- Brève introduction
- Trump proclaims an “imminent” agreement with Iran and the reopening of Hormuz, but drones and tankers contradict this euphoria
- British Armed Forces Minister resigns
- Ukraine banks on isolating Crimea using drones and sends Russian oil production to its lowest level in a year
- SpaceX goes public with largest initial public offering (IPO) in history and makes Musk the world’s first billionaire
- Oil falls to its lowest level in almost two months: Hormuz’s fragile ‘peace dividend’
- Press review
- Editorial
Brève introduction
The day begins under the sign of a word that must be used with the greatest caution: “agreement”. President Donald Trump assures that the agreement with the jihadist, dictatorial and mafia oligarchy of Tehran – never “theocracy”, because there is nothing sacred in those who have made terror an instrument of state – is about to be signed, perhaps as early as this weekend, and the Strait of Hormuz would be immediately reopened.
And yet, while official optimism invades the chancelleries, American forces shot down two single-use Iranian drones last night and the regime blocked the passage of an oil tanker in the strait itself. Here, condensed into a single night, is the nature of what I describe as a war of varying temperatures: a conflict that no one can completely win or afford to lose, and whose outcome is announced and denied with equal ease.
In addition to the Iranian front, this analyst believes that the following news marks the news of the day: the attempt at peace in the Gulf; its effect on oil; the resignation of the British Minister of Defense – an acute symptom of the European inability to take its own security seriously –; the drone war by which Ukraine intends to suffocate Crimea; the IPO of SpaceX, which made Elon Musk the first billionaire in history and elevated space to the rank of a strategic frontier of the first order. It is therefore appropriate to separate the true from the false.
Trump proclaims an “imminent” agreement with Iran and the reopening of Hormuz, but drones and tankers contradict this euphoria
Facts
President Trump declared Thursday at the White House that he had reached “a major agreement” on the war with Iran, and said that the Strait of Hormuz “will officially open as soon as we sign, which could be very soon, maybe this weekend in Europe.” He described it as a “somewhat conceptual” memorandum of understanding, with Vice President JD Vance involved in the negotiation, and said he had suspended attacks already planned in view of the progress. Tehran, on the other hand, maintains that it has not yet made a final decision.
The project which is circulating – verified with multiple sources and not yet confirmed by the Iranian side – would envisage a sixty-day extension of the ceasefire, the reopening of Hormuz without tolls, the removal by Iran of the mines it has laid, the lifting of the American blockade on Iranian ports and some sanctions waivers so the regime can sell crude oil, as well as negotiations on the nuclear program. The guiding principle invoked by Washington is that of “relief for performance”.
The background music, however, was that of gunfire: US forces overnight shot down two Iranian suicide drones launched against transiting merchant ships, and the regime’s navy halted the progress of an oil tanker, with explosions audible at dawn on Friday. The war, let us remember, broke out on February 28 and has already cost thousands of lives.
Implications
Any truce that could put an end to the carnage and free the planet’s main energy artery is welcome. But a ceasefire is not peace, and a “conceptual” memorandum is not a treaty. My criticism, which I have held since the first day of this campaign, remains intact: Iran was attacked – and for more than sufficient reasons – without a serious plan for the post-war, without any strategy in case the regime gave in or collapsed.
This is where the paradox of decapitation reappears: the difficulty lies not in the elimination of the moderates – there were none – but in the fact that the surviving hawks who today de facto govern the apparatus of power lack, each separately, the ideological authority and personal ascendancy necessary to impose discipline on their peers and make them accept concessions. Khamenei – inexplicably described as “supreme” – could impose silence at the negotiating table; the triumvirate which de facto rules has no arbiter. This is why every attempt at an agreement coexists with a drone launched against a merchant ship.
Perspectives et scénarios
Scenario A – Signature and progressive normalization (35%): the memorandum is signed this weekend, the mine clearance of Hormuz begins and the oil situation calms down. Fragile, but plausible.
Scenario B – Ceasefire without a complete agreement (40%): the truce is holding on as best it can, without a definitive text, with recurring incidents in the strait. This is, at present, the most probable outcome and the most consistent with the contained systemic divide running through the regime.
Scenario C – Rupture and relapse (25%): a major naval incident or a veto by the hawks derails negotiations and sends the price of oil above $ 100. Hoping for anything else would be pure wishful thinking (voluntary illusion, confusing desire with reality).
British Armed Forces Minister resigns
Facts
John Healey, Defense Secretary of the United Kingdom and one of Ukraine’s strongest defenders within the Cabinet, tendered his resignation on June 11, accompanied by that of the Minister of the Armed Forces, Al Carns, a former Royal Marine. In his letter to Keir Starmer, Healey was blunt: “You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources the nation needs to defend the country at this time of increasing threats. HAS”
The trigger is the long-delayed Defense Investment Plan, which, according to Treasury calculations, would take spending to a meager 2.68% of GDP in 2030, while Starmer had promised 2.5% for 2027 and 3% for 2035. General Richard Barrons, co-author of the defense review, denounced the fact that the government is “actively going backwards”. Downing Street has urgently appointed Security Minister Dan Jarvis as Defense Minister.
This blow comes at the worst time: London is leading the multinational mission in the Strait of Hormuz and NATO’s Arctic Sentry operation in the High North, and is keeping alive the GCAP program – the sixth generation fighter it is developing with Japan and Italy – barely supported by a three-month bridge contract. The Italian Defense Minister, Guido Crosetto, who is leading an identical budgetary battle in Rome, immediately expressed his solidarity.
Implications
There is no better X-ray of the European disease than this resignation. While Russia maintains a war economy and the United States bluntly warns that it will reduce its role as ultimate guarantor, a nuclear power like the United Kingdom is unable to finance the defense review that it itself ordered.
I continue to denounce it: the European political class of the 21st century, mediocre and myopic, still does not take its security or its destiny seriously. And the case of the GCAP is doubly symptomatic – after the sinking of the Franco-German FCAS/SCAF program, British budgetary uncertainties now threaten the only European fighter project which seemed to be on course. Europe is debating decimals while the world is rearming itself.
Perspectives et scénarios
Jarvis can be expected to close ranks and the government will present the Plan before the NATO summit in Turkey next month, fudging the numbers. But the political wound is deep: Starmer, already called into question by his own people, suffers a new hard blow, and the signal sent to allies – and adversaries – is devastating. We should demand coherence, not maximalism: if Europe wants to be taken seriously, it must walk the talk.
Ukraine banks on isolating Crimea using drones and sends Russian oil production to its lowest level in a year
Facts
Robert Brovdi, “Madyar”, commander of Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces, has made public his next campaign: cutting off Crimea from Russian territory. The intensification of drone attacks against the occupied rear guard has paralyzed military logistics and fuel supplies – to the point of forcing Moscow to ration fuel on the peninsula – and last night a large fire ravaged the Afipsky refinery in Krasnodar Krai, following a Ukrainian attack. Russian oil production has fallen to its lowest level in a year.
General Syrskyi estimates the number of Russian military targets hit in May at nearly 180,000. The war, however, retains its two faces: on the night of June 11, Russia launched two Iskander ballistic missiles and 221 drones – 195 of which were intercepted – and claimed occupation of the towns of Okhrymivka, in Kharkiv, and Rozkishne, in Donetsk. At the same time, a senior Lockheed Martin official admitted that the company could not guarantee delivery times for Patriot missiles to Washington’s allies.
Implications
We are facing the clearest expression of wars of variable intensity: Ukraine, inferior in numbers, compensates with its technological audacity and transforms the cheap drone into a strategic weapon, thus eroding the energetic and logistical backbone of the aggressor. This is the first truly favorable assessment that kyiv has displayed for a long time.
But let’s not kid ourselves: Russia continues to gain ground, village by village, at a human cost that only an autocracy can afford. And Lockheed’s confession regarding the Patriot puts the finger on the wound: the West’s defense industrial base is overwhelmed. Our position is unequivocal: we are opposed to Russian aggression and the use of force to acquire territory, and in favor of Ukraine being given the means to defend itself.
Perspectives et scénarios
If the campaign to isolate Crimea bears fruit, Ukraine could fundamentally upend the Russian logistical equation in the south as summer approaches. The risk is that Moscow will respond with a new massive wave against the Ukrainian energy network. The industrial asymmetry of the West – incapable of producing interceptors at the pace required by the front – will be, for one more quarter, the real Achilles heel of the Allied cause.
SpaceX goes public with largest initial public offering (IPO) in history and makes Musk the world’s first billionaire
Facts
SpaceX confirmed Thursday that it will be listed on Nasdaq on Friday in the largest initial public offering (IPO) in history. The company has priced more than 555 million shares at $135 each, bringing its valuation to around $1.8 trillion – surpassing Tesla, Meta or Walmart – and will allow it to raise a record $75 billion, well beyond Saudi Aramco’s $29.4 billion in 2019. operation made Elon Musk the first billionaire in history.
However, all is not rosy: the company lost 4.9 billion in 2025 despite a turnover of 18.7 billion, declares in its prospectuses to hold 18,712 bitcoins and, in a forecast bordering on science fiction, claims to be able to generate more than 28,500 billion dollars in future revenues. based on promises that have not yet been verified – data centers in orbit, human presence on Mars. The real engine of value remains Starlink, profitable and expanding, while the artificial intelligence subsidiary xAI is in the red.
Implications
Beyond the arithmetic of the record, this news has a geostrategic importance of the first order. Space – and particularly the Starlink constellation, which has already demonstrated its military value in Ukraine – is asserting itself as a decisive strategic frontier, and its control remains concentrated in the hands of a private actor with quasi-sovereign power.
The fact that a single individual controls access to space, connectivity to half the planet and an artificial intelligence platform raises questions of dependence and sovereignty that no Western government should view with indifference. Stock market euphoria should not cloud judgment: valuation is based on heroic expectations, and financial history is strewn with promises that reality has failed to keep.
Perspectives et scénarios
If Starship and orbital data centers deliver on their promises, we will see the consolidation of a new category of private technological and space power. Otherwise, the market will have inflated the biggest bubble in its history. In any case, Europe – which does not even finance its fighter planes – is contemplating this race from the stands, without a major program of its own. One more lesson that our leaders would do well not to ignore.
Oil falls to its lowest level in almost two months: Hormuz’s fragile ‘peace dividend’
Facts
The barrel of Brent fell on Friday to settle around 89 dollars, its lowest level in almost two months, driven by Trump’s declarations concerning an imminent agreement and the reopening of the strait. Despite everything, crude oil is still up more than 30% since the start of the war on February 28, and Goldman Sachs maintains its forecast of $90 for the fourth quarter, with risks “in both directions.”
Analysts warn that, even if there is an agreement, full normalization will require clearing mines from the Strait of Hormuz, recommissioning inactive fields and repairing damaged facilities – so relief will be gradual, not instantaneous. US inflation, meanwhile, has reached its peak. highest level in years due to rising energy costs.
Implications
The market is banking on hope, but is keeping its hands on its wallet: it anticipates a detente without yet believing in lasting peace. For an importing and energy-vulnerable Europe, and particularly for Spain, each dollar of Brent is a political variable of the first order – it weighs on prices, conditions growth and reduces the budgetary margin at the very moment when we are demanding more defense spending. The “peace dividend” exists, but it hangs by a thread as thin as the will of the hawks of Tehran.
Perspectives et scénarios
A signing this weekend could push Brent towards the $80 mark; an incident in the strait would easily bring it back above 100. Volatility, not calm, will remain the dominant currency of the energy market as long as the Iranian regime holds the key to Hormuz.
Press review
Overview of the way in which the leading international press presents the five topics of the day:
Reuters/AP/AFP
Factual and cautious tone: the agreement “is close” but Tehran has not yet made a decision; they underline the residual tensions in Hormuz (drones shot down, oil tanker immobilized).
The Wall Street Journal / CNBC / Bloomberg
Reading the markets: fall in Brent, relief in the face of inflation and doubts about the strength of the truce; maximum deployment around SpaceX’s record IPO.
Financial Times / The Economist
Emphasis placed on the fragility of the “conceptual” framework and the risk of an agreement without architecture for the post-crisis; cold analysis of SpaceX’s valuation.
The Times / The Telegraph / The Guardian / BBC
Healey’s resignation made headlines in the British newspapers: Starmer crisis, debate on defense spending and doubts about GCAP.
Le Monde / Le Figaro / Les Échos
Focus on European budgetary incapacity and the shadow that the British crisis casts on common defense; echo of the previous FCAS.
FAZ / Die Welt / Die Zeit
European defense and industry; link established between the British resignation and the German debate on rearmament and spending.
The New York Times / The Washington Post / Politico
Presidential coverage: skepticism of Trump’s announcement and verification of the project; large place given to Musk and the “first billionaire”.
Fox News / Washington Times / National Interest
Your support for the “agreement” presented as a success of Trump’s iron fist; celebration of SpaceX’s entrepreneurial achievement.
Kyiv Independent / Ukrinform / Kyiv Post
Drone campaign, isolation of Crimea, Afipsky refinery and fall in Russian production presented as a turning point favorable to kyiv.
TASS / Russia Today
Minimization of internal damage, highlighting the occupation of Okhrymivka and Rozkishne and presenting Russia as master of the initiative.
Al Jazeera / Al Arabiya / Asharq Al Awsat / Arab News
Central role of the Gulf: details of the project, mediator role of the Arab States and the Emirate of Qatar, and caution regarding Hormuz.
Jerusalem Post / Israel Hayom / Yedioth Ahronoth
Vigilance on nuclear guarantees and skepticism regarding any relaxation of sanctions against the Tehran regime.
South China Morning Post / China Daily
Economic analysis of the SpaceX IPO and the price of crude oil; interest in the technological dependence that the Starlink constellation reinforces.
Editorial
There are days that are worth a treatise on political science, and this is one of them. At the very dawn when a president proclaims peace in the Gulf, his planes shoot down Iranian drones above a merchant ship: this image sums up, better than any essay, the world of wars at variable temperatures in which we operate. So I will not join the chorus of euphoria. I rejoice – of course – in anything that will end the hemorrhage and reopen the greatest energetic artery on the planet; but a “conceptual” memorandum is not peace, and the Tehran regime, this jihadist, dictatorial and mafia oligarchy which made terror an instrument of state, did not become reliable overnight.
He was attacked with more than sufficient reasons and without a plan for the next day; we now negotiate without guarantee that the hawks who are in fact in charge – without an arbiter to discipline them – accept what their emissaries sign. I applaud the firmness; I continue to demand the foresight and medium- and long-term planning that have been conspicuous by their absence. Tactical brilliance, strategic mediocrity.
And while the Middle East holds its breath, Europe once again offers the spectacle of its smallness. The resignation of a British Defense Minister because his own government refuses to fund the defense he himself ordered is not a palace anecdote: it is the symptom of a continental disease that I continue to describe.
A mediocre and myopic political class debates the decimals of GDP while Russia maintains its war economy, Washington announces its withdrawal and the last major European fighter program – after the sinking of the FCAS – trembles for lack of budget. I’m not asking for impossible maximalism; I ask for consistency. Anyone who aspires to be taken seriously must walk their talk, and Europe has been preaching without action for too long.
At the other end of the chessboard, a man becomes the first billionaire in history by setting the price of the sky. SpaceX’s IPO is not only a financial achievement: it is proof that space is now a strategic frontier of the first order and that its control can be concentrated in private hands with quasi-sovereign power.
Celebrating the audacity of the entrepreneur does not exempt us from the prudence of the analyst – neither are heroic valuations inevitable, nor is it desirable for a single will to govern both access to space, the connectivity of half the world and a platform of artificial intelligence. Atlanticists at heart and Europeanists by conviction, we observe this race with as much admiration as concern: admiration for the one who leads it, concern for a Europe which has not even crossed the starting line. Reason, once again, is at the center: neither blind euphoria nor sterile catastrophism. Only common sense.
