spielberg’s films are scrutinized, debated, and far from universally acclaimed.

Nolan has a different vibe around him. Even as grandly scattershot a Nolan film as “Interstellar” gets fawned over with a kind of hindsight glow. As a filmmaker, Nolan is revered as a popcorn visionary, a head-tripping puzzle master, and the mod version of a David Lean classicist. He’s also the movie mensch who looks and dresses like an impeccably groomed 1960s British matinee idol as he stands up for the holy cause of cinema: movies viewed in theaters, movies lionized as something that should loom large. What this all adds up to is that Nolan, in his cherished way, has become a one-man movie cult.

It’s all tied to how Nolan taps into — and is, in a way, the incarnation of — Elevated Fanboy Culture. Fanboy enthusiasm, which you can probably date back to the day “Star Wars” opened in 1977, is movie fandom that lives in search of thrills, shocks, excitement, and one quality above all: awesomeness. What is awesomeness? The fanboy (or fangirl) knows it when he or she sees it — in a Marvel movie, a Zack Snyder movie, a hip horror movie. It’s that moment that makes your jaw drop, your eyes widen, your head explode. It’s the quintessence of movie escapism — escapism purified and heightened into cinematic crack cocaine. That’s why the fanboy addiction to awesomeness is, in many ways, the enemy of movie art. For if all you’re seeking from movies is awesomeness, you might be numb to anything more quietly dramatic or subtle or spiritual.

The paradox of Elevated Fanboy Culture that surrounds Christopher Nolan is that the members of his cult regard themselves as connoisseurs of artistic things. They are not comic-book zombies; they’re on a higher tier. Yet in more ways than not, they’re seeking a version of the fanboy rush: a cinema that will blow their minds. And Nolan, feeding off that appetite, has become the thinking person’s fanboy demigod.

That’s one reason why “The Odyssey,” a sprawling, back-breaking, reach-for-the-ancient-stars attempt to wrestle Homer’s epic saga of Odysseus into some sort of cinematic shape, has been bathed in the Nolan Glow. Is “The Odyssey” actually a good movie? It has its moments, but in contrast to the majority of my critical colleagues, I found it patchy and diffuse, and too remote to hook into. To me, the movie felt thrown together. Yet several friends have told me that they dig the film simply because it’s so different from everything else, because it’s so committed to its roughhewn vision and has the courage of its hand-made hallucinatory weirdness. In other words: It’s Nolan’s One-of-a-Kind Mythological Head Trip That Dares to Be Audaciously Forbidding.

For the record, I think Christopher Nolan, at his greatest, is a miraculous filmmaker. The two Nolan films that, for me, are true masterpieces are “The Dark Knight,” which heightened the comic-book movie into hypnotic operatic noir, and “Oppenheimer,” which found its drama in staying remarkably true to the creation of the nuclear bomb and the struggle (and human failings) of the man who envisioned it. That said, I have often found myself less than entranced with Nolan World, and with the way that it’s reflexively deemed to be a great escape, even when it’s a deeply flawed one.

Back in 2000, I was a fan of “Memento,” even though it’s an eccentrically from-the-neck-up experience; it’s a movie you have to work to watch (which, as it turned out, was a very Nolan thing). Nolan then entered the studio system by making “Insomnia,” a remake of a nifty little 1997 Norwegian thriller, and in the grip of the film’s devious compact gamesmanship I thought it was clear where Nolan was headed as a director. I was sure he’d be a canny mainstream craftsman. It’s tempting to imagine an alternate universe in which he took that route, becoming the kind of brilliant conventional filmmaker Hollywood could use a lot more of. Most viewers would probably say they’re glad he didn’t, in the same way they’re glad the Stanley Kubrick of “Paths of Glory” and “Spartacus” didn’t go on making Hollywood movies and turned instead to building Visionary Kubrick Monoliths.

But Nolan’s track record, to me, is problematic in a way that Kubrick’s isn’t. I’m second to none in my reverence for “The Dark Knight,” and “The Prestige” is trap-door clever in a fun way, but I’ve never been able to come to grips with “Inception,” or to say that I really enjoy it. I thought “The Dark Knight Rises” was grandiose with self-importance, and the fact that Tom Hardy’s Bane was so muffled that you couldn’t understand him remains a head-scratching perversity. “Interstellar,” to my mind, was a movie that wanted to be “2001: A Space Odyssey” and a Hallmark special at the same time. And “Dunkirk,” which I found at once intriguing and forbidding, was stymied by something quite apart from its overly fussy head-game structure — it was a war movie too decorous in its violence, one that felt like it was made by a polite British gentleman. (I’d bet that neither Spielberg nor Nolan has ever been in a fistfight, but Spielberg directed one of the most brutal combat films ever made, while Nolan, in his combat epic, didn’t get his hands dirty.) So no, I’m not in the Christopher Nolan cult.

If every Nolan film is an act of world-building, “The Odyssey” comes at us with an even loftier weight of purpose. It’s the movie that’s going to tell the story of our world, all by dramatizing the Greek myth and legend that, let’s be honest, is a book a lot of us had to force our way through at an English instructor’s gunpoint in high school. You could call Homer’s “Odyssey” the very first movie; you could also say that it lacks…relatability. Yet this all now feeds into the way Nolan is making a showy spectacle of his own ambition. In her 1977 review of Bernardo Bertolucci’s “1900,” Pauline Kael wrote, “At a certain point in their careers — generally right after an enormous popular success — most great movie directors go mad on the potentiali­ties of movies. They leap over their previous work into a dimension beyond the well-crafted dramatic narrative; they make a huge, visionary epic in which they attempt to alter the perceptions of people around the world. Generally, they shoot this epic in what they believe is a state of super-enlightenment. They believe that with this film they’re literally going to bring mankind the word.” I think that feels like an accurate assessment of Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” and why the movie is more smoke than fire.

Will the audience come with Nolan this time? My instinct says yes…and no. “The Odyssey” is already a big enough phemonenon to more than justify its existence, and there’s every chance that it could sweep the Oscars. The Nolan bros are doing backflips over it. Yet I wonder how many viewers will experience the film the way I did: as a semi-interesting, high-and-mighty slog. I’m sorry, but “The Odyssey” is no “Oppenheimer,” and no “Gladiator” either. Nolan doesn’t need my advice, but if I were offering it, the first thing I’d say is: It might be time to take a break from historical epics. But what I’d really like to say is: Try something smaller for a change. Now that he’s ascended to the Mount Olympus of cinema, he might start considering the idea that less could be more. “The Odyssey” makes me wish that Christopher Nolan would come down off the peak of his own legend. He might seem even more of a wizard if he stopped trying to use movies to transcend what movies are.

Beijing prohibited 14 EU companies from obtaining Chinese dual-use goods on Friday, targeting Europe's defense industry shortly after the EU included 14 Chinese and Hong Kong firms in its 21st sanctions package against Russia.

Announcing the measures with immediate effect, the Chinese Commerce Ministry called the bloc's conduct "egregious" and demanded the EU "immediately correct its wrongdoing, eliminate the egregious impact, and safeguard the overall interests of China–EU relations with concrete actions."

The restrictions cover dual-use items, goods, software, and technology with both civilian and military applications, including rare earth elements used to build drones and chips.

Parties outside China are also barred from transferring Chinese-origin dual-use goods to any listed entity, though exporters may request permission in exceptional cases or when a shipment is deemed "truly necessary."

Rheinmetall leads the list, alongside Polish electronics producer Vigo Photonics, Italian electric motor manufacturer Lafert, French drone developer Cavok UAS, Czech truckmaker Tatra, Dutch naval engineering firm IHC Merwede, and several optics and laser companies.

Germany and France each have three entries, Italy and Poland each have two, and the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Lithuania each have one.

China's mission to the EU lodged a formal protest, voicing "strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition" to the measures and rejecting attempts by the bloc to place responsibility for the war in Ukraine on Beijing. It added that China "firmly opposes the EU's unwarranted listing and sanctioning of Chinese companies and citizens."

The 21st package subjected 51 entities to tighter export curbs on dual-use goods and technologies over their support for Russia's military and industrial complex. Companies based in India, Turkey, and the UAE were listed alongside those from mainland China and Hong Kong.

Brussels targeted small trade and logistics operators in port cities like Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Dalian, while Beijing focused on Europe's defense industry.

Link : https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2080754895188115771?s=20

Cui Hongjian, a former diplomat who heads European studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University, told the South China Morning Post (SCMP) that the disparity does not make the response any less reciprocal from Beijing's perspective, noting that successive EU packages have named far more Chinese firms overall than China has named in return.

"Since this whole episode arose from the Russia-Ukraine war, I think it's understandable that China is now pointing its retaliation at Rheinmetall," Cui said. "From Beijing's point of view, if it's going to retaliate, the retaliation has to bite."

- Also claims to have struck other military production sites in central Russia

- "We also achieved very strong results with long‑range strikes in the Caspian Sea – including vessels used in military cargo shipments involving Iran."

- Zelenskiy says Russia has been preparing to deploy another 30K North Korean soldiers in the Voronezh region since June, and North Korean plans to provide Russia with new ballistic missile launchers

- Separately Tyumen regional governor says a drone strike caused a fire at the oil refinery

* Cover Story

-Artificial intelligence may dominate headlines, but Barron's argues the larger and more durable investment theme is a global manufacturing renaissance driven by national security, supply-chain resilience and infrastructure renewal. Governments in the U.S., Europe, Japan and India are committing trillions of dollars to factories, energy systems, critical minerals and defense industries, creating a multidecade capital-spending cycle. Rather than chasing AI alone, investors should consider companies supplying engineering, construction materials, automation, equipment rental and copper, along with industrial leaders in Japan and South Korea that stand to benefit from sustained global reindustrialization.

* CEO Interview

No update

* Tech Trader

AMD used its Advancing AI event to position itself as the first credible full-scale challenger to Nvidia in AI infrastructure, unveiling its Helios rack platform while sharply raising forecasts for the AI chip and server CPU markets through 2030. Backed by customers including Microsoft, Oracle, Meta, OpenAI and Anthropic, the company is evolving from a chip supplier into a complete AI systems provider. Although investors remain cautious amid the semiconductor sector's recent correction, Barron's argues AMD has fundamentally strengthened its competitive position in the rapidly expanding inference-computing market.

* The Trader

-Artificial intelligence has become the market's dominant force, replacing the traditional "risk-on/risk-off" framework with an "AI-on/AI-off" dynamic that increasingly determines sector and stock performance. Barron's argues that investor sentiment now hinges less on the broader economy than on expectations for AI adoption and returns on massive technology spending. While AI leaders continue to dominate market indexes, slowing enterprise adoption and questions over productivity gains are fueling greater stock dispersion and raising the risk that any loss of confidence in AI could trigger a significant rotation across equity markets. Disney's new strategic partnership with Kraft Heinz is more than a food-service deal: it could become a template for monetizing Disney's unmatched brand loyalty through immersive corporate partnerships. While concerns persist over weak media assets, slowing theme park attendance and an aging film franchise portfolio, the alliance highlights CEO Josh D'Amaro's opportunity to expand high-margin experiential marketing across Disney's parks. If successful, these collaborations could open a new revenue stream and help offset pressures facing the company's traditional entertainment businesses.

* Feature

-The Trump administration wants to replace expiring temporary tariffs with a new, more permanent trade framework centered on Section 301 authorities, preserving roughly the same revenue while expanding tariffs as a strategic policy tool. The publication argues that businesses should prepare for prolonged uncertainty rather than a return to pre-tariff conditions, with additional duties on China, Russia-related trade and other sectors still likely. Companies are already simplifying product lines, delaying investment and increasing operational flexibility as tariffs become a lasting feature of global commerce rather than a temporary negotiating tactic.

-Coinbase remains well positioned even if Congress fails to pass the Clarity Act, as political and regulatory momentum has shifted decisively in favor of the cryptocurrency industry. While legislation would provide greater legal certainty and encourage broader institutional participation, the publication argues that growing bipartisan acceptance, pro-crypto regulatory initiatives under the Trump administration and continued investment by major financial institutions should support blockchain adoption regardless of the bill's fate. The main longer-term challenge for Coinbase may be increased competition rather than regulatory hostility as traditional financial firms expand into digital assets.

* Europe

-Barron's argues that Britain's new prime minister, Andy Burnham, faces an immediate test of financial credibility as investors scrutinize how he intends to fund an ambitious domestic agenda while preserving fiscal discipline. Rising government bond yields reflect market concerns that higher spending on social programs and defense could weaken public finances, recalling the turmoil that ended Liz Truss's premiership. Although Burnham's plans to decentralize economic power and boost regional productivity could strengthen long-term growth, Barron's contends that reassuring bond markets will be essential before any broader economic reforms can succeed.

* Commodities

-The U.S. campaign to reduce dependence on Chinese critical minerals is evolving from a policy objective into a large-scale geopolitical investment strategy. As Washington commits billions to developing domestic production and securing overseas supply chains, countries such as the Philippines, Argentina and Norway are emerging as potential strategic partners. The shift is expected to reshape global commodity markets, creating new opportunities for mining companies, critical-mineral producers and investors positioned to benefit from the realignment of supply chains away from China.

-The recent surge in oil prices above $100, driven by renewed fighting between the U.S. and Iran, is unlikely to mark the start of a sustained bull market. While geopolitical tensions continue to support crude prices, the publication believes several forces could pull oil lower, including a possible diplomatic push by the Trump administration, tighter Federal Reserve policy, and weaker Chinese buying as refiners draw on large strategic inventories instead of purchasing expensive imports. Unless the conflict significantly disrupts global supply, Barron's expects oil to remain range-bound and potentially trend lower.

* Streetwise

-Despite one of the strongest earnings seasons in decades, Barron's argues that exceptional corporate results alone may no longer be enough to propel the market materially higher. Investors remain focused on whether the enormous capital spending behind artificial intelligence will ultimately generate sustainable returns, while higher oil prices, rising bond yields and intensifying U.S.-China technological competition continue to weigh on sentiment. The publication remains constructive on equities overall, favoring semiconductors, hardware and financials, but cautions against excessive speculation, urging long-term investing over AI-driven trading or short-term market enthusiasm.

Prediction market Kalshi sent Netflix a cease-and-desist letter on Friday demanding that the streaming service take down the trailer for an upcoming documentary. In the letter, Kalshi claimed the trailer is “defamatory” and contains “both fabricated documents and false and misleading statements.”

“Instadocs: The Prediction Games” is a documentary about the rise of prediction markets. According to Netflix, the film — part of the streamer’s “Instadoc” series of fast-turnaround documentaries — features interviews with both Polymarket CEO Shayne Coplan and Kalshi CEO Tarek Mansour.

The trailer, however, focuses on a recent party in Las Vegas, where men who have “made millions of dollars on prediction markets, probably eight figures, just over the course of the World Cup” have gathered to watch the World Cup final. One of the guests declares, “I like betting on Kalshi,” while another shows off an apparent $5,000 bet on their phone.

However, Kalshi is currently banned from operating in Nevada due to a court order. In its cease-and-desist letter, Kalshi said the bet shown on the phone is actually a screenshot of a bet made on May 16, 2025 — long before the ban. But the company argued that in the trailer, Netflix “misled its millions of customers into believing this individual was able to successfully trade sport event contracts in Nevada on July 19, 2026.”

In its letter, Kalshi also said that it recently spoke to a Netflix employee who “agreed not to feature the receipt in the documentary when it is released” on Sunday, July 26.

“However — despite Kalshi demonstrating to this employee that the claims in the video were demonstrably false — Netflix inexplicably refused to remove the receipt from the trailer currently circulating on the homepage of the Netflix app,” the company said.

Netflix doesn’t dispute that the screenshot is of a bet from 2025, but a spokesperson told The Hollywood Reporter that none of the documentary footage was fabricated.

“The footage was filmed at the Winible World Cup Watch Weekend in Las Vegas on July 17, 2026,” the spokesperson said. “The featured trader with the trade on Spain showed us a screenshot of his bet, that was made in May 2025 prior to any Nevada court order. Any specific trades or bets referenced during that weekend are between the individual and the app in which they placed the trades.”

Foreign ministry urges EU to intervene to prevent Middle East conflict spreading beyond the region

Iran’s foreign ministry said a Ukrainian attack on an Iranian merchant vessel in the Caspian Sea early on Saturday caused an explosion that killed one sailor and injured another.

In a statement, the ministry said the Islamic republic would have “no doubt” about defending itself and urged European countries to hold Kyiv accountable if they were genuinely concerned about preventing a wider war.

The attack came during a pause in weeks of tit-for-tat strikes between Iran and the US. Each side has accused the other of violating a memorandum of understanding signed last month that established a ceasefire until mid-August to allow negotiations on a more durable peace agreement.

Iran and the US have interpreted the terms of the ceasefire agreement differently, particularly as it concerns the Strait of Hormuz, leading both sides to threaten the resumption of full-scale hostilities.

Iran reiterated on Saturday that it was not involved in the Russia-Ukraine war. Kyiv has long accused Tehran of supplying Russia with drones used in Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday accused Russia of helping Iran direct missile strikes in the Gulf.

“Since the beginning of July, we have recorded active Russian satellite surveillance of the Gulf states and US military facilities located there. These images subsequently appear in Iran,” Zelenskyy said on X.

“At the same time, there is a clear correlation between Russia’s satellite imagery of these sites and Iranian strikes — both before the attacks, in preparation for them, and afterward, to assess the damage inflicted.

There has been speculation in Tehran that the strike was intended to increase pressure on Iran by signalling that its northern borders could also be threatened if it failed to reach an agreement with Washington.

Iran’s Caspian ports have become increasingly important for trade as the US blockade has complicated access to its southern maritime routes. The northern corridor allows Iran to import goods from states around the Caspian and receive Chinese cargo transported overland by rail through Central Asia before reaching ports on the Caspian coast.

Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, in a phone call with EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, called for a “firm response” to the strike from the UN Security Council and the European Union, urging them to hold “those responsible for the attack, as well as their supporters, accountable”.

Relations between Tehran and Kyiv were already strained before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine because of the downing of Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752 near Tehran in January 2020.

Iran’s military admitted days later that it had mistakenly shot down the Boeing 737 with two surface-to-air missiles during a period of heightened military tensions with the US following the killing of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani.

All 176 people on board were killed. Ukraine and the families of many victims have continued to seek fuller accountability from Iran and have challenged Tehran’s explanation of the incident.

Yachtmaker Azimut Benetti seeks to steady customer nerves after Bayesian suit

Chair says Bayesian manufacturer’s legal challenge against Mike Lynch’s estate is ‘very specific to one shipbuilder’

The owner of the world’s largest luxury yacht builder has sought to reassure customers that an unprecedented €456mn lawsuit over the sinking of Mike Lynch’s Bayesian was “very specific to one shipbuilder”.

Last year, The Italian Sea Group (TISG), owner of Bayesian manufacturer Perini Navi, sued Lynch’s estate and members of the yacht’s crew, claiming the disaster caused severe reputational and commercial damage to the brand. Lynch’s estate has previously dismissed the claim as “cynical”.

Giovanna Vitelli, chair of Azimut Benetti, told the FT that it was “unheard of” for a yachtmaker to take legal action against a client amid an ongoing investigation.

She described the sinking of the Bayesian off the coast of Sicily in 2024, which killed seven people including UK tech tycoon Lynch and his daughter, as “a great mystery”, with investigators yet to establish whether the disaster was caused by human error or a design flaw.

Perini Navi said it has not sold a single vessel since the disaster. A preliminary report by the UK’s Marine Accident Investigation Branch identified structural “vulnerabilities” which may have contributed to the catastrophe.

“This is a course of action we’ve never seen before in the industry, and I want to reassure owners that it is highly unusual,” Vitelli said.

The legal action challenges long-established assumptions about the relationship between yacht builders and owners. Brokers say some clients have enquired about insurance protection against the risk of litigation by a shipyard following a major incident, while lawyers have warned clients should place greater emphasis on the financial strength and legal approach of the builder they choose.

Milan-listed TISG has faced pressures beyond the Bayesian incident.

It entered a court-supervised restructuring process earlier this year after its capital fell below the legal minimum and the group uncovered significant unauthorised cost overruns on yacht projects. On Monday, chief executive and majority shareholder Giovanni Costantino resigned, amid an ongoing effort to restructure the group.

In June five yacht owners successfully challenged court protections awarded to TISG that temporarily barred them from terminating their contracts, underscoring how financial distress at a shipyard can quickly spill over into disputes with customers.

TISG declined to comment.

Despite TISG’s problems, the superyacht industry remains one of Italy’s strongest manufacturing success stories. Although new orders have moderated from post-pandemic highs, demand for ultra-luxury yachts has proved resilient, while investors continue to place billion-euro bets on yachting infrastructure. 

This month, CVC agreed to sell marina group D-Marin for between €1bn and €1.5bn, the latest in a string of high-profile infrastructure deals highlighting the strategic value of the global yachting ecosystem.

“Europe has a chronic shortage of premium berths and marinas but it’s an important part of the yachting experience,” said Vitelli, who owns the Ligurian marina of Varazze operated by D-Marin.

Italy’s shipmakers account for roughly 56 per cent of global superyacht orders by volume, while the domestic boating industry generated more than €5bn in shipbuilding revenues last year.

Revenues at privately owned Azimut Benetti rose 15 per cent to €1.5bn in 2025 and the group has an order book worth roughly €2.6bn. Vitelli also revealed that the family-owned group’s net equity exceeded €500mn, a figure that had not previously been made public.

“Given the worst-case backdrop of tariffs, war and sanctions on Russia, we’re pleased with our performance,” she said.

Italy’s yachting industry exports about 90 per cent of its production.

Vitelli said US tariffs had only a limited impact on Azimut Benetti’s largest yachts, many of which are not delivered under the US flag and therefore do not pay tax in the country.

The company saw a slowdown in the smaller owner-operated segment around 50 feet, but said it had mitigated much of the disruption by accelerating shipments to the US ahead of the introduction of 15 per cent tariffs. 

“The US shows resilience but we remain cautious,” she said.  

Defence giants provide record backing for military start-ups

As drones and autonomous systems transform the battlefield, traditional defence companies start to act more like venture capitalists

The world’s largest defence companies have invested a record amount into military start-ups this year as they try to adapt to the rapidly evolving face of modern warfare.

So-called defence primes, with longstanding ties to western governments and militaries including Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems, have participated in a record $4.1bn in venture capital rounds so far this year, according to data compiled by Dealroom.

“The recent conflicts have highlighted the need for a modern type of warfare whereby existing established platforms coexist alongside new disruptive technologies,” said Gwen Billon, a partner at advisory-focused investment bank PJT, who helps lead aerospace and defence coverage.

“New defence technologies are here to stay and defence primes want to make sure they have exposure to these technologies.”

That shift was on display at this year’s flagship industry event in Farnborough outside London, where a record half of the 1,636 exhibitors were from the defence sector, where traditionally civil aerospace dominated.

Defence technology start-ups, which used the event to showcase their latest offerings, were being courted by bankers and potential investors, among them the biggest names in military hardware.

Governments have stepped up military spending in the face of recent conflicts, in particular the war in Ukraine, which has underlined the need for weapons that are faster and cheaper to produce, from interceptor missiles to autonomous drones.

The total value of global defence-related deals, including mergers and acquisitions and fundraisings, has already topped $40bn this year, putting it on track to smash the previous full-year record of $59bn in 2019, according to data compiled by Dealogic.

The biggest arms manufacturers are increasingly having to compete with more nimble, technology-focused rivals looking to ride a wave of increased government spending and rapid transformation. The total raised by defence and security start-ups has reached $39.8bn so far this year, according to data compiled by Dealroom.

Having once been able to concentrate on their core markets of fighter aircraft, battleships and small arms, defence primes are instead having to adapt to think more like venture capital investors.

French defence technology group Thales plans to buy Paris-listed Exail Technologies in a deal valuing the maritime robotics and navigation company at €3.9bn. Thales beat fellow French group Safran to clinch the deal. That same day, Lockheed Martin outbid rivals including Thales to buy naval technology group Ultra Maritime from private equity firm Advent for $3.45bn.

These bidding wars show increased appetite for large defence conglomerates to bolster their defence tech portfolios through M&A as well as investments in large fundraisings.

The high level of activity was also reflected by record attendance at Farnborough from the financial sector, with more than 650 people, including investors, bankers and funds from 350 organisations, according to event organisers.

Earlier this month, German drone maker Quantum Systems raised $1.2bn in fresh funds at a valuation of about $8bn, backed by investors including Airbus. British maritime defence company Kraken Technology on July 9 announced a fundraising of $175mn at the so-called unicorn valuation of $1bn, backed by investors including Rheinmetall. 

One executive from a top European defence company and an aerospace adviser said investors were mostly quizzing companies about their defence tech and the future of warfare based on lessons from Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine and the US battle with Iran, where aerial and naval drones and countermeasures have played a growing role.

The defence primes have increased investments into research and development activities, as well as into venture capital funds to gain early-stage exposure to potentially lucrative technologies. Thirteen of the world’s biggest arms makers, excluding Airbus and Boeing due to their large civil operations, are estimated to have increased their internal R&D spending by more than 25 per cent to $11.6bn from 2021 to 2026, according to analysis by Vertical Research Partners.

Britain’s BAE recently committed €50mn towards two funds headed by Lakestar and Expeditions, two of Europe’s best-known backers of defence start-ups. 

Similarly, Lockheed, the world’s largest arms maker by revenue, said last week it would invest at least $100mn in UK and European defence technology start-ups. The move followed plans to boost its start-up investment arm from $400mn to $1bn.

Frank St John, chief operating officer at Lockheed, told the FT that the company saw an “untapped capability here in Europe” in terms of defence tech, adding that Lockheed wanted to “water that garden and see what comes up”.

As part of the fund, the US group pairs start-up companies with its engineers working on new projects to see how it can “get their technology to fit into our offerings”, he said. 

Airbus’s German-based defence and space business said last week it had become the anchor investor in a new fund targeting technologies for both civil and military use. The E2D fund, with a target size of €500mn, will target investments in air, maritime and space.

The European aerospace and defence group has formed partnerships with several defence tech start-ups, including Ukraine’s SkyFall and Estonian missile maker Frankenburg Technologies.

Andreas Reinecke, head of sales for defence digital and cyber at Airbus Defence and Space, said recent conflicts, including Ukraine, had underlined the pace of technological change in modern warfare.

For Airbus, he said, it was therefore “essential” to have a “viable partner system” with smaller, more agile players, to be able to keep up with the rapid changes.