Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

WiseTech has started notifying staff of redundancies linked to an AI transformation, but an internal email to its China team omitted the term “AI”, replacing it with “global transformation”. Employees have been waiting nearly three months for clarity as the company prepares to cut roughly 2,000 jobs.Redundancy Rollout Tied to AI TransformationThe logistics‑software firm announced in late February that it would eliminate almost 30% of its 7,000‑strong global workforce across 40 countries. The process began in South Korea and Mexico and is slated to start in Australia next week.Announcement: late February 2026Targeted cuts: ~2,000 jobs (30% of staff)Countries affected: 40Numbers Behind the CutsThe scale of the layoff represents the single largest workforce reduction in WiseTech’s history. With a headcount of 7,000, a 30% reduction translates to 2,000 positions being eliminated.Legal Nuances Prompting the China Email ChangeStaff in the internal WiseTech Global Teams chat noted that the Chinese version of the redundancy email swapped “AI transformation” for “global transformation” and omitted the explanatory line about AI. Employees asked CEO Zubin Appoo why the wording was altered, referencing a recent Chinese court ruling that awarded a dismissed worker A$53,000 after being replaced by AI.Appoo replied that ‘different jurisdictions have different legal and regulatory requirements’, suggesting the omission was a precautionary legal measure.Employee Morale and Union ResponseMonths of uncertainty have left staff “anxious” and “sad”, with morale described as low. The union Professionals Australia received a petition signed by nearly 600 employees demanding transparent consultation and fair redundancy packages. Union membership among technical staff has risen by over 30% in eight weeks.What Lies Ahead for WiseTech’s WorkforceWith the redundancy process expanding to additional regions, employees await clearer guidance on severance, future roles, and the company’s AI strategy. The legal sensitivity demonstrated in China may shape how WiseTech communicates future workforce changes globally.

The UN Court's Landmark Ruling on Workers' RightsThe top United Nations court has ruled that workers and unions have the right to strike under a key international treaty, an opinion that could shape labour laws around the world.International Court of Justice (ICJ) President Yuji Iwasawa announced on Thursday that the court was "of the opinion that the right to strike of workers and their organisations is protected" under the International Labour Organization's (ILO) 1948 Freedom of Association treaty.The finding came in a 10-4 ruling by the court's 14-member panel, resolving a long-standing dispute between workers' and employers' representatives over whether the treaty – known as Convention 87 – implicitly protects workers' right to strike.The Legal Interpretation of Convention 87The ILO, a United Nations agency that sets global labour standards, had asked for the advisory opinion in November 2023 amid the disagreement over the treaty's interpretation.Although ICJ judges affirmed that the treaty enshrines the right to strike, they emphasised their opinion was narrow. The conclusion "does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope or conditions for the exercise of that right," Iwasawa clarified.Convention 87, which lays out protections concerning workers' and employers' freedom to organise, establish and join federations, has been ratified by 158 countries worldwide.The Court's Reasoning Behind the DecisionIn its 43-page advisory opinion, the ICJ reasoned that strikes are "one of the main activities engaged in and tools used by workers and their organisations to promote their interests and improve conditions of labour"."At the same time, freedom of association is instrumental in facilitating workers' organisations to take collective action to further and defend the interests of their members, including through the exercise of the right to strike," the opinion continued.The judges concluded that the right to strike is "in line with the object and purpose" of the convention, effectively ending what the ILO described as "a long-standing difference of views" over Convention 87 among employers and workers.Global Implications for Labor RightsWhile the ICJ ruling is not legally binding, many local courts view the ICJ's opinions as authoritative precedents. Labour advocates expect it will influence countries that have not yet recognised employees' right to strike.Harold Koh, who represented the International Trade Union Confederation, told the court the case was "about more than legal abstractions". "It will affect the real rights of tens of millions of working people around the world," he emphasized.The ILO noted that asking the ICJ to resolve such a disagreement was an "exceptionally rare" move, highlighting the significance of this ruling in international labor relations.Future of Workers' Rights WorldwideThis advisory opinion could lead to renewed efforts to strengthen labor protections in countries where the right to strike has been restricted or contested. The ruling provides international legal backing for workers' collective action.Employer groups may now face increased pressure to negotiate in good faith, knowing that international law supports workers' rights to organize and strike. The ruling may also influence future interpretations of other labor-related international conventions.As global labor markets continue to evolve, this ICJ opinion could serve as a foundation for addressing emerging challenges in workers' rights, including those in the gig economy and digital workplaces.

The LeadHS2, the UK's flagship high-speed rail project, has officially become the most expensive infrastructure endeavor in British history, with costs soaring to £102.7bn and trains potentially not running until 2039. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander has labeled the original design a "massively over-specced folly" and the cost increases "obscene," yet continues to defend the project despite its clear failures.The Escalating Costs of HS2The project's financial trajectory has been nothing short of disastrous. What began as a more modest proposal has now ballooned to over £100bn, with trains potentially delayed until 2039—decades after initial promises. To put this in perspective, the cost has escalated so dramatically that it dwarfs even other famously extravagant projects like Trump's White House renovations or Dubai's Burj Khalifa. Despite nine different transport secretaries overseeing the project since its inception, the budget has consistently spiraled out of control, with no end in sight.Political Failures and MismanagementSuccessive UK governments have failed to take responsibility for this unfolding disaster. The project originated as a "vanity project" of the David Cameron coalition, with fundamentally flawed design choices including the wrong route, wrong speed, and improper termini. Prime Ministers from Cameron to Johnson to Sunak have all lacked the political courage to cancel the project, with Sunak merely scrapping the Manchester leg, making what remains even worse value for money. Civil servants and advisors have been overwhelmed by the 30,000-strong HS2 bureaucracy, while oversight bodies like the National Audit Office have failed to provide adequate scrutiny.The Case for CancellationThe strongest argument for HS2 is its cancellation. With no track laid and only two viaducts completed out of 52, the project is still in its early stages. The £44bn already spent should be treated as "sunk costs," and the focus should shift to more beneficial investments. Contrary to claims that cancellation would be prohibitively expensive, there's no logical scenario where the £60bn still planned for HS2 would provide better value than reallocating those funds elsewhere. Cancellation would also free up valuable urban development sites around London Euston and Birmingham's Curzon Street, which currently resemble construction disaster zones.Alternative Investments for Britain's FutureThe funds currently committed to HS2—potentially over £100bn—could transform Britain's infrastructure landscape. Instead of focusing on marginal time savings for journeys between London and Birmingham, the government could invest in re-signaling, electrification, and urban transit systems. Britain currently has only nine tram networks or metros, compared to France's 30 and Germany's 60. The annual £7bn HS2 budget could build new hospitals, schools, care centers, youth clubs, and courtrooms across the nation—investments that would address far more pressing needs than marginally faster rail travel for a small segment of the population.

Six-Month Contempt Sentence for LC&F; Founder Over Illegal Asset SalesFormer London Capital & Finance chief Michael Thomson was sentenced to six months in prison for contempt of court after admitting he breached a restraining order by selling luxury items, including horse saddles and a hot tub. His wife Debbie Thomson received a suspended six‑month term.Financial Scale of Breaches and Compensation PayoutsBreached SFO restraint order by receiving a £2,000 holiday refund and selling assets worth almost £5,800.Earlier breach involved a £95,000 transfer to his wife to conceal funds.SFO estimates the Thomsons dissipated over £100,000 in assets.LC&F collapsed after selling £236 million of mini‑bonds.As of February 2024, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme has paid out more than £173 million to victims (£58 million from industry funding, £115 million from government top‑up).Implications for SFO Enforcement and Investor Confidence in Mini‑Bond MarketThe case underscores the Serious Fraud Office’s aggressive stance on post‑collapse asset recovery and highlights lingering vulnerabilities in the UK mini‑bond sector, where speculative investments and opaque fund flows contributed to the 2019 failure of LC&F.Future Regulatory Scrutiny and Potential ReformsAccording to Paul Napper, head of proceeds of crime at the SFO, the inquiry will continue on behalf of thousands of investors. The sentencing may prompt tighter oversight of restraint orders and reinforce the need for robust compensation mechanisms for victims of similar schemes.

The Lead: First Presidential-Level Nuclear Monitoring Russian President Vladimir Putin and Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko have taken part via video conference in a joint nuclear forces exercise, marking the first time the two leaders have directly participated in such a training event. While senior military officials from both countries have conducted similar exercises quarterly, this direct presidential involvement signals heightened attention to the nuclear capabilities of the Russia-Belarus alliance. The Strategic Exercise: Expanding Nuclear Capabilities Opening the meeting held via videolink and broadcast live on the Kremlin's website, Putin stressed that the use of nuclear weapons remains "an extreme and exceptional measure for ensuring the national security" of the two countries. "Today, as part of the exercises, we are conducting the first joint training of the armies of Russia and Belarus on managing strategic and tactical nuclear forces," he said. At the same time, the Russian leader said the Russian-Belarusian nuclear triad – which are nuclear weapons capable of being deployed by land, sea and air – must continue to serve as "a reliable guarantor of the sovereignty of the Union State of Russia and Belarus" amid rising global tensions and emerging threats. According to Putin, the drills are aimed at practising coordination and interaction between military officials in the event of nuclear weapons use, including weapons deployed on the territory of Belarus. The Military Capabilities: Advanced Weapon Systems Demonstrated Russia's Ministry of Defence said in a statement that its forces launched a Yars ballistic missile and a Zircon hypersonic missile as part of missile tests during the nuclear drills. According to the ministry, the crew of a nuclear-powered submarine launched a Sineva intercontinental ballistic missile from a submerged position as part of the drills. The Russian military also conducted a launch of a Yars intercontinental ballistic missile from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome towards a testing range in Russia's Kamchatka region. In Belarus, a combat crew of the Belarusian armed forces carried out a practical launch of a ballistic missile from an Iskander-M missile system at the Kapustin Yar testing range, the ministry said. The exercises also involved Tu-95MS strategic bombers, which launched hypersonic air-launched cruise missiles, while a MiG-31 aircraft carried out a launch of a Kinzhal hypersonic missile, according to the statement. The Regional Impact: Heightened Security Measures The joint drills held from Tuesday to Thursday were met with concern from Ukraine and its NATO allies. Kyiv has repeatedly accused Moscow of planning to launch a new attack from Belarus, either on its territory or one of its NATO allies, such as neighbouring Baltic states. Ukraine's Security Service (SBU) said on Thursday that its units and the army were "carrying out a comprehensive set of enhanced security measures in the northern regions of our country" bordering Belarus. The measures – including stepped up checks of individuals and properties – "will serve as an effective deterrent to any aggressive actions or operations by the enemy and its ally", the SBU said in a statement. Separately on Thursday, a Ukrainian drone attack on a town in Russia's Bryansk border region killed three rail workers when it hit a locomotive at a station, Russia's state RZhD rail network said. Russian border towns and villages regularly come under Ukrainian fire as Moscow's offensive against Ukraine has dragged on into a fifth year. The International Response: NATO Convenes Amid Tensions NATO foreign ministers were scheduled to meet in Helsingborg, Sweden, on Thursday and Friday to discuss how to ensure that support for Ukraine remains substantial and sustainable for the long term. The meeting comes as Russia's military actions in Ukraine continue and as concerns grow about the expansion of military exercises involving nuclear capabilities. Earlier this week, Ukraine launched what Russian officials described as one of the largest drone barrages of the war towards Moscow, killing at least five people. These reciprocal military actions demonstrate the escalating tensions in the region and the increasing risk of broader conflict.

The Olympic LegacyAsh Moloney briefly became the face of Australian athletics after securing the country's first Olympic decathlon medal in dramatic circumstances at the Tokyo 2021 Games. The 26-year-old surged home in the 1500m, egged on by teammate Cedric Dubler, to claim bronze in a moment that inspired a nation. This achievement represented the pinnacle of his decade-long career in the grueling 10-discipline event.The TransitionAfter years of injury recovery, a new coaching relationship, and what he admits was sheer boredom with the decathlon, Moloney has made a bold and risky transformation. He has abandoned the event that brought him glory to pursue a new career in the 400m hurdles. "It's just fun, it's a completely different challenge," Moloney explains of his switch. "I've been ambidextrous my whole life, I can sprint hurdle on both legs. It almost just seemed like why not? Why not give it a try? Get that question out of my head."The Performance DataMoloney's rapid improvement in his new event is remarkable. Since his first competitive 400m hurdles in February, when he finished in 57 seconds, he has consistently lowered his times. Two weeks later in Hobart he ran sub-53s, before recording two times under 52s before nationals in April. At the national championships, he ran under 50 seconds for the first time, finishing third in the final. "I believe I can make Comm Games," Moloney says. "I believe I can go 48 [seconds]."The Impact on Australian AthleticsMoloney's transition comes at a significant moment for Australian athletics. Before the emergence of new generation athletes like Gout Gout and Lachie Kennedy leading Australia's charge towards Brisbane 2032, Moloney represented the future of the sport. His move to hurdles adds depth to Australia's middle-distance and hurdles program, complementing the emergence of sprint stars like Lachie Kennedy, who is now also his coach.The Relationship EvolutionThe decathlon teammates' relationship was tested in the aftermath of Tokyo, with Moloney previously suggesting that the public's interest in Dubler's contribution sometimes overshadowed his own achievement. While Moloney offers only a "no comment" when asked to elaborate on their current relationship, Dubler maintains there's no bad blood. "It's just a change of situation, a change of coaches and perspective," Dubler explains. The two athletes have chosen different paths since the Games, with Dubler continuing to compete in decathlon while targeting his own Commonwealth Games selection.The Future OutlookWith Moloney and Dubler now competing in different events, Australian athletics stands to benefit from their specialized focus. Moloney's renewed enthusiasm for his new event, freed from the physical toll of ten disciplines, has given him a fresh perspective on competition. "Honestly, I was bored with decathlon, I just wanted a new challenge," he admits. As he prepares for the Oceania championship showdown in Darwin and potentially the Commonwealth Games, the former Olympic bronze medalist is proving that reinvention can be as rewarding as achieving initial success.

The Lead: One Nation's Standalone Climate Denial As the populist right-wing One Nation party gains momentum in Australian polls, it maintains a firm stance against decades of climate science evidence showing the planet and Australia are warming. The party claims to be the only political force in Australia questioning climate science, but experts say this position is not only scientifically baseless but increasingly out of step with global trends in climate misinformation. The Event Details: One Nation's Climate Contradictions One Nation's position on climate change is rooted in denial and conspiracy theories, despite overwhelming scientific evidence. The party's energy and climate policies have previously been literal cut-and-pastes from the now-defunct climate denial group the Galileo Movement. Currently, One Nation rejects the scientific consensus that the planet and Australia are warming, claiming extreme weather was more prevalent before 1960—a position climate scientists have compared to believing the Earth is flat. The party also wants Australia to leave the Paris Agreement and would push to close down the federal climate change department "and all related agencies, regulations and programs." They proudly declare: "We are the only political party to question climate science." The Data Analysis: Australia's Unequivocal Warming Trend Despite One Nation's claims, Australia has experienced significant warming since 1910. The Bureau of Meteorology's official long-term climate dataset shows Australia has warmed by 1.5°C since 1910. Temperature readings before this period are not included in the official dataset because they were often taken with non-standardized equipment, making them less reliable. Research into pre-1910 temperature records shows temperatures from 1860 to 1909 were similar to those from 1910 to 1959. Since 1960, both maximum and minimum temperatures have risen significantly. The independent Berkeley Earth group's analysis of historical temperature data confirms Australia has warmed substantially since the 1880s. One Nation points to a single weather station in Newcastle (Nobby's) to claim no pattern of warming exists—a classic example of cherry-picking data while ignoring the broader evidence showing temperatures are warming across Australia. The Impact Analysis: Political Consequences of Climate Denial One Nation's climate denial positions have significant political implications in Australia. Research from CSIRO a decade ago suggested that views on climate change can be influenced by how a person votes, rather than the other way around. This means votes for One Nation could lead more people to reject established climate science. Dr. John Cook, an expert on climate science denial, notes that One Nation is "not only out of touch with the scientific evidence, they're even out of touch with the rest of the climate denial community." Over the past decade, climate misinformation has transitioned from science denial to attacking climate solutions, as the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming has become undeniable. Prof. Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a climate scientist at Australian National University, emphasizes: "There's a wealth of evidence that extreme heat events are increasing worldwide since the 1950s. We see increased intensity of droughts and heatwaves and the intensity of tropical cyclones is increasing." The Prediction: Future of Climate Politics in Australia As climate impacts worsen in Australia—with more frequent and intense heatwaves, bushfires, and extreme weather events—One Nation's climate denial stance may become increasingly untenable politically. The party's net zero conspiracies, including claims that climate action is part of a plot to create a "socialist Australia," are based on misinformation and misrepresentations of statements by figures like former World Economic Forum chair Klaus Schwab. One Nation's assertions that renewable energy is causing electricity price increases are also contradicted by experts. Research from CSIRO suggests that if 82% of Australia's electricity came from renewables backed by storage, the cost of generation would be a third less than current prices. The real drivers of rising electricity costs are aging infrastructure and rising international gas prices, not the transition to renewables. As Australia faces increasing climate impacts, political parties that reject established climate science may find themselves increasingly isolated, both scientifically and politically. The future of Australian climate politics may depend on how mainstream parties respond to One Nation's misinformation and whether they can effectively communicate the scientific consensus on climate change.

Snapshot of Kingfisher’s Audiobook AppealThe Guardian’s review frames *Kingfisher* as a smart, reflective audiobook that delves into an unconventional romance while interrogating power dynamics and familial trauma. Narrated by Dan Bottomley, the 6hr 1min production offers listeners a lyrical journey through the protagonist’s obsession and the poet’s fragile world.Plot and Character Dynamics UnpackedThe story follows an unnamed creative‑writing academic who becomes infatuated with an Irish poet, seventeen years his senior and celebrated for her bird‑themed novels. Their meetings on a riverbank bench evolve from casual lunches to a caregiving partnership when the poet is diagnosed with breast cancer, contrasting sharply with the protagonist’s strained relationship with his mother, Hetty, and his long‑term partner, Michael.Unnamed academic – narrator and central viewpoint.Irish poet – the object of desire, author of bird stories.Michael – gym‑owner boyfriend, representing the protagonist’s ordinary life.Hetty – mother whose disapproval of her son’s sexuality adds familial tension.Runtime and Production MetricsThe audiobook runs 6 hours 1 minute, a length that allows for deep immersion without overstaying its narrative arc. Dan Bottomley’s narration is praised for its deft guidance, balancing the novel’s lyrical prose with the emotional weight of the characters’ experiences.Literary and Societal Implications of the StoryBeyond its plot, *Kingfisher* offers a fresh perspective on age‑gap relationships, positioning desire as a conduit for both empowerment and vulnerability. The review notes the novel’s commentary on parental influence, particularly how Hetty’s disapproval shapes the protagonist’s identity and choices, echoing broader conversations about LGBTQ+ acceptance and intergenerational trauma.Future Prospects for Rozie Kelly and Age‑Gap NarrativesHaving been shortlisted for this year’s Women’s Prize for Fiction, Kelly’s debut positions her as a compelling new voice in contemporary literature. The Guardian suggests that her nuanced handling of love, power, and caregiving could set a precedent for more complex age‑gap stories, and anticipates heightened interest in her next project, whether in print or audio format.

The LeadEleven weeks after the start of the Iran war, the Strait of Hormuz has remained closed to naval traffic, bleeding the global economy far beyond the Gulf. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) maintains an iron grip over this narrow, strategic waterway, while a corresponding United States naval blockade on Iranian ports has failed to reopen it.Before the war began, between 120 and 140 ships travelled through the strait each day, about half of them oil tankers carrying some 20 million barrels of oil between them. Now, only a few vessels whose owners have negotiated with the IRGC are permitted to pass.The Strategic Control of HormuzOn Wednesday, Iran said it coordinated the transit of 26 vessels through the Strait of Hormuz in 24 hours, two days after announcing the formation of the Persian Gulf Strait Authority (PGSA), a new body to provide "real-time updates" on operations in the strait.Since the announcement of a temporary ceasefire between the US and Iran in April, Iran has been working on formalising a mechanism to charge a transit fee from ships crossing the critical chokepoint, through which 20 percent of the world's oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) are shipped during peacetime.Tehran has reportedly already charged fees as high as $2m per ship for transit since the war started. Even though countries opposing Tehran say this is illegal, it may still be less expensive than the overall cost of the closure of the strait each day.The Economic Cost of BlockadeNearly one-fifth of global oil and LNG exports were shipped by Gulf producers through the Strait of Hormuz before the US and Israel bombed Iran on February 28, triggering the Iranian closure of the waterway. The strait is the only waterway linking Gulf producers to the open ocean – there is no other route through which they can ship exports.About 20.3 million barrels per day of oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz in peacetime – nearly 27 percent of global maritime oil trade. The lion's share of that crude went to Asian markets.Global LNG trade has been similarly hard hit. On the day before the war broke out, Brent crude – the global benchmark for oil prices – closed at $72.48 per barrel. After Iran closed the waterway on March 4 and began attacks on vessels attempting to sail through, traffic came to a standstill, stranding about 2,000 ships on either side of the strait.In terms of lost oil revenues, this amounts to $114.8bn of losses per day. About 10 billion cubic feet of LNG per day also used to pass through the strait, worth a further $7.8bn.The Cost-Benefit Analysis of Transit FeesFor hundreds of ships stranded in the Gulf with thousands of sailors on board, the cost of remaining anchored is steep, including crew wages, loan repayments, repair and management, coupled with inflated war risk premiums.In turn, Iran has reportedly been charging up to $2m for authorisation to pass. Experts say many will see this as worthwhile purely in terms of monetary cost."There is no doubt that paying Iran is cheaper than a continuous blockade because a sitting tanker bleeds money," said Nader Habibi, an Iranian American economist."It makes sense from an economic point of view, but it is not politically feasible," he added. "The companies are under pressure from the US sanctions and not to make arrangements with Iran. This is not just a purely economic cost-benefit analysis, but long-term considerations that are taken into account."International Legal PerspectivesInternational law protects free transit through strategic waters such as natural straits like Hormuz, barring countries from imposing passage tolls even where the waterways fall entirely into territorial waters, like in the case of Hormuz.However, services such as security controls, inspections and insurance regimes can be charged for. Chargeable fees also partly depend on whether a waterway is a man-made passageway or a natural one.These are three different precedents in maritime traffic flow:Panama Canal: An artificial waterway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Vessels pass through a unique system of locks that raise and lower vessels across elevated terrain. Since Panama built, maintains and operates the canal, it can charge transit fees based on vessel size, cargo capacity and booking priority. These range from several hundred thousand dollars per transit to some slots sold for millions of dollars.Suez Canal: Another artificial canal, linking the Mediterranean and Red seas. Egypt charges transit fees for the use of canal infrastructure, maintenance and traffic management services through the narrow waterway. Container ships and oil tankers pay from several hundred thousand dollars to more than one million dollars per voyage.Turkiye's Bosporus Strait and Dardanelles: These are different because they are natural straits, rather than man-made canals. Turkiye charges for navigation-related services such as lighthouse operations, rescue readiness, medical support and traffic management – and tightly controls ship scheduling and navigation.Regional Cooperation PossibilitiesIran's newly-formed PGSA published a new map of Hormuz, stretching from Kuh-e Mubarak in Iran to south of Fujairah, in the UAE, at the eastern entrance of the strait, and from the tip of Qeshm Island to Umm al-Quwain at the western entrance.Given how the Iran war has spilled over into the Gulf region – with the UAE taking the brunt of Iranian strikes – economist Mohammad Reza Farzanegan said "regional cooperation with Iran is the most realistic path to stable transit through the Strait of Hormuz."The UAE, Oman, Qatar and Iran will have to work together because their economies require it, he argued. A workable arrangement could include a joint maritime authority, shared monitoring, emergency coordination, environmental protection and service-based contributions for maintaining safe passage."This would give Iran a recognised role in the security of the waterway while giving Persian Gulf economies more predictability," Farzanegan added. "Such a framework is also more realistic than relying on external military enforcement, which has been more a source of trouble for these states."The Future OutlookWhile it may seem that the economics of the closure of the strait are currently skewed towards Iran, Aniseh Tabrizi, an associate fellow on the Middle East and North Africa Programme at think tank Chatham House, noted that "the economics by itself is not going to be the driver to change calculation or move from the current standpoint."She emphasized that Iran and the US need to reach a "diplomatic compromise, with other calculations linked in to the economic factor", before there can be an end to the energy supply crisis.Farzanegan added that if the world expects stable access to the Strait of Hormuz, then paying Iran could well be accepted as the price of keeping the vital waterway predictable. "From an economic perspective, a negotiated transit arrangement [with Iran] now makes more sense than continued closure," he concluded.