One of the most common mistakes in judging central banks is to look only at the headline policy rate. A high nominal interest rate may look hawkish at first glance, but it tells us very little unless it is compared with inflation.

There was a time when German industry looked almost mechanical in its reliability. It could slow down, stumble, or even suffer a major shock, but would eventually return to its old path.

I do not think US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s announcement that President Donald Trump will personally attend the NATO Leaders’ Summit in Ankara on 7-8 July should be read as an ordinary protocol news item. Rubio’s description of the meeting as “probably one of the most important summits in NATO history” clearly shows that Washington does not see this as a routine alliance gathering.

I spent the last two days of the Eid al-Adha holiday reading the latest analyses on oil prices. Frankly, I found very few articles that offered an analysis reminiscent of "World Cup Ceasefire." I believe the article published by Tomorrow's Affairs last Saturday was one of the few that touched upon this possibility. I am sharing the link and then summarising what was mentioned in the recent reports.

When discussing the agreement between Iran and the United States, the first mistake markets tend to make is assuming that every ceasefire means peace. In the Middle East, however, a ceasefire often does not signal the end of war; it usually means that the parties need time to breathe.

Explaining Türkiye’s economic policy over the past three years to a foreign reader is not easy. On paper, the story looks familiar: high interest rates, tight monetary policy, a strong currency, inflation fighting, and confidence building. But Türkiye’s case begins exactly where theory meets reality.

In this article, I wanted to offer an analysis of hedge funds – an issue that many people are curious about, that regulatory authorities often treat as a “bogeyman”, and that experienced investors tend to describe as a source of “market deepening” and “opportunity”. Hedge funds are among the most discussed yet least understood players in capital markets. The reason is quite simple: they may look like ordinary investment funds, but their operating methods are far more flexible.

Trump’s ultimatum to Iran via social media should be regarded not as a diplomatic statement but as a move that touches the nerve endings of markets. Because the question on everyone’s mind is the same: What happens if this escalates into a hot conflict again?

When trying to understand leadership debates in the United States, looking at the issue solely through individuals or solely through the system can be misleading. In theory, it is often said that “the US system functions independently of individuals,” but in practice, recent years have clearly shown that this is not entirely the case

When we look at the Middle East, it is impossible to understand the present without acknowledging the past. Since 1948, the conflicts shaped around Israel’s security policies – from the Arab–Israeli wars to interventions in Lebanon, from the Palestinian issue to the current devastation in Gaza – have formed a continuous line of tension.

Last week, we witnessed lively – at times shallow – debates about whether Istanbul and Turkey’s major cities could attract the capital fleeing Middle East due to the war. Many commentators missed the nuance when they responded, “Is there democracy in the UAE?” to those insisting that the rule of law is a precondition for a financial centre.

When diplomacy emerges in the middle of a war in the Middle East, it rarely signals peace – it signals that the cost of conflict has reached a point where calculation begins to replace escalation.

If US troops were to be deployed on the ground in Iran, we would have to shift our analytical framework entirely. At that point, the issue would no longer be about a few missile strikes, a handful of air sorties, or short-lived political signalling.

There are economic clichés that, through repetition, become unquestioned axioms. One of them is: “When there is war, gold goes up.” In the 1980s, during the Iran–Iraq war, that axiom worked flawlessly – gold surged because the financial world was simpler: inflation was high, the dollar was weak, central bank credibility was contested, and investors considered almost nothing else a safe haven.

No matter how powerful an operation is militarily, if the strategic calculus behind it is lacking, the outcomes can be far more complex than expected. Many strategists and security experts argue that precisely this happened in the war launched by Trump and Netanyahu against Iran.