Tag Archives: Politics

From Iran to Ireland: How the Oil Shock Is Hitting Home

By Joey Kennedy

The price on the petrol pump is not supposed to tell a geopolitical story, but right now it does. Every jump past €2 per litre is not just a number, it is a signal. A signal that a conflict involving Iran, thousands of kilometres away, is already working its way into Irish households. For most people, it shows up quietly at first. An extra €20 here, €50 there, and suddenly a monthly budget that no longer quite works. What looks like a distant war has quickly become something much closer, a global oil shock that has already reached Ireland. 

This shock does not begin in Dublin or Brussels. It begins in one of the most strategically important stretches of water in the world, the Strait of Hormuz. Running along Iran’s southern border, this narrow passage carries roughly a fifth of global oil supply. When tensions escalate, as they have in recent weeks, the risk is not theoretical. Any disruption, or even the threat of it, is enough to tighten supply expectations and push prices higher. 

Markets do not wait for a full shutdown. The possibility alone is enough. When traders see Iranian involvement putting such a critical supply route at risk, they react immediately. That is why oil prices have surged so quickly. And this time, the system is more fragile than it looks. Venezuelan output, which could normally act as a stabilising force, remains constrained by US sanctions. Without that buffer, the shock from Iran is not absorbed. It is amplified. 

For Ireland, none of this stays abstract for long. Oil is priced globally, so Irish consumers and firms face the same marginal price regardless of where supply originates. As a net energy importer, that creates a clear vulnerability. When prices rise because of conflict involving Iran, it is not just a global issue. It is a direct transfer of income out of the Irish economy, money that would otherwise be spent locally now flowing abroad to cover higher energy costs. 

That impact is already visible. Fuel prices have climbed back above €2 per litre, while heating oil has jumped sharply in a matter of weeks. For households, this is not marginal. It is a squeeze that forces trade offs, less spending elsewhere, tighter budgets, and a noticeable drop in financial breathing room. What begins as a reaction to events in Iran quickly becomes a change in how money is spent across the entire month. 

The deeper issue is how quickly this spreads. Oil does not just power cars, it underpins the entire economy. When the Iran-driven shock pushes fuel costs higher, transport becomes more expensive, and  those costs ripple outward. They show up in places people do not immediately connect to geopolitics, until the weekly shop feels different and everyday spending starts to creep up. What began as a conflict driven supply shock turns into broader inflation, moving quietly through supply chains before becoming impossible to ignore. 

That is where the pressure builds. Households pull back first, particularly on discretionary spending. Retail and hospitality feel it quickly as people cut back on non-essential purchases. Businesses, meanwhile, are caught in the middle. Costs rise because of higher energy prices linked to the Iran conflict, but passing those costs on is not always possible. In competitive sectors, margins take the hit. Profitability weakens, and decisions begin to shift. Investment is delayed, hiring slows, and expansion plans are quietly put on hold. What started with geopolitical tension now feeds directly into slower economic growth. 

There is also a quieter problem developing underneath all of this. Irish firms compete globally, often against businesses in energy-producing economies like the United States. When energy costs rise in Ireland due to global shocks triggered by Iran, that gap matters. It makes Irish operations relatively more expensive and, over time, erodes competitiveness. 

At the macro level, the pattern is familiar but still dangerous. Inflation moves higher as energy costs filter through the system, while growth slows as spending and investment weaken. This is exactly the type of environment policymakers worry about. It leaves central banks in a bind. Cutting interest rates risks fuelling inflation further, while keeping them high extends the pressure already being felt across the economy. 

Ireland is not entering this from a weak position. Growth has been strong and public finances are relatively solid. But that does not remove the exposure. With the economy already running close to capacity, an externally driven shock, like one tied to Iran’s disruption of global oil flows, risks feeding  into wages and creating a broader cycle that is harder to control once it begins. 

What happens next depends largely on how the conflict involving Iran evolves. If tensions ease and supply stabilises, oil prices could fall back relatively quickly, and the pressure on households would begin  to ease. But if disruption continues, particularly in the Strait of Hormuz, the consequences become more lasting. Higher energy costs become embedded, inflation lingers, and the squeeze on both households and businesses does not go away. 

That is the real takeaway. This is not just about oil; it is about exposure. Ireland cannot insulate itself  from shocks like this. When Iran threatens a route that carries a fifth of the world’s oil, the effects do not  stay in the Gulf. They move through markets, through prices, and into everyday life. 

And that is what makes this different from a normal price spike. It starts with a geopolitical flashpoint involving Iran, but it does not end there. It shows up quietly at first, at the pump, on a heating bill, in a slightly more expensive weekly shop. Then it spreads. By the time it becomes a headline at home, it is already part of everyday life.

Black Economic Empowerment: South Africa’s Failed Attempt at Redress.

By Joseph Kennedy.

When Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) was introduced by the government, the promise of a new economic landscape came with it. Yet over thirty-five years after the official end to the country’s apartheid, South Africa remains one of the most divided societies in the world. Despite billions in business deals and endless government scorecards, inequality has barely shifted, unemployment has worsened, and a handful of connected elites have become the faces of the failed movement.

The Black Economic Empowerment movement emerged in the years after Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress party took office in 1994, when the new government inherited an economy completely divided by race. Apartheid had locked the Black majority out of ownership, skilled work, and corporate leadership. BEE was designed to be the economic counterpart to South Africa’s political liberation.

Formalized through the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act in 2003, the policy set out to expand ownership, provide employment opportunities, and grow a Black middle class that had been racially excluded for generations. In practice, this meant a corporate scorecard system that rewarded companies for Black ownership stakes, affirmative action in recruitment, and procurement from Black-run businesses.

These scorecards covered metrics including who sat on boards and executive teams, recruitment and promotion of black employees, money was invested in training and skills development, and trade with black-owned suppliers. Businesses could climb the BEE “levels” by hitting these targets, and a higher score made it easier to win government contracts or become a preferred supplier for large corporations.

From the government’s perspective, this mix of ownership transfers, hiring targets and skills investment was supposed to create a broad-based Black middle class and open pathways for new Black entrepreneurs. At its launch, BEE was promoted as the blueprint that would finally give Black South Africans a meaningful place in the economy they had long been cut out of.

So, what went wrong? The issue wasn’t the idea; it was how it was implemented. Rather than creating broader opportunities, the first wave of empowerment deals instead placed enormous quantities of wealth in the hands of a small group of politically connected elite. Billions of South African Rand in share transfers went to fewer than 100 people, according to governance researchers. As a result, most Black South Africans saw little change in income, employment, or mobility.

Companies often treated BEE as a compliance exercise, ticking boxes on ownership targets without building real ground skills or supporting new entrepreneurs. Procurement rules, designed to favor Black-owned suppliers, were frequently exploited through “fronting”, where businesses appointed Black partners on paper to secure contracts.

Once politics became involved, the trouble only deepened. Procurement around state-owned giants like Eskom and Transnet became crowded with well-connected government officials, inflating prices and driving the corruption crisis that later defined the state capture years. So as the wider economy stalled, the policy’s promise of change was replaced by rising frustration from a middle class that was supposed to be expanding, not shrinking.

In 2025, the impact of BEE’s failures is plain to be seen in South Africa’s economy. Inequality has barely shifted, with the average white household still earning more than four times the income of a Black household, according to Stats SA.

Unemployment tells the same story, where joblessness sits at around 37% for Black South Africans but falls to single digits for their white peers. The policy’s narrow focus on share deals and political insiders left millions without the skills, capital or mobility needed to break into the formal economy. On the ground, this has meant fewer new jobs, higher living costs, and a squeeze on families trying to climb into the middle class. South Africa is now left with the worst of both worlds; a transformation project that hasn’t transformed much, and an economy struggling to grow under the weight of inequality it was supposed to fix.

BEE was initially implemented with the aim of levelling the playing field and reducing the stark contrast between ordinary white and black families. Instead, it created a new political oligarchy, where wealth and opportunity circulate among the same well-connected names while millions remain shut out. The policy’s original promise hasn’t disappeared, but it now depends on shifting away from elite share deals and towards genuine skills, entrepreneurship, and most importantly, economic opportunity. Without that reset, equality, prosperity and economic freedom will remain something South Africans talk about, rather than experience.

Qatar: A Controversial World Cup Host

We are less than one month away from the beginning of the latest edition of the FIFA World Cup. The hosts to follow the well debated Russian successful bid in 2018 is the wealthy Gulf state of Qatar. Thirty-two nations and over 1.5 million fans are set to descend on Qatar over the month of World Cup action. It should be a time where we celebrate football’s unique ability to bring us all together. However, scepticism over Qatar’s suitability for its role of World Cup host abounds. 

Shoddy labour protection, deaths of migrant workers, the general disdain Qatar holds for the LGBTQIA+ community along with practical concerns such as those over accommodation and leisure have cumulated in unprecedented criticism for the Gulf state and FIFA.  

Scandals of bribery have rocked FIFA over its 2010 decision to make Russia and Qatar consecutive World Cup hosts, with former FIFA President Sepp Blatter banned from football until 2027.  Alas, Qatar remains the host. The nation state has fully committed to their unique opportunity to boost its “soft power and to add to its political influence” by spending over $200bn to act as host. Eight stadia have been refurbished or entirely constructed along with the creation of a new public transport system and international airport to meet the prerequisites for accommodating the tournament. Although Qatar’s oil reserves have made it a wealthy country, an outlay of $200 billion is immense for a country of only 3 million inhabitants.  

Initial projections by the Qatari government of potential revenues generated by the World Cup amounted to $20bn. However, projections have already been revised downwards to approximately $17bn. Financial outlays by former World Cup hosts have not seen the economic returns that were projected, with many financial experts noting the limited economic benefit of hosting a football tournament. The costs simply outweigh the potential financial benefits. However, there is an interesting pattern emerging in the previous hosts of the World Cup since 2010. Qatar, like Russia, South Africa and Brazil beforehand, have all experienced weakened soft power and concerns over political stability. This World Cup acts as a potential public relations boon, and that is what Qatar seeks.  

The image Qatar is trying to project, and the reality, appear very different indeed. According to the Guardian, 6500 migrant workers have died in the Gulf state since 2010. Amnesty International has joined mounting pressure to renumerate workers abused by the unlawful practices in the construction of stadia for the World Cup. Amnesty believes a figure of $440mn would be appropriate to compensate these individuals and their families. This, coupled with Qatar’s prohibition of many activities we have grown accustomed to, has exacerbated concern regarding Qatar’s suitability. These include the consumption of alcohol and tobacco, photography and reading non-Muslim religious texts.  

This all culminates in a situation where Qatar’s bet on this World Cup represents a significant risk.  

Backlash to the World Cup has been noteworthy with commercial sponsors ‘disliking’ the choice of Qatar as host. However, their dislike has not warranted much action as many continue to support the Qatari World Cup. One benefactor has emerged as an exception to this pattern. Danish football team sponsors Dankse Spil and Arbejdernes Landsbank have surrendered their sponsorship position on the Danish jerseys. They have replaced their brands with a series of human rights messages. The Danish Football Association and their sponsors believe they can draw attention to their reservations through powerful symbolism on the Danish football jerseys.  

This stance has been widely lauded by fans across the globe. However, Ricardo Fort, a well-established marketing executive, believes many companies will remain silent about issues in Qatar unless it impacts their companies directly.  

The projected soft power gains and increased tolerance of the Qatari regime will only succeed if we allow it to, by collectively ignoring the reality of those suffering at the hands of the Qatari state. 

We must raise our concerns against a homophobic, abusive regime hosting a tournament that is meant to celebrate our collective differences. As Lewis Hamilton said, “Cash is King”. The sponsors of this tournament will follow our collective morals regarding this contest. This may seem bleak as sponsors merely follow the trends of the time; however, I think this gives ordinary people the power to influence change. As we watch our favourite footballers throughout the month of footballing mania, keep those who have suffered and those who continue to suffer under the Qatari regime in your mind.