'Victory' In Iran Will Look Nothing Like 1945

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

You probably wonder what the end of this war will look like. It won’t look like V-J Day in Times Square, 1945, with sailors kissing girls they met five seconds ago. Our country is way too divided and disturbed with politically-inflected mental illness for love to bloom in the streets like it did then. If you happen to catch the glum crew on CNN you will detect that they really want this operation to fail because, you know, Trump.

Terminally Depressed on CNN

The war will be over when Iran loses the ability to spray missiles and drones all over the place — and notice how they are pouring it on the Emirate states, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, and even Azerbaijan, for Gawdsake, turning would-be bystanders into pissed-off additional enemies they need like a hole in the head.

At some point they will run out of ordnance, or the will to roll them out of the supposed 10,000 bat caves their weapons are stashed in. Our side apparently has an uncanny knack for seeing the launchers creep into daylight and efficiently blowing them up. Creates a disincentive to even think about launching. Of course, Iran might have some spectacular last-ditch thingie they can unleash to horrify the world — perhaps a “dirty” bomb that uses the 460 kilos of 60-percent enriched uranium they bragged about at one of the last negotiation sessions before the war with Witkoff and Kushner. Standing by on that.

But, at some point a week or so hence, a stillness will fall upon the earth and sky above Iran, and that will be all she wrote for sheer havoc. Victory will not look much like anything. Just that stillness. The body politic in Iran is another matter. Expect awful turmoil. Iran’s command structure is shattered. Officials don’t dare pick a room in some building to meet in. The Internet is down and most communication with it. Nobody knows who is really in charge, and nobody may be in charge, not for quite a long time to come.

Let’s hope we have the patience to let the Iranians sort out their own governing structure, and that it will be made up of people who are not insane, not fanatics of the martyrdom cult that has ruled the place for fifty years. It’s probably not part of the US plan to slaughter the Revolutionary Guard, or Sepah, the chief apparatus of despotic control in the country. Or the Basij, (Sâzmân-e Basij-e Mostaz’afin, which means “Organization for the Mobilization of the Oppressed”), an auxiliary volunteer paramilitary militia that acts as the “morality police” and cracks down on dissent. Hundreds of thousands are employed by these groups.

You might imagine circumstances in which the members of those dastardly outfits decide to peel away from them, sensing a loss of legitimacy and danger in remaining on-board. Surely, a lot of Iranians will have blood in their eyes, looking for scores to settle, just as the people took revenge on members of the Shah’s secret police, the Savak, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Even now with the bombs still falling in Tehran (perhaps even because of them), many ordinary Iranians are dancing in the streets. You must suppose there is massive opposition to the regime. But first, chaos.

Why would we feel any necessity to put “boots on the ground” in there? Why expose American troops to the factional fighting that is apt to break out, as it did in Iraq? Did we not learn the lessons of Fallujah? Wouldn’t it be enough that Iran just loses its ability to fire weapons at anyone? Loses its ability to mess with shipping in the Persian Gulf? And loses its ability to foment mischief in other countries, including any ideological influence it might still have, or any financial mojo for sponsoring terrorism? Can we not just stand by and let the Iranians figure out their own future?

Try imagining a peaceful Iran not bent on exporting Jihad (just like you might imagine a peaceful Ukraine, not making itself a problem for the rest of the world). Forgive the cliché, but Iran (a.k.a. Persia), is an old and durable culture, with a highly educated population, one of the world’s largest oil-and-gas reserves, and plenty of other resources. Iran could be somebody. It doesn’t have to be a bum with a one-way ticket to Palookaville.

As for our own country, too many people here are busy wolfing down the black pills with their Adderall and their Starbucks iced lavender cream chai. It’s actually possible that there is a satisfactory outcome to this Iran operation. Would that disappoint you — as it apparently disappoints the glum crew at CNN? As with Iran, it doesn’t pay to be insane, and something close to half of America is insane. That perturbation is mostly lodged in the American Left these days, the Democratic Party, devoted to a long list of ideas and propositions at odds with reality and locked into a strange willful hysteria that regards any kind of good faith as poison. That is exactly why we can’t have clean elections. How about fixing that?

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 20:55

Bessent Says US May "Unsanction" More Russian Oil Amid Energy Crisis

Yesterday, when discussing the stunning development that Russia would be granted a one-month license to sell (formerly) sanctioned oil to india while the Straits of Hormuz are blocked, we said that this step is just the start, and precited "unlimited extensions" in the future. We had to wait less than 24 hours for this to come true.

Speaking to Fox Business, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the US may lift sanctions on further Russian oil supply after a move Thursday to give Indian refiners the green light to purchase crude from the nation.

“Treasury agreed to let our allies in India start buying Russian oil that was already on the water,” Bessent said, explaining that "to ease the temporary gap of oil around the world, we have given them permission to accept the Russian oil. We may unsanction other Russian oil.”

NEW: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent:

Due to the temporary global oil gap, we may also unsanction other Russian oil. pic.twitter.com/dvP6IIsLoQ

— Clash Report (@clashreport) March 6, 2026

Bessent said there’s “hundreds of millions of sanctioned barrels of crude on the water now and in essence, by unsanctioning them, Treasury can create supply,” he said, quoting verbatim what we said on February 19.

Cushing drained at fastest pace since June while hundreds of millions of barrels are stuck at sea. Vitol will make a trillion $ this year.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 19, 2026

He was referring to this chart:

Crude prices surged past $90 a barrel on Friday, rising to the highest level since 2023, as fighting in the region kept tankers away from the Strait of Hormuz, with some traders and energy executives warning that prices could climb to more than $100 per barrel if the conflict continues and local producers are forced to shut in production.

Bessent echoed other officials in anticipating the US efforts to defeat Iran will prove victorious. “Our campaign has been overwhelming,” he said. “They’re trying to create economic chaos, and I don’t think they’re going to be able to do it.” Meanwhile, NBC reported citing anonymous officials, that "Trump has privately shown serious interest in U.S. ground troops in Iran."

“We’ve considered all this,” Bessent said. “This is in the president’s calculus, and things are proceeding as planned.”

It's unclear if the president's calculus also accounts for $3.80 gas at the pump which is what the surge in oil prices will translate to unless there is a quick resolution to the Iran crisis.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 20:30

3 Reasons Why Obamacare Is So Hard To Fix

Authored by Lawrence Wilson via The Epoch Times,

Obamacare had problems even before it launched in 2014. Marketplace websites were glitchy during the open enrollment period, frustrating many would-be customers.

Sweeping changes ushered in by the Affordable Care Act, the law creating Obamacare, all but guaranteed that premiums would increase—which they did by 23 percent in the program’s first year.

Even so, public opinion swung in favor of Obamacare starting in 2017 and remains positive, according to KFF Health Tracking polls.

More than 24 million people were insured through the program by 2025.

And insurers learned to thrive under the new rules, more than doubling annual revenue to $1.1 trillion and consistently generating a profit between 2014 and 2024.

Problems do persist, however.

Premiums have more than doubled over 12 years. Some consumers have only a few plans to choose from. And flaws in the program’s design continue to waste taxpayer dollars.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have proposed solutions, many with bipartisan support. Yet permanent reform remains elusive.

The reason may have less to do with the ideas themselves and more to do with the most persistent disagreement between Republicans and Democrats: the role of the federal government.

Here are three commonly proposed remedies for problems within Obamacare, and why those problems remain.

1. Increase Plan Options

Of the more than 1,100 health insurers doing business in the United States, about 10, on average, offer plans through Obamacare in each state.

About 5 percent of Obamacare users have only one or two insurers to choose from.

“Obamacare created a system that left American families with fewer choices,” said Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who proposed legislation to improve Obamacare in 2025.

Scott’s proposal would have allowed consumers to buy health insurance across state lines, which is now prohibited by most states with limited exceptions.

Five years ago, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) proposed allowing more choice by allowing consumers to opt into Medicare in counties where fewer than three insurers offered Obamacare plans. That plan, called Medicare X, later expanded to other counties with high-cost plans and few options.

Bennet and Kaine said the plan would both reduce costs and offer health coverage to people with few options. The plan was introduced in 2021 and again last year.

Others have suggested broadening the availability of catastrophic plans, which have low premiums but high deductibles.

That proposal and Scott’s proposal had been suggested by Democrats in 2017.

Still others have proposed allowing insurers to offer short-term health insurance plans through Obamacare. These three-month to six-month plans are popular with people between jobs or in a waiting period for employer-sponsored insurance.

“Short-term plans typically offer far lower premiums, substantially broader provider networks, and greater overall value for many middle-class families,” Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute, said.

None of these ideas received a vote in Congress.

Conservatives were skeptical of the Medicare X proposal, seeing it as a step toward socialized medicine.

“​​Democrats claim that they just want to offer another health insurance choice. But Medicare X would simply nudge us along toward the Democrats’ endgame: a complete government takeover of the health insurance system,” Sally C. Pipes, president and CEO of Pacific Research Institute, wrote on the think tank’s website in 2024.

Left-leaning politicians and analysts have been skeptical of any plan that would offer what they see as inferior health coverage through Obamacare, including short-term insurance and catastrophic plans.

“Short-term coverage is not community-rated (that is, people can be charged more based on their health status, gender, or other factors) and it typically does not cover preexisting conditions,” Mark A. Hall and Michael J. McCue wrote in a 2022 article for The Commonwealth Fund.

2. Empower Consumers

Obamacare subsidizes health insurance for people earning between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. The subsidy comes in the form of an advanced tax credit. But the money is paid directly to insurance companies, not to the insured individuals.

President Donald Trump and several others have proposed making those funds available to consumers, which they say would increase choice and lower prices.

Trump’s plan, and some others, would provide funded Health Savings Accounts, which enrollees could use only for health expenses. That would include buying insurance, paying out-of-pocket expenses, or buying health care directly from providers.

Scott made a similar proposal, as did Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.).

“Giving billions of taxpayer dollars to insurers is not working to reduce health insurance premiums for patients,” Crapo said in a statement announcing his plan in December 2025. “We need to give Americans more control over their own health care decisions.”

The Crapo–Cassidy plan failed to advance in the Senate last year. None of the other plans have even been put to a vote. Democrats have opposed the idea as a halfway measure that would undermine the value of Obamacare.

Health Savings Accounts are available only with insurance plans that have a high deductible, leading some analysts to conclude that they wouldn’t benefit people who have the most trouble affording health care.

“While healthier people could benefit … sicker people could be stuck with higher premiums or higher out-of-pocket health costs,” wrote Larry Levitt and Cynthia Cox of KFF.

Democrats objected also to other provisions of the Crapo–Cassidy plan, like verifying citizenship and immigration status before enrolling in coverage, and excluding abortion as an essential health benefit in Obamacare plans.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the plan “junk insurance.”

3. Fix Structural Problems

One feature of Obamacare was intended to lower premium prices but produced the opposite result.

Insurers must offer cost-sharing reductions to customers making less than 250 percent of the federal poverty level who choose a silver-level plan.

The cost-sharing reductions mean lower copays and deductibles, which helps low-income enrollees.

It also increases costs for insurers, so the federal government reimbursed them for the added expense.

But a federal judge ruled that those reimbursements were improper because Congress had never authorized funds for them through an appropriations bill. Cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers were discontinued in 2017. However, insurers are still required to offer the cost-sharing reductions.

To compensate, insurers raised premiums on the silver-level plans, a practice known as silver loading.

Because all premium subsidies are based on the cost of a silver-level plan, any increase to silver-plan premiums has the knock-on effect of increasing federal subsidies on every plan sold through Obamacare.

The overall effect added billions per year in costs to taxpayers.

Politicians from both major parties have called for Congress to fix the problem by appropriating money to pay for the cost-sharing reductions. That would save taxpayers nearly $37 billion and reduce premiums for the most common Obamacare plans by 11 percent, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Then-Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) proposed this and other program changes in 2017.

The bipartisan House Problem Solvers Caucus also pitched the idea that year.

Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) introduced a health care bill in 2025 that included funding for cost-sharing reductions.

The idea is included in Trump’s Great Healthcare Plan, released in January.

Despite having bipartisan support, this proposal appears to have been overshadowed by larger questions about Obamacare.

The 2017 Murray–Alexander plan was proposed at a time when many Republicans were intent on repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Trump opposed the proposal, according to then-White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, because it did not go far enough to expand options and drive competition.

“This president certainly supports Republicans and Democrats coming to work together, but it’s not a full approach, and we need something to go a little bit further to get on board,” Sanders told reporters in 2017.

Democrats opposed the Miller–Meeks proposal because it did not extend the expiring enhanced tax credits for Obamacare, which was their primary legislative aim in late 2025.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) urged colleagues to vote against the Miller-Meeks proposal, saying, “This plan does nothing to extend the [Obamacare] enhanced tax credits which are set to expire.

Jeremy Nighohossian of the Competitive Enterprise Institute suggested that some policy makers oppose funding the cost-sharing reductions precisely because the higher federal subsidies that result from silver loading serve a political end.

“Some may prefer the indirect subsidy increase because it raises the proportion of the population with insurance,” Nighohossian wrote in January on the think tank’s website.

The Impasse

The legislative impasse over improving Obamacare appears to arise from the basic difference in approach by Republicans and Democrats to health care financing.

Republicans generally favor deregulation and other marketplace reforms that they believe will increase competition and lower prices.

“As President Trump has said, he will make our health care system better by increasing transparency, promoting choice and competition, and expanding access to new affordable health care and insurance options,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told The Poynter Institute in 2024.

Republican proposals for Obamacare generally follow that blueprint: add choices, improve competition, and allow the market to lower prices.

Democrats generally favor increased government intervention in the form of regulation and subsidization with the goal of ensuring access to health care services for everyone.

“Access to high-quality health care should be a right available to every single American,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said in December 2025. “One of the ways we can make sure that we strive to achieve that principle is to extend the Affordable Care Act tax credits.”

Democrat-led bills to extend those credits failed to advance in both the House and Senate. Republican proposals to increase choice and competition also failed to advance.

Obamacare’s benchmark silver plan premiums for 2026 increased by about 26 percent.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 20:05

FBI Investigating Suspected Cyber Attack On Sensitive Surveillance Network

The FBI is scrambling to investigate a suspected cybersecurity incident involving a sensitive internal network used to manage court-ordered wiretaps and foreign-intelligence surveillance warrants, according to CNN.

The bureau confirmed the activity in a brief statement, saying that it had "identified and addressed suspicious activities on FBI networks" and deployed its full technical resources in response.

And of course, the timing couldn't be more interesting, as the incident comes amid heightened vigilance for retaliatory cyberattacks following the joint U.S.-Israeli military operation, dubbed Operation Epic Fury, which targeted Iranian nuclear, missile and command infrastructure and resulted in the killing of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The strikes have triggered regional escalation, including Iranian counterstrikes and proxy activity in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

U.S. intelligence assessments, including a Department of Homeland Security bulletin, indicate that while large-scale physical attacks on U.S. soil remain improbable, Iran-aligned hacktivists and potentially state-linked actors are likely to pursue lower-level disruptive actions. Such attacks could include distributed denial-of-service instructions, website defacements and other intrusions aimed at causing nuisance or temporary disruption.

"Although a large-scale physical attack is unlikely, Iran and its proxies probably pose a persistent threat of targeted attacks in the Homeland, and will almost certainly escalate retaliatory actions - or calls to action - if reports of the Ayatollah’s death are confirmed," according to the bulletin obtained by ABC News.

"In the short-term, we are most concerned that Iran-aligned hacktivists will conduct low-level cyber attacks against US networks, such as website defacements and distributed denial-of-service attacks,” officials said in the bulletin.

Major banks and other institutions have intensified monitoring and fortified defenses in recent days. However, no significant breaches directly attributed to the current phase of hostilities have been publicly confirmed.

Speaking to investors this week, JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon said that while he endorsed the U.S.-Israeli strikes as a necessary response to longstanding threats from Tehran but cautioned about the asymmetric risks ahead, including cyber attacks on major financial institutions.

"They can't match us militarily, so they'll hit where it hurts - our networks, our operations, our customers,” Dimon added.

“We always try to prepare for that,” the top Wall Street banker said, underscoring that he considers cyber attacks “one of the highest risks banks bear.”

Or that's all just propaganda and it's this guy...

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 19:40

US Gasoline Demand Fell Further Amid Long-Term Structural Shift: Plunging Per-Capita Consumption

Authored by Wolf Richter via Wolf Street,

Gasoline consumption in the US, in terms of product supplied to gas stations, declined by about 1% in 2025, to 8.91 million barrels per day, according to EIA data, below where consumption had first been in 2003, even though the US population increased by 52 million people, or by 18%, over the same period.

Compared to the peak in 2018, gasoline consumption in 2025 fell by 4.5%. Compared to the prior peak in 2007, gasoline consumption is down 4.1%.

Gasoline consumption is increased by miles driven – which inched up to a record – and is slowed by the improving efficiency of gasoline-powered vehicles and the growing share of EVs.

The effects of the two Oil Shocks in the 1970s on gasoline consumption was dramatic. High gasoline prices and a recession led to fewer miles driven, but it also unleashed efforts by US automakers to make and sell smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. And the small fuel-efficient Japanese models became immensely popular. This wave of smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles held down gasoline consumption, and it didn’t surpass its 1978 high until 1993, though the population grew by 18% over those 16 years.

Per-capita gasoline consumption fell to 32.8 gallons per month in 2025, the lowest since 1967, except for the Covid year 2020, as a result of declining overall gasoline consumption amid a growing population.

This dynamic illustrates the structural decline in demand for gasoline.

Miles driven edged up 0.9% in 2025, to a record of 3,324 billion miles, according to data from the Department of Transportation (includes miles driven by cars, light trucks, buses, motorcycles, delivery vans, and commercial trucks). But that’s only 9.7% higher than at the prior peak in 2007.

That gasoline consumption declines even as miles driven increases attests to the impact of more fuel-efficient ICE vehicles and more EVs in the vehicle mix.

But people drive a little less: Miles driven per person residing in the US, at 9,710 miles in 2025, was 3.1% below the peak in 2004.

And average fuel economy keeps improving: that has been a big part of the long-term structural demand issue for gasoline.

Over the past 25 years, the average fuel economy of all passenger vehicles sold in the US rose by 43%, to a record of 28.1 “real world” MPG for the 2025 model year, according to preliminary data from the EPA last month.

Note the spike in average fuel economy coming out of the Oil Shocks, as compact Japanese vehicles made huge inroads, and as US automakers began offering smaller vehicles with better mileage.

Exports of gasoline have become an outlet for refiners.

Crude oil production in the US has surged by 172% since 2008, to a record 13.6 million barrels per day (MMb/d) in 2025, according to EIA data. Over the years, exports of crude oil and petroleum products (diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, petroleum coke, and many others) have soared, and imports have fallen. In 2020, the US became a net exporter of crude oil and petroleum products, exporting more than importing. In 2025, net exports of crude oil and petroleum products rose to a record 2.8 MMb/d (detailed analysis and charts here).

Gasoline exports have become a big profitable trade for US refiners, and an outlet to replace falling demand at home. Many refiners import crude oil and export value-added products, such as gasoline, including refineries in California which face steeply dropping gasoline demand amid the rapidly growing prevalence of EVs and hybrids in the state.

For example, the US had a trade surplus of 590,000 barrels per day in crude oil and petroleum products with Mexico in 2025, importing 500,000 barrels a day of crude oil and exporting 1.1 MMb/d in value-added petroleum products, largely diesel and gasoline.

Gasoline exports started soaring in 2008, surpassed 700,000 barrels per day for the first time in 2017, hit 879,000 barrels per day in 2018, and have stayed in that range since then. In 2025, gasoline exports edged up to 804,000 barrels per day.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 19:15

Dems To Keep Blocking DHS Funds Despite Noem Firing

On Thursday, President Donald Trump fired Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and tapped Sen. Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma as her replacement, marking the first administration shake-up of Trump’s second term. Democrats had been demanding her ouster for months, but they’ve made it quite clear that the move changed nothing in their eyes, and the standoff over DHS funding continues.

The DHS partial shutdown - now stretching into its third week - was already the product of Democratic demands for sweeping restrictions on Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection. Those demands didn't soften with the personnel change. They hardened. 

"A change in personnel is not sufficient," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters. "We need a change in policy." 

Jeffries added, “It's not like Kristi Noem was involved in negotiating anything. She was a corrupt lackey. So we're dealing with the White House and we're going to continue to deal with the White House at this point."

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer made it clear he's not interested in administrative adjustments or good-faith assurances. He wants legislation that fundamentally changes how immigration law is enforced. "We have to change them by legislation because I don't trust any one person being in charge of this agency as long as Trump is president, given the policies he's espoused, given how ICE has been structured," Schumer insisted. And then, with the rhetorical flourish of a man who has already made up his mind: "The rot is deep."

Sen. Christopher S. Murphy of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, was equally unmoved. "Changing the name plate on the door doesn't change the fact that they are committed to using DHS to terrorize communities and migrants in this country," Murphy said.

Despite Democrats being the ones holding up funding, Schumer then blamed Republicans for the ongoing impasse. "They've been stonewalling us on the most important issues, and those have to change, and they have to change them," he told reporters.

However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune disputes Schumer’s characterization. "Senate Democrats are not engaging," he said. "And furthermore, I would say, beyond not engaging, they are just flat rejecting any chance to sit down and actually talk about it. And that seems to be coming from the top." Thune then made his second attempt in as many months to bring a House-passed DHS funding bill to the Senate floor, fully anticipating Democrats would block it again. They did. The procedural vote came in at 51-45 — nine short of the 60 needed to advance.

The impasse began in January, when anti-ICE protestors assaulted federal agents in Minnesota, resulting in their deaths. Renee Good attempted to run over an ICE agent with her vehicle, prompting the agent to fatally shoot her. Weeks later, Alex Pretti assaulted Border Patrol agents while armed with a loaded gun and was shot in the process of attacking the agents.

Democrats used the incident to push for a package loaded with ridiculous restrictions that would have put agents at risk and severely hampered their ability to enforce the law. Among other provisions, their requested rules included banning agents from wearing masks, requiring judicial warrants for entry onto private property, mandating identification and body cameras, and prohibiting enforcement near schools, churches, hospitals, and polling places. 

But, Republicans pointed out that unmasking agents exposes them to doxing and harassment, and that a blanket warrant requirement would drown the courts — effectively neutering the administration's immigration agenda. 

One area of agreement was on body cameras. Yet, Democrats later backtracked on that demand. 

Meanwhile, the shutdown's collateral damage is becoming harder to ignore. ICE and CBP have kept their lights on, covered by the $75 billion Congress funneled to immigration enforcement through last summer's budget reconciliation law. But TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service have no such backstop and are beginning to feel the financial squeeze. 

Mullin is set to take over on March 31, pending Senate confirmation. Whether he can unlock a deal to end the standoff remains entirely unclear, but so far it looks unlikely. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 18:50

"We Have An Emergency": Newsom's Climate Obsession Could Wreak Havoc California's Oil Industry

The oil-and-gas industry is sounding the alarm over a tightening of California's cap-and-invest program, warning that stricter emissions caps could drive up gasoline prices and jeopardize the viability of in-state refining.

The California Air Resources Board is advancing amendments to the cap-and-invest framework, a market-based mechanism requiring major emitters to purchase allowances for greenhouse-gas emissions, that would significantly reduce the supply of available credits and accelerate reduction targets through 2030, according to the New York Post. The program, extended through 2045 last year, generates revenue through quarterly auctions that has helped fund state priorities, including the beleaguered high-speed rail initiative.

Andy Walz, president of Chevron's downstream, midstream and chemicals division, told KCRA in an interview this week that the forthcoming board vote on the changes could impose billions in additional costs on fuel producers.

“If they add this burden … it’s not whether refineries will close, it’s when,” the executive said.

Walz pointed to heightened geopolitical risks, including the spiraling U.S.-Iran war, as a reason to pump the brakes on reductions in domestic production capacity.

“That makes no sense when you look at global tensions right now,” Walz said.

Walz described the situation as an “emergency” for the state and highlighted potential national-security implications, noting California hosts 32 U.S. military bases that depend on reliable local fuel supply.

“It’s important to national security to have the fuel those facilities need,” he said. “This isn’t just a California issue.”

A study by Capitol Matrix Consulting estimates the proposal could saddle California refineries with $5.5 billion to $9 billion in added costs over the next decade, a burden that could erase much or all of their projected earnings in some cases.

Projections from industry sources, including Chevron, indicate the amendments could add more than $1 a gallon to gasoline prices by 2030, with the company specifically estimating an increase of $1.21 per gallon if allowance prices reach projected ceilings around $135. California pump prices already average about $1.54 above the national level, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Yet, Newsom has shown little concern about higher costs at the pump for California voters. Instead, the potential 2028 Democrat presidential contender has framed the state's climate policies largely in opposition to President Donald Trump.

“We’re doubling down on our best tool to combat Trump’s assaults on clean air — Cap-and-Invest — by making polluters pay for projects that support our most impacted communities,” Newsom said in September.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 18:00

Bad Faith Noncompliance: Virginia Schools Flout Supreme Court And Trump With DEI 'Rebrand'

Authored by Teresa R. Manning via American Greatness,

Just over a year ago, President Trump issued two executive orders banning destructive diversity ideology (a.k.a. “DEI” or “diversity, equity, and inclusion”) from the federal government and its contractors, including colleges and universities. The EOs sought to restore merit as the basis of hiring, advancement, and college admissions.

Both EOs reinforced prior actions by the president as well as by the Supreme Court: In his first term, Trump signed EO 13950, Combatting Race and Sex Stereotypes, which banned divisive concepts based on race and ethnicity, a measure duplicated in many states; and in June of 2023, the Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard (“SFFA”), which found that diversity rationales for racial preferences in admissions were themselves discriminatory and therefore unlawful.

Notwithstanding these major legal developments against DEI, colleges and universities, especially in Virginia, are continuing business as usual to promote it, albeit under different names, a move known as rebranding. “To avoid scrutiny,” said one official at the University of Virginia, diversity offices are now called offices for “community and belonging,” while “queer brunch” is now marketed as “cozy brunch.” At George Mason University, the DEI office is now called the Office for Access, Compliance, and Community—same staff, same stuff. They do this even though Trump’s EO explicitly banned rebranding, stating such programs are illegal “under whatever name they appear.”

Obviously, bad actor schools are engaged in bad faith noncompliance.

In this 250th anniversary year of America’s founding, we should remember that the word “diversity“ is absent from our foundational documents: it does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or in our Constitution.

How, then, did “diversity” become so ubiquitous—in education, government, and corporate America—and what does it really mean?

“Diversity” is in fact a top-down, divide-and-conquer strategy pitting Americans against each other based on race, ethnicity, and sex (and now including “gender” and gender ideology). It distracts from—and detracts from—talent and excellence, actually encouraging racial discord as everyone must have skin color or race in mind, rather than achievement or moral character. Accordingly, it destroys nations. Only corrupt politicians, owned and controlled by anti-American handlers, could parrot the lie that “Diversity is our strength.”

Many date the debut of diversity ideology from the 1978 Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, where the medical school of the University of California at Davis had a special admissions program reserving 16 of its 100 open spots for minorities, often with lesser qualifications than white applicants, such as complainant Allan Bakke. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell announced in this opinion that “diversity” was a legitimate governmental interest. But he and the other justices rejected the medical school’s rigid quotas to get there—insisting, instead, that race should be one of many different criteria for admission even while stating that “racial and ethnic considerations are inherently suspect” under the Constitution.

These ambiguities guaranteed more fights about the role of race in college admissions and elsewhere.

In 2003, the Court made matters worse in Grutter v. Bollinger, where Justice Sandra Day O’Connor elevated “diversity” from a permissible state interest to a compelling one, finding that the University of Michigan law school’s racial preferences in admissions were lawful, provided they were tailored and individualized.

Historically, “compelling state interests” concerned public safety, national security, or the protection of minor children. With no history, tradition, or textual basis to do so, the Grutter Court not only shoved diversity onto this list but also put it above a citizen’s right to equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. For this reason, many called the decision illegitimate. In practice, this case was the official government stamp of approval for discrimination against Christian, heterosexual men of European descent, as they are the only demographic said not to contribute to diversity.

In short order, campus bureaucracies, federal programs, and corporate trainings trumpeted DEI—often barely defined. Now, however, documents show that employers such as Amazon benefit from “diversity,” but employees decidedly do not: a divided workforce helps prevent unions as well as other forms of protection for workers’ rights. Similarly, campus administrators with few real or marketable skills no doubt also benefit from DEI, while serious students decidedly do not: university bureaucrats in DEI “BS Jobs” are paid handsomely with unprecedented student loan amounts. Graduates get the debt; campus bureaucrats get the paychecks.

Thankfully, the high Court corrected itself in the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, a case where DEI was rejected and its rationales found to be incompatible with the equal protection of laws. Chief Justice John Roberts explained that DEI itself presumes that skin color or ethnic background results in a “characteristic viewpoint,” a form of racial stereotyping forbidden by civil rights guarantees. Diversity ideology is also incoherent and incapable of judicial review. (Transsexuals now add diversity? Perhaps pedophiles will too?) If race is a plus for some, he pointed out, it is necessarily a minus for others—which is to say, even individualized approaches result in illegal racial discrimination. Finding racial preferences in college admissions unlawful, Roberts went on to broaden the holding, saying, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

It is in this context that President Trump’s January 2025 executive orders were issued. The administration is following up on the Supreme Court’s landmark SFFA decision, a case that took years for the courts to decide and which corrected the destructive Grutter opinion.

It is also the context in which colleges and universities are brazenly flouting the law.

The actions of Trump and the Supreme Court have prompted Offices for Civil Rights at both the Justice and Education Departments to launch investigations into a number of colleges and universities, including in Virginia; a federal appeals court recently upheld the administration’s actions. Resolution agreements have been reached in some instances. And that is all to the good.

But the record shows that schools do not operate in good faith. That means that agreements on paper must be enforced, checked, and double-checked to have real effect in practice.

Let’s hope that will also happen—with special attention paid to bad faith rebranding.

* * *

Teresa R. Manning is Policy Director at the National Association of Scholars, President of the Virginia Association of Scholars, and a former law professor at Virginia’s Scalia Law School, George Mason University. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 17:40

Mills: Trump Admin "Reveling In The Carnage" As Tehran Burns

Last night, Bret Weinstein joined ZeroHedge to moderate a debate on the Iran war featuring Curt Mills, executive director of The American Conservative (magazine founded by Pat Buchanan), and Max Abrahms, Northeastern University professor and terrorism expert.

The discussion went far and wide. From Chabad to whether the war has strengthened Iranian hardliners to the question of Israeli influence over U.S. policy to how this war affects Russia-Ukraine.

Below are some of the most notable exchanges for those who missed it:

Can Trump Wrangle Israel?

Abrahms argued that claims Israel dictates U.S. policy ignore numerous cases where Washington has acted against Israeli preferences. He pointed to the influence of Tom Barrack, Trump’s ambassador to Turkey who is “absolutely reviled by many Israelis,” and policies such as ending sanctions on Syria, inviting the new Syrian president to the White House, and cultivating close ties with Qatar, Pakistan, and Turkey’s Erdoğan. On Gaza, Abrahms said Donald Trump “told Netanyahu, you need to stop prosecuting this war against Hamas,” adding that even critics like Steve Bannon acknowledge Trump has been “telling [Israelis] what they can and cannot do.”

Abrahms also cited last June’s “12-day war” with Iran, saying Israel wanted to continue strikes but Trump intervened. “Israel had planes over Tehran and Trump said, ‘I don’t like this’... Literally in the skies over Tehran, the Israeli planes were sent home.”

Mills rejected the framing. “It’s an archetypal straw man.” Conceding that the administration has taken steps “certain people in Israel… don’t prefer,” Mills argued the larger objective remains unchanged: “The holy grail of the Israeli hardline and neoconservatives… has for a long time been an Iran war… and they just got it done.”

pic.twitter.com/6W8QWlFgEN

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) March 6, 2026

Tucker And “The Jews”

Abrahms accused Tucker Carlson of blaming “the Jews” for the war, pointing to Carlson’s claim that Chabad-Lubavitch and Christian Evangelicals were at least partially behind the conflict, a theory outlined in his latest monologue. 

Both Mills and Weinstein rejected that accusation. “That’s a far cry from the Jews,” Weinstein said. “There is all the difference in the world between an organization to which some people belong and many do not and the Jews, which is a large lineage.”

pic.twitter.com/fN0EJzlbkR

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) March 6, 2026

“Crystal Meth Rumsfeld”

Mills argued that the most serious consequence is diplomatic. “I think currently the biggest macro problem actually is that the U.S.’s diplomatic word is getting crushed.” In his view, the war will “harm Trump’s ability to make a deal with the Russians to end the war in Ukraine” and “permanently scar any future president’s maneuverability and diplomacy.”

Mills questioned whether the purported strategic gains are gains at all.

“If you think the Iranians are bad dudes, they just replaced the 90-year-old Khamenei with a 58-year-old Khamenei,” he said, adding that the conflict has “further entrenched their military and economic elite, the IRGC.” At home, it's also emboldened the worst factions, politically vindicating hardliners like Rubio, Graham, and Cotton who argue “you cannot deal with the United States… that the U.S. only responds to force.” 

Rumsfeld: "I can't tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't gonna last any longer than that."

Hegseth: " It may or may not take four weeks, two weeks, six weeks. It could move up, it could move back." pic.twitter.com/xSLEbGaniZ

— Home of the Brave (@OfTheBraveUSA) March 2, 2026

Mills also directed criticism at Pete Hegseth, comparing him to “crystal meth Rumsfeld.” The rhetoric about “lethality” and a “reign of terror… over Iranian skies” suggested officials were “reveling in the carnage.” 

Lastly, and possibly the worst blunder of all, the fatwa discouraging nuclear weapons came from Iran’s deceased supreme leader, and “it’s very possible they’re just going to chuck that now and lunge for a crude nuclear device.” 

pic.twitter.com/cW3KfX1Ajx

— ZeroHedge Debates (@zerohedgeDebate) March 6, 2026

Listen to the full debate below or on our Spotify and YouTube channels.

https://t.co/OMGDXCGANP

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 5, 2026

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 17:20

The Fog Of Oil

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via VonGreyerz.gold,

War, oil and gold are making headlines of late for overlapping and independent reasons. Below, we avoid the guesswork, finger-pointing or sensationalism attendant to current headlines concerning Iran and stick to a theme which offers some clarity, namely the interplay of oil and gold.

The Fundamentals Stay the Same

For years, of course, we have tracked the fundamental drivers which impact the gold price (from DXY debates, inflation signals, and de-dollarization headlines to COMEX outflows).

All of these complex signals and themes ultimately boil down to a simple realization: Gold rises as debt-trapped nations debase their currencies to monetize their increasingly unloved IOUs.

This is pure fundamentalist thinking, and it works. Gold’s direction is easy, because the fall of paper currencies is now obvious.

In short, real money (gold and silver) historically gets the last say over paper money (USD), paper metals (COMEX) and paper promises (USTs).

Or stated even more simply: Rock openly beats paper.

Gold, as a Tier-1 preservation asset, is thus not a trade to enter or exit; it’s a leading strategic reserve asset, FX protagonist and superior store of value to be held, not speculated. One saves in precious metals and spends in fiat.

Fundamentals such as these make a now dispositive case for the long-term holding of gold.

Oil Headlines, Gold Tailwinds

Notwithstanding such fundamentals of gold ownership and future direction, there are nevertheless additional reasons, and tailwinds, to gold ownership, including: Oil.

The interplay between oil and the dollar, oil and gold, and oil and war are themes we have addressed numerous times in prior articles and years.

This is because, having long ago understood just how much gold matters, we have not forgotten that oil matters too…

No Coincidences

As the U.S. now finds itself once again in a military conflict with a major oil producer like Iran (think back as well to Libya, Iraq, or Venezuela), do any of us really think oil is not a central character to this current global plot twist?

I, of course, am not here to pick winners or losers, identify good actors from bad actors, or make military or political predictions in a fog of war, politics, media pundits and armchair military strategists.

Such matters are for others to opine upon.

But as market participants, we can look less to FOX news or the latest bombing strikes and look objectively at those flows, signals and correlations which we can use to our advantage.

By this, I am referring specifically to the data on money flows and the rhyming (instructive) history of gold’s movements relative to oil shocks, oil wars and oil price patterns.

Why?

Again, because in a modern, energy-centric world, oil matters. It really matters.

Oil & War

Wars, for example, are not only fought over oil, they end over oil—at least for those who have the least of it.

One of Japan’s primary motives behind its surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, for example, was tied to protecting oil channels in the far east after a pre-December 7th America cut its critical oil imports.

And as for all the many reasons Germany lost that same war, much of it had to do with its oil reserves falling from 180,000 tons to 11,000 tons by 1945. Just ask Rommel’s tank commanders or any pilot flying for the Luftwaffe what oil meant to their plans…

Gold & Oil Supply Shocks

But not only does oil matter pre and post wars, its direct tie to gold pricing is equally confirmed by history, namely a history of oil supply shocks.

Many, for example, can remember OPEC’s 1973 oil embargo, which sent gold from $90 to $180 in 12 months. Six years later, during the 1979 revolution in Iran, the subsequent supply shock in oil took gold from $220 to $850 in a similar time frame.

Fast forward to the 1991 Gulf War, and gold rose by 10% in just weeks. Decades later, at the 2022 outbreak of war in the Ukraine, oil hit 130 and gold immediately broke a key, $2050 resistance line.

See any signals here? Any patterns?

In other words: Oil shocks send gold higher.

Current Headlines

What happens today or tomorrow in this latest conflict with Iran is beyond my crystal ball.

What we do know, however, is that 1/5 of the world’s oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, over which Iran can cause obvious problems on shipping – i.e. a “supply shock.”

This might explain why Lloyd’s of London cancelled its maritime insurance for this region, forcing the UK government to do the insuring itself.

An Honest Lighthouse

For gold investors who have always known gold’s longer-term price direction and larger, evolving and historical role as a monetary metal in a time of changing monetary order, the case for gold remains as obvious today as it was yesterday and will be tomorrow.

What we are now tracking as to gold’s behavior with oil headlines, markets and potential supply shocks simply adds greater dimension (and likely tail winds) to an asset already moving secularly forward on its own fundamental properties and merits.

This direction is entirely due to the embarrassing lack of merit for paper dollars and unloved sovereign IOUs, themes we’ve been addressing for years.

As we stand today in the fog of yet another war whose ripple effects and currents invite the usual and seemingly endless commentary and debate, there is some consolation in having at least one honest and golden lighthouse upon which can rely to navigate today’s noise and preserve our wealth into an uncertain tomorrow.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 16:20

Nearly 20,000 Americans Have Safely Returned Home From The Mid-East: State Dept

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Nearly 20,000 U.S. citizens have returned safely from the Middle East since Feb. 28, when the Iran conflict broke out, Dylan Johnson, assistant secretary at the Bureau of Global Public Affairs, said in a March 5 statement.

Smoke rises from a reported Iranian strike in the industrial district of Doha, Qatar, on March 1, 2026. Mahmud Hams/AFP via Getty Images

“These figures do not include the many Americans who have safely relocated to other countries or those who have departed the Middle East but are still in transit back to the United States,” Johnson said. “At the direction of Secretary [Marco] Rubio, Department of State charter flight and ground transportation operations are underway and will continue to ramp up with additional flights and ground transports taking place today.”

“Through the State Department’s 24/7 Task Force, we have assisted over 10,000 Americans abroad, including offering security guidance and travel assistance. The State Department will continue to actively assist any American citizen abroad, who wishes to depart the Middle East, to do so.”

Johnson highlighted that the department has set up an online Crisis Intake form for Americans residing in Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Israel.

U.S. citizens completing the form will receive information about upcoming ground transportation and charter aviation options. Americans in the Middle East can contact the State Department at +1-202-501-4444 for assistance.

In a March 5 post on X, the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs said that in the UAE, limited commercial flights are currently operating out of international airports in the country.

“Passengers are advised not to travel to the airport unless they hold a confirmed ticket and have been explicitly advised by their airline to do so. There are overland routes to Oman and Saudi Arabia where commercial options to depart the region are operating, but there are reports of congestion,” the bureau said.

In Qatar, the airspace and maritime routes remain closed, but the Salwa land border crossing into Saudi Arabia is currently open, the bureau said.

In Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, the Ben Gurion Airport was scheduled to reopen on March 5 for limited inbound flights, according to a post on X by the agency.

However, “we have no information yet on when outbound flights may become available,” it said. “There are overland routes to Taba, Egypt, where commercial options to depart the region are operating. Americans should strongly consider departing on one of these overland routes if they believe it is safe to do so.”

Americans in Oman should consider leaving as some flights are departing from the nation’s international airports, the bureau said.

According to data from aviation analytics company Cirium, almost 25,000 of the approximately 44,000 flights scheduled to fly in and out of the Middle East between Saturday and Thursday have been canceled.

Firepower to ‘Surge Dramatically’

The Iran conflict, now in its sixth day on Thursday, began after U.S. and Israeli forces launched coordinated strikes against Tehran on Feb. 28.

Adm. Brad Cooper, head of U.S. Central Command, said Thursday that strikes on the Iranian Navy have “intensified.”

U.S. forces have, to date, sunk more than 30 of Iran’s ships, including “an Iranian drone carrier ship roughly the size of a World War II aircraft carrier,” Cooper said.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said Thursday that firepower over Iran was about to “surge dramatically.”

“When we say more to come, it’s more fighter squadrons, it’s more capabilities, it’s more defensive capabilities,” Hegseth said. “And it’s more bomber pulses more frequently.”

In an update on the war, Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir, the Israeli army’s chief of the General Staff, said 60 percent of Iran’s missile launchers have been taken out, with 40 percent remaining intact. In addition, 80 percent of Tehran’s air defenses have also been neutralized.

“The threat has not yet been removed. Every missile is lethal and poses a danger,” Zamir said. “We are now moving to the next phase of the operation. In this phase, we will further dismantle the regime and its military capabilities. We have additional surprises ahead that I do not intend to disclose.”

On Thursday, a war powers resolution against Operation Epic Fury failed to pass the House by a vote of 212-219. The resolution aimed to impose guardrails on the United States’ ongoing military operations in Iran. On March 4, the measure failed to pass in the Senate.

After the House vote, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), speaker of the House, said the United States was conducting a “limited operation” in Iran that is “limited in scope and duration.”

“We are not at war. We have no intention of being at war,” Johnson said, adding that the U.S. mission against Iran was “nearly accomplished.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 14:40

ASP Isotopes Signs MOU With Major Nuclear Operator

ASP Isotopes announced Thursday that its Quantum Leap Energy (QLE) subsidiary has entered “a non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a large publicly traded U.S. energy company that operates nuclear power stations”.

Under the agreement, the utility will evaluate options to provide support and potential financing for QLE’s planned U.S. facilities focused on High Assay Low Enriched Uranium (HALEU), LEU+, uranium conversion and deconversion services. Discussions could also lead to long-term enriched uranium supply contracts, according to the press release. QLE’s CEO described the move as an important validation of the need for reliable domestic fuel sources ahead of the 2028 Russian uranium import ban.

We’ve been tracking ASPI’s growth closely. We spotlighted them as “The Next Nuclear Story Stock” last year after their Silicon-28 supply deal and U.S. radiopharmacy acquisition. November brought news of the QLE private placement backed by investors linked to Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump. December even covered the regulatory green light for the Renergen acquisition in South Africa. We’ve also detailed the looming HALEU crunch and the 2028 ban in recent fuel-chain reports.

ASP Isotopes Jumps After Investment By Trump's Boys https://t.co/RJkYtG3MD1

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 7, 2025

QLE’s Texas footprint keeps expanding. The company established their global headquarters in Austin, advanced its joint-venture plans with Fermi America (co-founded by former Energy Secretary Rick Perry) for a HALEU research and production site at the 11 GW HyperGrid campus near Pantex, and continues working with TerraPower and South Africa’s NESCA. With a former Constellation Energy executive on the board (Ralph Hunter) and Vistra already scaling its Texas nuclear fleet for AI power demand, it's worth speculating that this partnership is in coordination with CEG or VST. 

We also just covered TerraPower receiving the first NRC construction permit for a commercial-scale advanced reactor in nearly a decade. The company also signed a major agreement with Meta in January for up to eight Natrium units. These milestones directly relate to QLE’s position through their 2025 agreements, under which TerraPower is providing financing for QLE’s planned HALEU enrichment facility in South Africa and committing to long-term offtake.

Despite the growing list of partnerships, QLE has yet to enrich any uranium or break ground on any facilities for research or commercial development in the US. The pieces are falling into place for a domestic nuclear fuel renaissance, but the sector still needs actual production, not just paper commitments.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 14:20

Did Trump Force China's Hand? Beijing Nears 500-Jet Boeing Deal Ahead Of Xi Summit

Boeing shares moved higher in late-afternoon trading in New York after Bloomberg News reported that the planemaker may be nearing one of the largest sales in its history, potentially to be unveiled during President Trump's trip to China later this month.

People familiar with the potential Boeing-China jet deal said it could be announced during President Trump's trip to Beijing from March 31 to April 2. They said the deal includes a 500-plane order for 737 Max jets, with additional talks covering approximately 100 widebody aircraft, including 787 Dreamliners and 777Xs.

Boeing aircraft have long been at the center of US-China trade talks, as well as tit-for-tat trade disputes. If the deal materializes, it would mark one of Boeing's biggest sales ever and end years of a Chinese jet sales drought.

Bloomberg offered a caveat:

There's a chance that the talks could reach an impasse and a deal not be completed, they cautioned. The nation's leaders were closing in on a similar agreement last year and in 2023. The two sides are still negotiating the specifics of the announcement, with the US pushing for a firm commitment and not just a headline-grabbing dollar value, said one of the people.

Shares of Boeing jumped about 2% on the news.

Bloomberg noted that Boeing declined to comment, while China's Ministry of Commerce did not respond to a request for comment. We caution that the report relies on unnamed sources.

Our view is that a headline like this appears highly unusual (the scale of the order suggest more than simply a gesture of goodwill), particularly as Trump has moved to squeeze Beijing's access to cheap crude from Venezuela and Iran.

Even with the risk of an energy shock, Beijing now appears to be on the verge of buying a record number of U.S. commercial jets, which suggests Trump may have gained some leverage (perhaps through his two-month crusade with America's military) ahead of the planned Trump-Xi meeting later this month.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 14:10

It Was All A Mirage: 2.5 Million Native-Born US Workers Were Just Revised Away

One of Donald Trump's core pre-election promises (along with cracking down on immigration and no more foreign wars) was to boost employment for local-born Americans at the expense of the record employment for foreign-born, mostly illegal, workers. And for a while it worked: four months ago, when discussing the September jobs report, we said that while the broader report was generally mixed, it was "indisputably strong when it comes to one thing: the rotation from foreign born workers to domestic ones. To wit: in September, the number of native-born workers surged by 676K (after the August drop of 561K), while foreign-born workers dropped by 70K."

The data showed that since Trump entered the White House "the number of foreign born workers has slumped from a record 33.7 million in March 2025 to 32.1 million, a drop of $1.6 million. This has been offset by a slow but consistent increase in native-born workers which had been unchanged for six years since 2019 until the start of 2025, at which point it started to rise again, and has increased from 131.2 million in March 2025 to a new record high of 133.2 million in September."

Why does this matter? Because today's job report, which was undeniably dismal and sparked added to the sharp selloff across the market, also updated the working age population calculations to reflect the latest US Census population count for 2025. The new controls led to a big change in the January estimate of various employment metrics. They

• Lowered the working-age population by 231k;
• Reduced the labor force by 1,417k;
• Cut the employment level by around 1,432k;
• Lowered the labor-force participation rate by 0.46 percentage point and the employment-to-population ratio by 0.47 ppt.

But perhaps the most important revision is that the entire boom in native-born employment was fake news: a statistical mirage spawned by some overzealous BLS staffer's excel model. 

Presenting exhibit A: the monthly change in native and foreign-born workers. It shows that while the number of native-born workers in February did post a solid rise of 877K - using the revised data - this was only after the January data was revised comprehensively to wipe out a record 2.5 million (exactly) native born workers.

And here is what it looks like over the longer-term: at just under 131 million, the number of native born workers is back to where it was in 2019.

Which means that what some consider the greatest accomplishment of the Trump admin was nothing more than statistical fake news. The silver lining: at least there is the Iran war to keep everyone distracted. 

 

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 13:40

"Most Dangerous Geopolitical Blitz Since Bretton Woods": Trump Says Cuba's Communist Regime Is Next To Fall

"We've got plenty of time, but Cuba's ready," President Trump told CNN in an interview on Friday morning. The president told CNN reporter Dana Bash that Havana will "fall pretty soon" and that he will "place Marco over there." 

2/7 ON CUBA: President Trump said, "Cuba is gonna fall pretty soon." He said he's going to "put Marco over there" and "we've got plenty of time, but Cuba's ready."

— Dana Bash (@DanaBashCNN) March 6, 2026

The Trump administration has communicated for months about toppling the Communist regime in Havana as power blackouts across the Caribbean island nation worsen this week. 

Trump's fuel blockade on Cuba has led some analysts to warn that the Cuban government will exhaust all fuel reserves by mid- to late March, bringing the island into complete paralysis.

Marco Rubio looking forward to what March brings with Cuba. pic.twitter.com/tBYM7pyKU7

— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) March 1, 2026

It's clear that Trump has tasked Secretary of State Marco Rubio with leading the talks on a "friendly" takeover of the island. 

"They want to make a deal so badly, you have no idea," Trump said at the White House on Thursday.  

Making sense of the world seemingly in a fiery mess is Graham Cooke, founder of Brava (brava.xyz), an automated stablecoin yield platform, who wrote on X, "Trump is running the most dangerous geopolitical blitz since Bretton Woods. And the endgame isn't a trade war."

Cooke continued, "There's a theory circulating that Trump is running a far more ambitious play -- one designed to collapse BRICS, force China's hand, and lock in dollar dominance for decades." 

Trump is running the most dangerous geopolitical blitz since Bretton Woods.

And the endgame isn't a trade war.

There's a theory circulating that Trump is running a far more ambitious play -- one designed to collapse BRICS, force China's hand, and lock in dollar dominance for… pic.twitter.com/Z5IrGSrfzZ

— GC Cooke (@Gccooke) March 5, 2026

Over the last two months, the Trump administration has increased pressure on Beijing. The timeline is very notable: Maduro's removal effectively shut Venezuelan crude flows to China; the U.S. then tightened Cuba's fuel position to position the island towards collapse to rid the communists from Havana; Panama eliminated Chinese-linked ports at the canal; and now, nearly a week into Trump's Operation Epic Fury against Iran, China's access to cheap Iranian crude and gas has been severed. All of this comes before Trump heads to China later this month, holding multiple new leverage cards in one absolutely insane chess game to play in the midterm election cycle. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 13:20

Virginia Democrats Move To Require Teaching Jan. 6th As An "Insurrection"

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Virginia Democrats are moving to require teachers to tell students that Jan. 6th was an “insurrection” and effectively bar them from referencing “peaceful protests” or election irregularities. The characterization of the riot as an insurrection is historically and legally false. However, any parents who want to send their children to Virginia public schools would have to accept this form of indoctrination as part of their children’s education.

In the last election, Democrats campaigned as moderates, including Abigail Spanberger.

Once in control of the Governor’s mansion and the legislature, however, they have moved quickly to the far left in a flurry of measures. Democratic legislators just voted themselves almost a 300% increase in salaries.  They will need it. They are moving to increase taxes on ride shares, concerts, counseling, leaf blowers, Amazon deliveries, DoorDash, Uber Eats, ammunition, and other areas.

However, HB 333, drafted by Del. Dan I. Helmer of Fairfax, raises serious concerns over academic freedom and free speech.

The summary of the bill mandates “a program of instruction on or relating to the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the United States Capitol” and further:

“prohibits any such program of instruction, any accompanying curriculum or instructional materials, or any instruction provided by a teacher as a part of such program of instruction from (i) describing, portraying, or presenting as credible a description or portrayal of the actions precipitating or involved in the January 6, 2021, insurrection as peaceful protest or (ii) stating, suggesting, or presenting as credible a statement or suggestion that there was extensive election fraud that could have changed or actually changed the results of the 2020 presidential election. The bill requires any such program of instruction, any accompanying curriculum or instructional materials, or any instruction provided by a teacher as a part of such program of instruction to describe the January 6, 2021, insurrection at the United States Capitol as an unprecedented, violent attack on U.S. democratic institutions, infrastructure, and representatives for the purpose of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election.”

Soon after Jan. 6th, I condemned the riot but rejected the argument that this was an insurrection. However, it soon became part of an orthodoxy in politics and academia despite the fact that the public rejected it. As former House Speaker Pelosi declared, “It is essential that we preserve the narrative of January 6th.”

Yet, “insurrection” and “sedition” are legal terms. They have a meaning. The FBI investigated thousands after January 6th and charged hundreds. Not one was charged with insurrection or conspiracy to overthrow the country. The vast majority are charged with relatively minor offenses of trespass or unlawful entry or property damage- the type of charges that are common in protests and riots.

Indeed, the Supreme Court effectively reduced many of the charges to mere trespass in later litigation, rejecting obstruction claims.

Faced with a collapsing historical and legal narrative, Democrats are now moving to simply indoctrinate students that this was an “insurrection.”

Notably, Helmer is running again for Congress after Democrats, with the support of Gov. Spanberger, moved to reduce Republicans in the state (which is divided down the middle between the parties) to just one of eleven districts through gerrymandering.

Helmer is running in one of the most notorious new districts, called the “lobster” or the “scorpion,” because it runs from the Potomac River in Arlington southwestward, then splits into two “claws” toward the West Virginia line near Rawley Springs and Goochland and Powhatan.

In my book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the radicalization of the American left. While many on the left advocate censoring “disinformation,” they are far less circumspect in promulgating their own disinformation.

Likewise, where Democrats have objected to the pressure put on universities for greater diversity of viewpoints as an attack on academic freedom, these Democrats see no problem in mandating the teaching of positions that are demonstrably false.

Here, Rep. Helmer and other Democrats are mandating the teaching of a false narrative to children rather than simply relying on public debate. The reason is that they are losing the debate over the characterization of this riot as an actual insurrection.

This, and other moves on the left, will only accelerate the exodus of families from public education. Notably, Fairfax County (which Helmer represents) has seen a sharp fall in enrollments in recent years.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 13:00

Anthropic CEO Apologizes For 'Dictator Trump' Meltdown Memo, Downplays 'Supply Chain Risk' Designation, And Is Going To Sue

As Anthropic attempts to salvage their relationship with the Trump administration, CEO Dario Amodei publicly apologized Thursday for the inflammatory tone of his leaked internal memo that accused the White House of targeting his company because it hadn't offered "dictator-style praise" to President Trump. The apology came in his first major interview since the Pentagon's Department of War (DoW) formally designated Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security - effective immediately - marking the first time such a label has been applied to a U.S. company.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei. Photos: Getty Images

The March 5 designation, confirmed in a letter to Anthropic leadership, stems from weeks of failed negotiations over Claude AI's military applications. Anthropic refused to drop strict red lines prohibiting the model's use for mass domestic surveillance of Americans or fully autonomous lethal weapons, insisting on meaningful safeguards rather than what Amodei previously called "safety theater" in rival deals like OpenAI's. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had threatened broad restrictions, including barring defense contractors from any commercial activity with Anthropic, but the company clarified the scope appears narrower: it primarily affects direct DoW-related work, with partners like Microsoft confirming continued availability for non-defense uses.

Last Friday, the Trump administration 'fired' the company after a bruising dispute with the Pentagon came to a head over ethical concerns surrounding Claude's military use. The Pentagon demanded to use ClaudeAI for "any lawful purpose" with no guardrails - or having to allegedly ask permission in a life-or-death scenario.

In the interview with The Economist Amodei described the crisis as one of the most "disorienting" in Anthropic's history. He attributed the leaked memo - written hastily on Slack amid rapid-fire events including Trump's announcements and OpenAI snaking their contract - to confusion and panic from a "difficult day."

"It does not reflect my careful or considered views," he said, downplaying it as a casual internal message rather than a formal memo. He said he'd apologized to DoW personnel and signaled openness to further dialogue with administration figures, though he sidestepped a direct personal apology to Trump.

Dario Amodei says he is sorry. In his first interview since the Pentagon labelled Anthropic a supply-chain risk—the first American company to receive that designation—the firm’s boss offered a mea culpa for the way he handled a crisis that he described as one of the most… pic.twitter.com/VueK528Yqj

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) March 6, 2026

Amodei's Thursday mea culpa was accompanied with a blog post titled: "Where things stand with the Department of War," where he emphasized shared interests with the military, offered Claude at nominal cost plus engineer support for warfighters, and highlighted ongoing "productive conversations" despite the label.

I also want to apologize directly for a post internal to the company that was leaked to the press yesterday. Anthropic did not leak this post nor direct anyone else to do so—it is not in our interest to escalate this situation. That particular post was written within a few hours of the President’s Truth Social post announcing Anthropic would be removed from all federal systems, the Secretary of War’s X post announcing the supply chain risk designation, and the announcement of a deal between the Pentagon and OpenAI, which even OpenAI later characterized as confusing. It was a difficult day for the company, and I apologize for the tone of the post. It does not reflect my careful or considered views. It was also written six days ago, and is an out-of-date assessment of the current situation.

He also refuted a claim from an anonymous Pentagon official cited in the Washington Post that the Pentagon would have to call Anthropic before making life-or-death decisions in the field, writing: 

As we stated last Friday, we do not believe, and have never believed, that it is the role of Anthropic or any private company to be involved in operational decision-making—that is the role of the military. Our only concerns have been our exceptions on fully autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance, which relate to high-level usage areas, and not operational decision-making.

The letter also reiterates a Friday comment that Anthropic will sue to challenge the supply-chain risk designation, calling it "not legally sound" and warning of a "chilling" effect on AI innovation and business if it stands. "We see no choice but to challenge it in court," he wrote, while reiterating Anthropic's desire to continue equipping U.S. forces amid operations (like against Iran via tools including Palantir's Maven). The dual track - apology plus litigation - reflects heavy investor pressure from backers like Amazon and Nvidia to salvage the $380 billion valuation amid revenue momentum nearing a $20 billion annual run rate.

The company also suggested that the supply chain risk designation isn't that bad anyway, and won't affect their customers who deal with the government outside the Department of War; 

The language used by the Department of War in the letter (even supposing it was legally sound) matches our statement on Friday that the vast majority of our customers are unaffected by a supply chain risk designation. With respect to our customers, it plainly applies only to the use of Claude by customers as a direct part of contracts with the Department of War, not all use of Claude by customers who have such contracts.

The Department’s letter has a narrow scope, and this is because the relevant statute (10 USC 3252) is narrow, too. It exists to protect the government rather than to punish a supplier; in fact, the law requires the Secretary of War to use the least restrictive means necessary to accomplish the goal of protecting the supply chain. Even for Department of War contractors, the supply chain risk designation doesn’t (and can’t) limit uses of Claude or business relationships with Anthropic if those are unrelated to their specific Department of War contracts.

The situation underscores major issues that will persist with Silicon Valley's AI-defense nexus: ethical red lines versus unrestricted "any lawful purpose" access, with OpenAI positioned as the compliant alternative. As talks continue and a courtroom battle looms, Anthropic's future hangs on whether Amodei's contrition buys enough goodwill to avert broader fallout—or if the "supply chain risk" label becomes a permanent scar on one of AI's most principled players.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 12:40

Trump Says He's "Not Concerned" About Biggest Gas Pump Price Spike In Years

Americans are experiencing a sharp rise in gas prices this week, with the national average gasoline price posting its largest weekly jump since the early days of the Russia-Ukraine war. If fuel prices continue to climb as the U.S.-Israeli Operation Epic Fury intensifies against Iran, the fallout for consumer sentiment may weigh on the broader economy and affect voting polls in the near term.

The surge in gasoline and diesel prices at pumps nationwide doesn't appear to be a concern for President Trump (at least not yet).

"I don't have any concern about it," the president told Reuters in an interview on Thursday evening when asked about rising prices.

"They'll drop very rapidly when this is over, and if they rise, they rise, but this is far more important than having gasoline prices go up a little bit."

The president's comments come as the national average gas price at the pump has jumped nearly 11% this week to $3.32 per gallon, according to the latest figures from the travel organization AAA.

The nearly 11% surge in the national average is the biggest weekly jump since the week of March 6, 2022, when there was a 12.6% spike due to energy market chaos stemming from the war in Eastern Europe.

Surging WTI futures on Friday morning, now at $86/bbl (Brent crude futures above $90/bbl), suggest that pump prices could be headed higher into the weekend. This is a very big concern for the Trump administration, despite Trump downplaying the whole price surge.

"We have slightly higher oil prices for a little while, but as soon as this ends, those prices are going to drop, I believe, lower than ever before," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

Current WTI fut pricing suggests $3.80-ish for gas at the pump. 

Trump has often touted low pump prices as one of his major accomplishments in making the economy more affordable for Americans after the inflation storm during the four years of the Biden-Harris administration. To be fair, gas prices nationwide are still relatively low compared to those years.

On Wednesday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright told Fox News that any increase in pump prices would be a temporary bump and a "very small price to pay" for accomplishing Trump's goals in the Middle East. The U.S. is more sheltered than ever to withstand a global energy shock, thanks to Trump's 'pump baby pump' pro-energy policies.

To mitigate the incoming energy shock created by the paralyzed Strait of Hormuz, Trump ordered the government to provide risk insurance for tankers transiting the waterway earlier this week. However, as we have already explained, and as Qatar's energy minister warned this morning, the risks of both an energy shock and a financial shock are soaring.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 12:00

Appeals Court Rules Trump Can Suspend Refugee Admissions

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump has legal authority to indefinitely suspend the admission of foreign nationals who are trying to enter the United States through its refugee resettlement program, a federal appeals court ruled on March 5.

Trump froze refugee resettlement programs as he took office in January 2025.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the new opinion in the case known as Pacito v. Trump.

The panel overturned most of the injunctions that Seattle-based U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead issued in February 2025. The judge had blocked Trump’s move to suspend the refugee resettlement program indefinitely, finding the president had gone beyond his legal authority by pausing the program.

In March 2025, the Ninth Circuit paused most of Whitehead’s rulings in favor of the plaintiffs and allowed Trump’s policy to be enforced while the litigation played out.

Trump signed Executive Order 14163 on Jan. 20, 2025. It said that the entry of refugees into the United States under the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) would be detrimental to the country and that the entry of refugees under the program should be suspended.

In Executive Order 14169, signed the same day, Trump directed that funding be suspended for the processing of applications from individuals outside the United States seeking refugee status. He also cut off funding for domestic settlement services for refugees who have been admitted to the United States.

In the new ruling, Circuit Judge Jay Bybee noted that the plaintiffs consisted of refugees recently admitted to the United States and refugees approved for U.S. resettlement but who are outside the country. Also among the plaintiffs were U.S.-based individuals seeking admission for family members or sponsees, and three organizations that had agreements with the U.S. Department of State to provide overseas processing and domestic resettlement services, he said.

The plaintiffs argued that Trump’s suspension of the refugee program violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and that defunding the program violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Administrative Procedure Act is a federal statute enacted in 1946 that governs administrative law procedures for federal executive departments and independent agencies. The late U.S. Sen. Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) said at the time the law was “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the federal government.”

Bybee said the court recognizes the “enormous practical implications of this decision,” which largely overrules Whitehead’s orders.

“There are over one hundred thousand vetted and conditionally approved refugees, many of whom may have spent years completing the USRAP process in a third country only to be turned away on the tarmac,” he said.

In the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress gave the president the power to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens,” and it is not for the court to decide if this is a “prudent policy,” Bybee said.

The panel voted 2–1 to uphold Whitehead’s orders preventing the federal government from ending services to already-admitted refugees and the termination of agreements with resettlement support centers.

Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee dissented in that vote, saying he would have completely reversed Whitehead’s orders.

“District courts cannot stand athwart, yelling ‘stop’ just because they genuinely believe they are the last refuge against policies that they deem to be deeply unwise,” Lee said.

A Department of Justice spokesman said the panel’s ruling “reaffirms that activist district court judges cannot usurp the power of the president to protect the American people and set refugee policy for the United States.”

Mevlude Akay Apl, an attorney for the plaintiffs with the International Refugee Assistance Project, said the panel’s ruling “removes the ability for refugees stranded by the refugee ban to be safely resettled, or even have their cases processed, while President Trump’s cruel ban continues.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 11:40

Kuwait Cuts Oil Output As Qatar Warns Hormuz Chokepoint Chaos Risks Global Shock

Update (1126ET):

Kuwait began cutting crude oil output after storage tank farms began filling up, as crude could no longer be loaded onto very large crude carriers and transported through the Strait of Hormuz, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Sources say the OPEC founding member is now weighing broader reductions in crude production and refining, potentially limiting operations to only domestic demand, with a decision expected within days.

UBS analyst Nana Antiedu noted that Brent crude futures climbed to $91/bbl after WSJ released the report.

WSJ noted:

Data provider Kpler said it has seen indications that Kuwait has started to cut production, adding that the country would have to cut more output in the coming days, as storage would otherwise fill up in around 12 days.

Shutting in an oil well risks long-term damage to reservoir pressure and incurs high restart costs, usually making it a measure of last resort. Restarting production can take days or even weeks depending on the reservoir.

"Storage is limited in the Middle East, and the only fix to avoid tanks running over is to curb production," UBS commodity analyst Giovanni Staunovo said. "The longer the strait stays closed, the more barrels of crude and refined products will be missing, leading to higher prices."

Earlier in the day, Qatar's energy minister, Saad al-Kaabi, told the FT that "Everybody who has not called for force majeure we expect will do so in the next few days if this continues. All exporters in the Gulf region will have to call a force majeure."

Also, Iraq had already slashed oil production by half earlier this week, while Qatar shut gas liquefaction plants.

Brent crude futures surged above $91/bbl on Friday morning in New York.

Even if a resolution emerges in the near term, restarting crude fields, refineries, and export hubs would likely take at least a month, and possibly longer. This suggests that the risk of an energy shock is fast approaching.

*   *  * 

Brent crude futures are on track for their biggest weekly gain since the early days of Covid, with the move now exceeding the 20% weekly spike at the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, as the U.S.-Israeli air campaign against Iran, Operation Epic Fury, has tipped the Gulf into an energy crisis, freezing commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and pushing some regional oil and gas production offline.

On Friday, Qatar's energy minister, Saad al-Kaabi, told the Financial Times that the Gulf conflict could trigger a global economic shock, warning that continued fighting would force all Gulf energy exporters to halt output and could send Brent crude prices north of $150 a barrel.

Strait of Hormuz the last 24 hours.

Unreal.

Source: @MarineTraffic pic.twitter.com/krcT5qp4ik

— HFI Research (@HFI_Research) March 5, 2026

"Everybody who has not called for force majeure we expect will do so in the next few days if this continues. All exporters in the Gulf region will have to call force majeure," Kaabi explained. "If they don't, they are at some point going to pay the liability for that legally, and that's their choice."

Qatar is the world's second-largest producer of LNG and was forced to declare force majeure earlier this week after IRGC drone strikes on its Ras Laffan plant.

"This will bring down the economies of the world," he warned. "If this war continues for a few weeks, GDP growth around the world will be impacted. Everybody's energy price is going to go higher. There will be shortages of some products and there will be a chain reaction of factories that cannot supply."

Kaabi continued, "We don't yet know the extent of the damage, as it is currently still being assessed. It is not yet clear how long repairs will take."

On Tuesday, we provided readers with the number of days of disruption needed in the Gulf area (the Strait of Hormuz chokepoint) to trigger actual panic, that is 25. Read the full report here.

And for Zerohedge Premium and Pro subs. JPMorgan crunched the math on Hormuz and revealed just how many days until chaos (report here). 

The math behind the forced shut ins https://t.co/SJ88Pky7D3

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 6, 2026

Then, on Thursday, energy economist Anas Alhajji spoke with top UBS analysts on a webinar that also provided a timeline for energy market chaos and the risks of an impending economic shock.

"Our main scenario is that if this lasts four weeks, things will be completely out of control. And when I say out of control, I mean that even if China starts releasing oil from its inventories, the problem is that my guess is China would also restrict exports, which means that oil would remain in China. We were counting on that oil being in the market, and now it is not going to be in the market," Alhajji said.

Alhajji outlined critical questions:

• Is the war about Iran's nuclear program, or is something much larger at play, with Iran serving more as a trigger or for broader strategic objectives?

• The distinction matters significantly because the medium- and long-term outcomes would look very different.

• Should attention be focused narrowly on Iran's nuclear program and regime change, or should the situation be analyzed within the much wider context of China, trade wars & tariffs, AI competition, Panama Canal, Red Sea, Venezuela, Syria, & Greenland?

• Are we observing "conflicts" within a larger "CONFLICT," where some groups are opportunistically exploiting the situation to pursue their own "local" objectives?

As well as the problem:

• The problem now is attacks that spark panic buying while Saudi Arabia cannot react. Thus, U.S. SPR release is limited, and China might ban exports. Prices would go above $100 easily, but fear would contain demand growth, limiting the increase in oil prices. The impact on LNG and NGLs is higher than on oil.

• We cannot go back quickly to normal. It will take at least 2 months if the war stops tomorrow. (logistics and technical issues)

• Lack of international cooperation (Every country for itself)

In energy markets, Brent crude futures are up 21%, exceeding the 20% spike at the start of the Ukraine-Russia war, and are on track for their largest weekly gain since the first week of May 2020.

Back to 2024 highs. 

There are no signs, at the moment, that the conflict is nearing an end. In fact, there are reports that IRGC forces just hit a US-owned oil tanker near Kuwait.

Goldman analysts earlier this week warned about $100/bbl crude oil prices. Disruptions across the Gulf have already sent diesel futures up 40% this week, while central banks are warning of a possible inflation spike.

Asia's exposure to Gulf oil is concerning, but China's exposure is even more alarming. This suggests that if the conflict persists, Beijing could be facing an incoming shock that risks morphing into a financial crisis

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/06/2026 - 11:26