Category: Video

  • Iran to Control Reopening of Strait of Hormuz

    Iran to Control Reopening of Strait of Hormuz

    I was interviewed by France 24 about the energy crisis and the challenges of reopening the Strait of Hormuz amid the military stalemate. English transcript below the video.

    Rémi Bourgeot, you’ve been following this crisis very closely. Is this only the beginning?

    It obviously depends on how the military situation evolves. Donald Trump has been sending mixed signals, and markets have been swinging wildly in response.

    What we are seeing, in any case, is a military quagmire. Some geopolitical experts believe this is only the beginning. There are also signs of panic on the part of the U.S. administration, particularly from Donald Trump, who actually dislikes war. In fact, he prefers theatrical operations, like the one in Venezuela a few weeks ago. This, however, is a genuine quagmire.

    So he is sending signals suggesting he would like to stop, while striking as hard as possible. The Iranians, for their part, largely dominate the situation, but they are also sending signals through these exchanges, notably with Oman, to at least establish some kind of framework that could apply to a partial reopening.

    But what we are heading toward is Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz. It could be reopened in part, even quite broadly, but likely under Iranian control, given that the United States is not capable of reaching its objectives—assuming there ever were tangible ones.

    This Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz, over time, implies a different system, a different economic regime, notably involving tolls, of which we have already seen certain outlines, partially implemented. That does not mean this will be the final configuration, but costs will be raised and this transit system will be put in place in a way that serves Iran’s geopolitical interests.

    There have also been behind-the-scenes signals of exchanges between Iran and certain Gulf states—especially Qatar—to avoid strikes. But the situation is extremely tense, particularly with the United Arab Emirates, which has called on the United States to “finish the job,” to escalate, implicitly suggesting the deployment of ground troops. One could imagine Iran penalizing the United Arab Emirates more than other Gulf states.

    And in any case, this reopening cannot be achieved by force, only through negotiations?

    There is no real negotiation. There may have been emails or very indirect contacts, but there are very serious doubts about the reality of Donald Trump’s statements when it comes to negotiations.

    That said, the notion of de-escalation cannot be ruled out. This is not what we are seeing these days, but Trump is extremely uncomfortable with the situation and understands that he needs to withdraw. His political position is collapsing. There are very serious doubts about his personal condition and about the political system surrounding him. He is dismissing generals around him in order to hear what he wants to hear, to avoid bad news.

    What we are seeing is a genuine regime crisis developing in the United States, with much deeper roots. There is also an industrial side to this crisis, as the manufacturing base is unable to sustain what would be a long war.

    On the question of ground troops, this is perhaps the most revealing signal: there has been no such announcement. There has been no announcement either of an end to the war or of a withdrawal. Yet sending ground troops would mark the entry into a long war, with even more severe uncertainties—something that would be almost suicidal on Donald Trump’s part.

    Today, we are in an in-between situation, with a desire to get out of this quagmire, but Trump wants to be able to claim some form of victory and avoid humiliation. That humiliation is there in any case.

    To return to the very concrete consequences of this political and military deadlock, there has been much discussion in recent weeks about measures taken by countries to ration fuel, cut taxes, and provide subsidies. France, for the time being, is refusing to do any of this. Is that relevant?

    When it comes to acting on prices, taxes are often short-term measures. They can have positive effects. But the real situation we are facing is a form of shortage that is now emerging. This is about very concrete, material realities: ships that were supposed to arrive are not arriving. A shortage is taking hold, already very severe in Asia.

    It is worth recalling that Europe is much less dependent on the Gulf for its energy supply than many Asian countries. The various sources of supply—Norway, North Africa, the United States for LNG, and partly the Gulf—show that this dependence exists but remains limited. Some countries have larger reserves; this is the case for China, which also has greater autonomy, while still being largely dependent on the Gulf.

    The reality is therefore material: a shortage is taking shape. It is less pronounced in Europe, but it is already being felt. This is happening in the context of an economic crisis, particularly an industrial one, that was already acute before the start of this war. The issue of energy prices was already critical, with the effects of the war in Ukraine: loss of supply, attempts to reorient away from Russia, but at the cost of creating new dependencies—on the United States or on certain Gulf countries.

    We are thus seeing a form of hyper-globalization of energy networks that is now proving extremely vulnerable.

    On top of the crisis you’re describing, there is also inflation—the general rise in prices, including food prices to come. Should people in France prepare for this?

    Yes, it has a strong inflationary effect. We are not in the same situation as with the war in Ukraine, which came after the pandemic and very expansionary fiscal policies. We are not seeing the same kind of surge, but inflation is clearly rising.

    Above all, inflation is a composite index: behind it lies everyday life, constrained spending that affects certain activities and certain social groups more than others. That is what is particularly problematic, both socially and in terms of political instability.

    For more on the energy crisis and the Strait of Hormuz, read Partial Normalization in Energy Markets After Iran War Deescalation.

    This transcript has been slightly edited for clarity.

  • Iran Quagmire: Tackling the Long-Term Costs

    Iran Quagmire: Tackling the Long-Term Costs

    Click on the image to access the video

    Donald Trump is looking for an off-ramp from the Iran war quagmire. While threatening major escalation that would make parts of the region uninhabitable, he claims that negotiations are taking place.Although real peace negotiations are now out of reach, given the unbridgeable gap in demands, a deescalation is possible.

    Countries dependent on energy imports from the Gulf however brace for long term consequences even if the conflict halts. Production capacity is now damaged and Iran is likely to retain a high level of control over the strait.

    Europe is less exposed to the supply crisis than Asia but the energy price surge severely aggravates its multiple crises, from manufacturing to debt management. The relegation of nuclear energy leaves the continent particularly exposed to this succession of geopolitical crises, with governments constantly shifting from one external dependency to the next as shocks erupt.

    I took part in Al Jazeera’s Counting the Cost. Extracts of my interventions are available here.

  • From Greenland to Ukraine, the Fracturing of the West

    From Greenland to Ukraine, the Fracturing of the West

    Click on the image to listen to the recording on LinkedIn, in French

    Full transcript of my interview with France Info public radio on 18 January 2026.

    France Info: Hello, Rémi Bourgeot, thank you for joining us on France Info. In just 24 hours, do you think we have crossed all the thresholds that lead to a trade war, an economic war with the United States?

    Yes, in fact, we’ve been in this situation for quite some time. You’ll recall that last year, headlines were dominated by Donald Trump’s threats—threats of escalating tariffs—which ultimately led to a so-called “agreement” that was really just a series of demands accepted by the European Commission, including blanket tariffs of 15%, and, on top of that, Europe’s acceptance of very strict constraints, particularly to avoid over-regulating or challenging Californian tech giants. So that’s where we’re coming from. Things had quieted down a bit in recent months.

    So, yes, the end of this agreement was extremely unfavorable to the European Union, not only because of the tariffs but also because of the constraints that came with it, and Europe simply accepted the American demands?

    Absolutely. This agreement was extremely unfavorable to the European Union, not just because of the tariffs but also because of the constraints that accompanied them. Europe simply accepted the American demands. There wasn’t really any negotiation on the part of Ursula von der Leyen, who was later criticized by several European countries. We thought that was the end of it, but in reality, we’re seeing a much broader deterioration in relations between Europe and the United States—a genuine explosion within the Western bloc.

    This is particularly tied to the issue of Ukraine. We can see that the trade measures are targeting countries within the so-called “coalition of the willing.” So this is a much broader escalation. It seems that Trump actually wants to blow up NATO. This is a very aggressive show of force, which today goes far beyond trade—now a secondary issue. We’re in a frankly absurd situation with this Greenland issue. If there were a genuine strategic interest—and perhaps there is for the United States—they could achieve the same benefits through cooperation with Denmark, a country that is extremely close to the United States. Here, we’re seeing broader patterns in Donald Trump’s approach. It’s a much deeper, more long-term deterioration.

    The fracturing of the Western block—isn’t that exactly what Donald Trump wants? How can we respond? By activating the anti-coercion mechanism, for one. Emmanuel Macron and his team have indicated that he will call for this instrument to be activated among his European partners. Concretely, Rémi Bourgeot, this is being called an economic “bazooka.” What would it actually look like if this mechanism were triggered?

    Well, first of all, we should have threatened and entered into this showdown with Donald Trump from the very beginning, during the negotiations this summer, to avoid being crushed. We needed to understand that this was just the beginning. Today, we’re facing a much broader and more serious aggravation, so we can’t just defend ourselves on the trade front. We have to respond. These measures are part of a fairly broad framework. People talk about a “bazooka,” but it was originally designed to be used against other countries, particularly China. It requires a very large majority in Europe to implement, so it’s not a done deal. But at the very least, we must consider a response. Trump’s counter-response will be escalation, with the threat of economically crushing the Europeans, because his logic is one of humiliation. He has no respect for European leaders, and there are deep disagreements on burning geopolitical issues like Ukraine.

    Rémi Bourgeot, you’re describing a catastrophic scenario. How can Europe resist such escalation?

    The catastrophic scenario is war, which is unthinkable between Europe and the United States. But what we’re going to see now is escalation. This current escalation, with threats of additional 10% tariffs on the countries involved, was triggered because Europe sent a few soldiers—almost symbolically—to Greenland. On the surface, it’s almost nothing, but Trump tolerates no opposition, even to demands as extraordinary and absurd as acquiring Greenland. The relationship is in a dynamic of fracture. We’re going to see all kinds of escalations. But Trump does tend to back down when faced with firm resistance. China, for example, threatened further escalation and deployed its own “bazooka”—restricting the export of rare earth minerals—which created massive industrial problems for the United States. India, threatened with secondary sanctions to limit its trade with Russia, also reacted strongly. So Trump is sensitive to pushback.

    We need to understand this context of deteriorating relations with Europeans over the central issue of Ukraine, which is at the heart of this escalation.

    Thank you very much, Rémi Bourgeot, for your analysis as an economist and associate researcher at IRIS. This trade war has existed in reality since Trump’s return, but it seems to be taking a more concrete form in the last 24 hours, with these new tariffs announced by the American president and Europe’s announcement that it intends to retaliate.

  • Agricultural Crisis and EU-Mercosur Deal

    Agricultural Crisis and EU-Mercosur Deal

    A growing divide between those advocating for production, resilience and know-how, and a bureaucracy still mired in the limbo of the 1990s.

    The EU is rushing to finalize a trade deal with the Mercosur while simultaneously preparing protective measures against Chinese products that can no longer find a market in the United States.

  • Europe’s Trade Problem

    Europe’s Trade Problem

    I took part in Al Jazeera’s Inside Story discussion with Andy Mok and Ben Aris. Ailing European economies need to rebalance their trade relations with China and break out of their self-inflicted technological doom loop.

  • Competitiveness or Submission? Europe’s Dilemma

    Competitiveness or Submission? Europe’s Dilemma

    On Donald Trump’s orders, in exchange for unilateral tariffs of ‘just 15%’, the EU suddenly revises its digital regulations to open its market even wider to American Big Tech. But it’s all in the name of competitiveness…

    France 24 – 19 November 2025

  • Rare Earths: China’s Nuclear Option

    Rare Earths: China’s Nuclear Option

    Donald Trump said after a summit in South Korea with his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping that he had agreed to reduce tariffs on Chinese products to 47% in exchange for Beijing guaranteeing a supply of rare earths and buying American soybeans

  • French Debt: an Economic Impasse

    French Debt: an Economic Impasse

    I was on France 24 to discuss France’s political void and the toxic rhetoric about the IMF’s arrival—while the debt debate ignores the core issues: economic, technological, and educational challenges.
    Click the image to watch the video.

  • Europe is selling out its future to Trump

    Europe is selling out its future to Trump

    “I was on France Info TV yesterday discussing how, behind the threat of chaos, Trump is successfully pushing a new paradigm of unilateral tariff protection. While these tariffs are relatively modest, they come with a long list of demands aimed at deepening his partners’ dependencies in digital, military, and energy sectors. Meanwhile, Europe is sacrificing its technological future to prop up its legacy industries.

    Click the image to access the video (in French).

  • Trump is Forcing his Terms on his Vassals

    Trump is Forcing his Terms on his Vassals

    On France Info TV, discussing how Donald Trump is using tariff policy to assert economic and technological dominance over even his closest allies.

    Watch key excerpts, in French.