Why Nuclear Energy Is More Vital Than Ever

As geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have escalated into direct conflict involving Iran, the global energy market is once again reminded of its precarious dependence on critical chokepoints. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz slowed to a crawl amid threats and attacks, while QatarEnergy halted LNG production following strikes on its facilities.

Oil prices jumped…

*BRENT OIL SURGES 13% TO $82 A BARREL AT OPEN AFTER IRAN STRIKES https://t.co/yD07qFkNk4

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 1, 2026

...and European natural gas benchmarks surged by as much as 45-50% in a single day.

*EUROPE GAS PRICES SURGE 50% AFTER QATARI LNG PRODUCTION HALTS https://t.co/NZImdHqf6A

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 2, 2026

For economies reliant on imported fossil fuels, it’s a stark warning.

In contrast, nuclear power plants around the world continue to hum along largely unaffected, chugging steadily forward while fossil markets panic. With fuel assemblies stockpiled for one to two years or more of operation, nuclear facilities don’t rely on daily tanker shipments or volatile global supply chains. Their high capacity factors provide consistent baseload power regardless of weather, politics, or the status of distant straits. This resilience stands in sharp relief to the chaos in oil and LNG markets.

The current disruptions highlight nuclear energy’s unique advantages for energy security. Uranium fuel is compact and can be sourced from diverse, stable suppliers or even domestic reserves in many nations. Once loaded, a reactor operates independently of the geopolitical storms that buffet fossil fuel transport routes like the Strait of Hormuz, which handles roughly 20% of global oil and significant LNG volumes from Qatar.

Europe finds itself particularly exposed. The continent’s energy import dependency is already over 50%, with countries like Germany historically even higher. Decades of policy prioritizing renewables and phasing out nuclear power, epitomized by Germany’s failed Energiewende, left the region overly reliant on imported natural gas and LNG. After the loss of cheap Russian pipeline gas, Europe turned to seaborne LNG, much of which now faces indirect risks from Middle East instability. The irony is hard to miss: nations that shuttered reliable nuclear plants in the name of safety and green ideals are now scrambling as fossil fuel prices soar, contributing to industrial strain and higher consumer costs.

France, by maintaining a robust nuclear fleet accounting for about 70% of its electricity, has enjoyed relatively greater stability and lower import dependence. Its experience suggests that a balanced energy mix with substantial nuclear baseload offers a buffer against external shocks. Even German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently acknowledged that the nuclear phase-out was a “severe strategic mistake,” underscoring the long-term costs of those earlier decisions.

Beyond security, nuclear power aligns with decarbonization goals. It produces low-carbon electricity at scale without the intermittency challenges of wind and solar. As demand surges from data centers, AI, and electrification, nations are eyeing a nuclear renaissance.

Of course, nuclear isn’t without challenges. High upfront costs, lengthy regulatory approvals, and lingering public concerns from past incidents require careful management. Waste disposal and proliferation risks demand ongoing attention. Yet, the technology’s track record for safety and reliability, combined with modern engineering, makes it a worthy path forward.

The latest events in Iran and the Gulf should serve as a catalyst for policy reevaluation. Governments would do well to streamline permitting for new reactors, invest in domestic fuel cycles, and educate the public on nuclear’s role in a secure, affordable, low-emission future. Short-term pain from energy price spikes may finally translate into long-term strategic gains if it accelerates the adoption of power sources immune to the whims of distant conflicts.
 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/09/2026 - 05:45

Rep. Darrell Issa Ends Reelection Bid After California Redistricting

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said he will not seek reelection in his southern California district, which had been redrawn to favor Democrats in last year’s redistricting.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) speaks at a hearing on oversight of the Federal Trade Commission in Washington on July 13, 2023. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

On March 6, the longtime congressman announced, shortly after the candidate filing deadline passed, that he would retire at the end of his term.

“This decision has been on my mind for a while, and I didn’t make it lightly,” Issa said in a statement announcing the end of his reelection bid.

Issa said he had built a strong campaign operation, enjoyed broad support, and believed polling showed he could win. But after roughly a quarter-century in Congress and another quarter-century in business, he said it was time “for a new chapter and new challenges.”

“First, we built the right campaign infrastructure, support has been overwhelming—including from President [Donald] Trump—and our polling was unmistakable: We would win this race. But after a quarter-century in Congress—and before that, a quarter-century in business—it’s the right time for a new chapter and new challenges.”

Issa endorsed San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond, a fellow Republican, to succeed him. Desmond filed paperwork on the morning of March 6 amid uncertainty over whether Issa might be dropping out of the race.

“He understands this community, was born and raised here, and will make a terrific Congressman,” Issa said of Desmond.

A former Army officer and tech entrepreneur, Issa was first elected to a San Diego-area House seat in 2000. He chaired the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee from 2011 to 2014, overseeing high-profile investigations during the Obama administration, including probes into the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and “Operation Fast and Furious,” where ATF agents allowed illegal gun purchases in an effort to map Mexican cartel networks but lost track of many of the weapons.

Issa left Congress in 2018 after Trump, then in his first term, nominated him to head the U.S. Trade and Development Agency. Although his nomination never advanced in the Senate, he mounted a successful comeback in 2020, winning a seat that had remained safely Republican until the latest remapping shifted the partisan balance of his 48th District.

After the lines shifted, Issa briefly floated the idea of running in Texas, but later said he would stay, declaring he “wasn’t quitting on California.”

Several Democrats are already in the race for the now-bluer 48th District, including San Diego City Council member Marni von Wilpert and Navy veteran Ammar Campa-Najjar, and Democrats quickly framed Issa’s decision as a sign the seat is ripe for a flip.

“Issa abandoning his voters now is the clearest sign yet that Republicans know he can’t win,” Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement. “Any Republican who tries to parachute into this race with the same extreme agenda will face the same fate.”

Republicans, meanwhile, praised Issa’s tenure and said they expect to remain competitive in the district even as the party defends a narrow House majority. Republicans currently hold a 218–214 edge in the chamber, with vacancies.

“We are grateful for Congressman Darrell Issa’s decades of dedicated service to the people of California and our nation,” a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee said in a statement to The Epoch Times. “We are optimistic that this district will continue to be represented by a Republican.”

Issa’s announcement capped a day of California election shake-up. Rep. Kevin Kiley, a two-term Republican, on March 6 filed to run in the 6th District as “no party preference,” citing frustration with congressional “hyper-partisanship” and gerrymandering.

“It is no secret I’ve been frustrated, at times disgusted, by the hyper-partisanship in Congress,” he said in a statement.

“In the last year, it’s led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, a massive increase in healthcare costs, and, of course, a pointless redistricting war. The epidemic of gerrymandering has spread from Texas to California to states all across the country. Both parties are complicit.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/09/2026 - 05:00

India To US: We Don't Need Permission To Buy Russian Oil

India has really been walking a careful geopolitical tight-rope, wanting keep relations on good terms with the Trump administration, but also wanting to defend its energy sovereignty and decision-making.

On Saturday the government issued a somewhat surprisingly feisty statement, in terms of its tone, after the United States just granted a sanctions waiver that allows for Russian oil shipments currently stranded at sea to be unloaded to Indian buyers.

India's Press Information Bureau wants the world to know New Delhi was never dependent on "a short-term waiver" to buy Russian oil.

This is clearly a bit of a loud brush-off to Washington, and Moscow is certainly going to welcome it:

"India has never depended on permission from any country to buy Russian oil," the government said in a statement.

And further, as the AFP also reports, the New Delhi statement reminded the West: "India is still importing Russian oil even in February 2026, and Russia is still India’s largest crude oil supplier."

via MR online

Meanwhile in Washington US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has clearly indicated the Trump administration is considering lifting sanctions on more Russian oil. 

As a reminder of the initial huge Thurs-Fri complete U-turn, coming months after Trump slapped tariffs on Indian goods in a bid to pressure Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to abandon energy purchases from Russia, which of course India never did...

"To enable oil to keep flowing into the global market, the Treasury Department is issuing a temporary 30-day waiver to allow Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a post on X. “This deliberately short-term measure will not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government as it only authorizes transactions involving oil already stranded at sea.”

Since China gets ​about 45% of its oil from the Strait, should Iran agree to allowing Chinese ships through, and should Russia be able to fully supply India's needs, and if Saudi Arabia can reroute as much as 7 million bbl/d from the gulf to Yangbu via the East-West pipeline, as we touched upon earlier...and suddenly the Hormuz blockade will seem far less ominous, as most of the oil blocked finds alternative ways to continue on its way to its final destination. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/09/2026 - 04:15

Kurds Do Not 'Trust' US To Use Them As Proxy Force Against Iran

This should be obvious to any observer of Middle East history and US foreign policy over the last half-century, but a new Axios report cited Kurdish officials who say they don't 'trust' the United States, especially in wake of recent reports suggesting the Kurds will be used as proxy ground forces against Iran. 

Iraq's Kurds have already made clear they oppose joining the US-Israeli attacks on Iran and warn they could face severe Iranian retaliation without ground or air defense support, Axios reported Saturday.

Source: Intrepid Times

An earlier CNN report claimed the CIA began working to arm Kurdish forces hostile to the Islamic Republic of Iran after the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury.

Initially, President Trump openly voiced support for Kurdish involvement in the conflict but then soon reversed that position on Saturday.

"The Kurds must not be the tip of the spear in this conflict," Axios reported, citing a senior official from the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG), which is the semi-autonomous region in northeastern Iraq.

The Iraqi Kurds are "staying neutral" because "there is no clarity" on whether Washington seeks full regime change in Iran or only a "change in personnel" - the KRG official said. Trump has stated the United States will be involved in deciding who leads Iran in the future but has not explained how that would really work in the end. The war objectives have seemed to shift rapidly, especially when it comes to daily public facing White House interactions with reporters.

Some military analysts and Middle East pundits online recently attempted to count the number of times the Kurds were effectively "thrown under the bus" in their total history of working with Washington, and concluded that it's been at least nine times.

The last 'betrayal' was merely months ago - when the Pentagon quickly withdrew from northern Syria and simply told the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) to become integrated into the Syrian state and army. The only thing is the Jolani/Sharaa government and its HTS militants hate the Kurds.

The SDF had long battled against the Sunni hardliners now ruling from Damascus at this point. The US also regularly failed to step in over years of Turkish aerial bombardment of both Syrian and Iraqi Kurds.

via BBC

As for the idea of some kind of proxy Kurdish invasion force to use against Iran - some see the idea as being destined for failure, given an Iranian nation of 90+ million with a powerful IRGC ruling military structure would likely feel it as merely a pinprick. It's anything but certain that it would actually have an impact on leaders in Tehran. Instead, blowback would fall hardest on Kurdish communities across the region, and Shia militias in Iraq might get involved on the other side as well.

Currently, many Kurdish leaders are outraged that US officials 'leaked' the arm the Kurds plan, given it effectively puts a big target on every Iranian Kurds' back in eyes of military leadership in Tehran.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/09/2026 - 02:45

Martyrdom, Maps, & Munitions: Jim Rickards' Most Surprising Iran Takes

Authored by Adam Shapr via DailyReckoning.com,

I’ve been a fan of Jim Rickards’ work for around 10 years.

He came onto my radar in 2016 when he predicted Donald Trump would win the election. I saw a clip of him saying the polls were crooked. And that turned out to be a great call.

Jim is never afraid to speak his mind. And his contrarian predictions have uncanny accuracy.

So I’ve been following Jim’s work on the Iran situation closely. Just today he put out a new Iran writeup with surprising, even disturbing ideas in it.

This is what Jim does. His research is sometimes unnerving, but it is always well thought out and logical.

Today, we’re going to cover a few key aspects of Jim’s new report and add context with maps and graphics.

Let’s get started…

Can Iran Wait it Out?

In a section titled, Can Iran Win?, Jim begins by acknowledging that the U.S. and Israeli forces have done far more damage thus far:

Notwithstanding Iran’s limited success in counterattacks, it’s clear that the U.S. and Israel have inflicted far more damage on Iran than Iran has inflicted on the region.

That asymmetric damage ratio will continue to grow. The U.S. and Israeli attacks will expand even as Iran’s capacity to strike back is being heavily degraded.

However, there are deeper considerations here. For example, while taking out the 86-year old Ayatollah Khamenei was satisfying to many, it also handed the Iranian regime a propaganda victory. Here’s Jim:

Martyrdom – The first point is that the deaths of Ayatollah Khamenei and many of the top leaders of Iran may not have been unwanted by them. This is something the Western mind can barely comprehend.

In Islam, martyrdom is considered a blessing from Allah. It guarantees the martyr a place in paradise.

Is it possible that Khamenei and other leaders gathered in one place intentionally knowing that they would eventually be hunted down and killed by the U.S. and Israel? Why not gather in one place and become martyrs together?

This idea of martyrdom applies to the successors and replacements of those killed on day one. Many of those successors have been killed also. To the secular West, this is counted as a military victory.

But to the theocratic Muslim, martyrdom is the victory. This process unites almost all of Iran in a celebration of Allah’s divine will. The more martyrs we create, the stronger Iran becomes as an Islamic Republic.

Again, this is hard for the Western secular mainstream to grasp, but killing their leaders is making Iran stronger. There’s an almost Nietzschean vibe for the Iranian survivors.

This is the type of analysis you won’t see on cable news. Martyrdom is a powerful force in the Islamic world, and there is a decent chance that Khamenei embraced the prospect of death. Even if this isn’t objectively true, what matters is how it is perceived by the world’s 230 million Shia Muslims. And they take this stuff very seriously.

The Ayatollah’s killing could lead to a more unified Iran, and even spread to neighboring Shia populations in Bahrain, Iraq, and beyond.

Challenging Topography

Jim goes on to describe how challenging a ground invasion would be due to Iran’s terrain:

The Terrain – Westerners also have little idea just how big Iran is. It’s the 17th largest country in the world by area out of 195 countries. It also has the 17th largest population in the world with 86 million people.

Iran is not a giant like India or Brazil, but it is far larger than Americans realize. The terrain is challenging with large mountain ranges and deserts. This is not a country ripe for a land invasion like Iraq or Syria.

Iran is far larger than Ukraine, which is still holding out against Russia after four years of war. Iran has what military strategists call strategic depth, which offers the ability to retreat without surrender. Iran isn’t going anywhere and it will not easily be subdued.

Here is a topographical map of the country. Note how mountainous Iran is compared to Iraq directly to the West.

Compared to Iran, Iraq is about as flat as Illinois. It would make an extremely challenging ground invasion. Still, President Trump is not ruling out the prospect of boots on the ground.

How Long Will U.S. and Israeli Munitions Last?

The next item Jim tackles is perhaps the most challenging. A looming shortage of key munitions.

A U.S. Munitions Problem – Most importantly, the U.S. and Israel are running low on offensive and defensive bombs and missiles. This is the result of the massive bombing attacks on Iran, the need to fire thousands of anti-missiles to shoot down thousands of incoming drones and missiles, the fact that the U.S. has allowed its military industrial capacity to atrophy, and the large number of weapons wasted in Ukraine.

The U.S. sent seven Patriot anti-missile batteries to Ukraine at about $1 billion each. All seven were destroyed by Russian hypersonic missiles. I’m certain the U.S. wishes it had those batteries today to protect U.S. bases and troops near Iran. The senile Biden and neocon warmongers may be to blame, but the damage is done.

The U.S. and Israel have inflicted enormous damage on Iran and will continue to do so in the short run. But within weeks, the magazines will run low, and the U.S. will be scrounging around in South Korea and Japan for replacements.

Good luck with that.

U.S. industrial output of 800 cruise missiles per year cannot keep up with Israel and the U.S. launching 100 per week. Ships need to reprovision. Repairs cannot be neglected. Diego Garcia is days away from the battlespace. The U.S. will be badly stretched.

So Jim estimates that America produces around 800 cruise missiles per year. And we’re currently launching about 100 per week. Maybe more. Not great. There are stockpiles, of course, but those are supposed to be for emergency use only. Does this qualify?

Additionally, many U.S. bases close to Iran have been hit by Iranian missiles and drones and have essentially been abandoned. Fortunately U.S. soldiers are largely out of the line of fire. But it also makes refueling and re-arming challenging.

Here’s a map, via the Wall Street Journal, showing the approximate positions of U.S. bases and naval assets in theater:

Source: WSJ

(Note: Since this map was published, the U.S.S. Gerald Ford carrier strike group has moved through the Suez Canal into the Red Sea, likely headed to the Arabian Sea.)

To refuel, re-arm, and repair, The U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group would normally go to Bahrain or another nearby base. But those bases have been hit hard. So now they will likely have to go to Diego Garcia, which is thousands of miles away. Here’s a map:

Source: RT

Jim closes his report with a note about the uncertain outcome of a war of attrition.

Iran has a united population; reports of internal protests are greatly exaggerated, especially after the ayatollah ordered the killing of 5,000 protestors just weeks ago.

It has a robust political system despite decapitation strikes. Drones are cheap and easy to manufacture. They can do just as much damage as an F-15 strike when targeted properly.

Iran has strategic depth, allies in Russia and China, and a strong survival instinct.

In a war of attrition, really a war for survival, victory goes to the last man standing.

That may be Iran.

This is why we read Jim Rickards. Smart contrarian takes you won’t hear on mainstream media.

In war, the number one mistake is to underestimate your opponent. We should be careful to heed this historic warning.

This war has the potential to escalate in unpredictable and dangerous ways. Economically, geopolitically, and kinetically.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/09/2026 - 02:00

Price Controls Arrive: South Korea, Taiwan Impose Fuel Price Cap

It’s a bloodbath across Asian markets this morning with Asia being the world’s largest oil-importing region. Based on a Goldman analysis of the impact of higher oil on real GDP growth (chart below), China is the most insulated from supply-driven oil price increases compared to other emerging Asian economies, with $15/bbl higher crude oil prices leading to 0-0.1pp lower GDP growth and 0.1-0.2pp higher headline CPI inflation. This resilience is partly due to the country's economic structure and the potential for government intervention to dampen the pass-through of global price increases to consumers. Increased oil stockpiling last year - some estimates put China's strategic oil resere at 1.5 billion barrels - and very low inflation over the past few years also make China less vulnerable to rising energy prices.

Conversely, Singapore, followed by Taiwan and Korea, will bear the brunt of it with a -1.6% hit to GDP growth and this is only assuming $85 oil. Brent has now crossed the $100 handle with risks to the upside. 

Seen in this light, it is probably not a big surprise that South Korean President ​Lee Jae Myung ‌said on Monday that authorities would ​cap domestic ​fuel prices for the ⁠first time ​in nearly 30 ​years to contain a spike in prices after ​the conflict ​in the Middle East ‌sent ⁠global crude prices sharply higher.

Speaking at an emergency ​cabinet ​meeting, ⁠Lee said in the ​government would "swifly implement ​and ⁠boldly impement" a maximum price ⁠system ​on ​petroleum products.

The current crisis "is a significant burden on ​our economy, which is highly dependent on global trade and energy imports from the Middle East," Lee said in opening remarks.

He added ​that South Korea will also look for sources of ​energy beyond supplies shipped via the Strait of Hormuz.

Having emerged as the most cartoonish "market" in the world - whether it is stocks, crypto, or oil, and where even the smallest downtick has to be stabilized by the government or else watch the momentum-chasing lemmings run over the cliff - Lee said a 100 ‌trillion ⁠won market stabilization programme should be expanded if needed, and called on the government and the central bank to prepare additional measures to respond to the volatility of ​the financial and ​foreign exchange ⁠markets.

South Korean shares slumped 8% on Monday to activate circuit breakers for a second ​time this month on the escalating Middle East ​conflict, ⁠while the won dropped more than 1% to trade near a key psychological barrier of 1,500 per dollar. The Kospi plunged 12% last Wednesday before surging by 12% on Thursday. 

Sure enough, shortly after Korea's announcement, the Commercial Times reported that Taiwan would set a weekly cap on oil-price increases as it seeks to cushion the economy from the impact of the Middle East war. 

The Taipei-based newspaper reported the limit on Monday, citing Premier Cho Jung-tai and unidentified officials. Cho had previously told reporters on Sunday that the government had activated a price-stabilization mechanism to absorb oil price increases. That came after the Ministry of Economic Affairs said the day before that domestic fuel prices would only rise about 5% this week.

On liquefied natural gas, Taiwan’s Economy Minister Kung Ming-hsin told reporters the island only needs to find two more cargoes for March and April. “We won’t have a power shortage, and no additional coal-fired generation will be needed in March and April,” he said on Monday. “We can proceed as planned and safely navigate the period.”

Taiwan’s unleaded gasoline prices rose by as much as 5.5% after the government activated stabilization measures, the ministry said in the statement. Under the floating oil-price adjustment mechanism, prices should have climbed by as much as 19.7% this week, it said, with the government absorbing costs to reduce the impact on households and businesses and maintain domestic price stability.

How long can Taiwan keep prices artificially low, thus ensuring that the snapback will be especially brutal? According to officials cited in the Commercial Times repor, there are currently no concerns that Taiwan will run out of crude oil or natural gas, which simply means that nobody has done the math. The government plans to increase oil and gas purchases from outside the Middle East, and coordinate with Asian countries such as Japan and South Korea to swap LNG cargoes to ensure stable supply, the newspaper reported.

While one can debate the prudence of such price controls until one is blue in the face, the reality is that unless oil stabilizes and reverses, expect similar price caps all across the world coupled with strategic petroleum reserve releases, because a 25% one-day surge in the price of oil - if sustained - not only guarantees a global recession, but it also ensures social unrest, as well as a comprehensive sacking of every incumbent politician. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 23:30

When Reagan (Wisely) Cut & Run From The Middle East After Marine Barracks Bombing

Authored by Jim Bovard

In his recent comments justifying a preventive war against Iran, President Donald Trump declared, "In 1983, Iran’s proxies carried out the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American military personnel." Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has invoked that attack numerous times. The 1983 Beirut barracks attack is one of the most cited and least understood pretexts for the new war with Iran.   

That bombing was one of President Ronald Reagan's biggest foreign debacles. Lebanon had been wracked by a brutal civil war for seven years when, in June 1982, Israel invaded in order to crush the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). US troops were briefly deployed in August 1982 in Beirut to help secure a ceasefire to facilitate the withdrawal of the PLO forces to Tunisia.

via Wikimedia

US troops exited Beirut after the PLO withdrawal was largely completed. However, in mid-September 1982, the massacre of more than seven hundred Palestinian refugees threatened to plunge Lebanon into total chaos. Lebanese Christian Phalangist militia butchered residents of the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. The militia was armed, aided, and fed by the Israeli Defense Force, which surrounded and blockaded the camps.

The Lebanese government appealed to President Reagan to send American troops back to Beirut as a stabilizing factor, and Reagan quickly obliged. As fighting escalated between Christians, Muslims, Syrians, and Israelis in Lebanon, the original US peacekeeping mission became a farce. The US forces were training and equipping the Lebanese army, which was increasingly perceived as a pro-Christian, anti-Muslim force. (Most Lebanese were Muslim, though possibly a thin majority at that point.)

On April 18, 1983 a delivery van pulled up to the front door of the US embassy in Beirut and detonated, collapsing the building and killing forty-six people (including sixteen Americans) and wounding over a hundred others. The US embassy was a sitting duck for the terrorist assault: unlike many other U.S. embassies in hostile environments, it had no sturdy outer wall. Newsweek noted, "Delivery vehicles are supposed to go to the rear of the building. Why Lebanese police guarding the embassy driveway would have made an exception in the case of the black van remained a mystery." The attack lacked novelty value, since the Iraqi and French embassies had been wrecked by similar car bomb attacks in the preceding eighteen months.

Five days later, on April 23, 1983, Reagan announced to the press:

"The tragic and brutal attack on our embassy in Beirut has shocked us all and filled us with grief. Yet, because of this latest crime we are more resolved than ever to help achieve the urgent and total withdrawal of all American forces from Lebanon, or I should say, all foreign forces. I'm sorry. Mistake."

But the actual mistake was a US policy that would cost hundreds of Americans their lives.

By late summer 1983, the Marines were being targeted by Muslim snipers. Reagan administration officials seemed surprised at rising attacks on American soldiers. The Reagan administration responded to sniper potshots and scattered mortar attacks on US troops with a massive escalation. On September 13, Reagan authorized Marine commanders in Lebanon to call in air strikes and other attacks against the Muslims to help the Christian Lebanese army. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger vigorously opposed the new policy, fearing it would make American troops far more vulnerable. Navy ships repeatedly bombarded the Muslims over the next few weeks.

At 6:20 A.M. on Sunday morning, October 23, 1983, a lone, grinning Muslim drove a Mercedes truck through a parking lot, past two Marine guard posts, through an open gate, and into the lobby of the Marine headquarters building in Beirut, where he detonated the equivalent of six tons of explosives. The explosion left a thirty-foot-deep crater and killed 243 marines. A second truck bomb moments later killed 58 French soldiers.

Colin Powell, who was then a major general, commented in his autobiography, "Since [the Muslims] could not reach the battleship, they found a more vulnerable target, the exposed Marines at the airport." A surprise attack on a troop concentration in a combat zone does not fit most definitions of terrorism. However, Reagan perennially portrayed the attack as a terrorist incident and the American media and political establishment accepted that label.

Reagan administration officials scrambled to assert that the administration was blameless. White House press spokesman Larry Speakes declared on the day of the attack that the bombing "definitely was a difficult situation for us" since "people come out of nowhere and perform these acts." Vice President George H.W. Bush rationalized, "It’s awfully hard to guard against that kind of terrorism." Defense Secretary Weinberger announced that "nothing can work against a suicide attack like that, any more than you can do anything against a kamikaze flight." Actually, during World War II, the U.S. Navy quickly responded by placing rows of antiaircraft guns on the sides of its big ships.

In the aftermath of the Marine barracks bombing, Reagan made a mockery of the truth. In a televised speech four days after the bombing, the president portrayed the attack as unstoppable, declaring that the truck “crashed through a series of barriers, including a chain-link fence and barbed-wire entanglements. The guards opened fire, but it was too late.” Reagan claimed the attack proved the U.S. mission was succeeding: “Would the terrorists have launched their suicide attacks against the multinational force if it were not doing its job?…It is accomplishing its mission.” He warned that an American withdrawal could result in the Middle East being “incorporated into the Soviet bloc.” Reagan also declared that the United States was involved in the Middle East in part to secure a “solution to the Palestinian problem.”

Reagan sent Marine Corps commander Paul X. Kelley to Beirut. Kelley quickly announced that he was “totally satisfied” with the security around the barracks at the time of the bombing. Upon returning to Washington, Kelley was summoned to Capitol Hill and bragged to Congress that “In a 13-month period, no marine billeted in the building [destroyed by the truck bomb] was killed or injured” from incoming fire. Kelley inaccurately testified that the Marine guards had loaded weapons and that two of them had been killed in the attack. When congressmen persisted questioning, Kelley became enraged and shouted, “We’re talking about clips in weapons, but we’re not talking about the people who did it. I want to find the perpetrators. I want to bring them to justice! You have to allow me this one moment of anger.”

Even though there had already been numerous major car bombings in Beirut that year and scores of other suicide attacks, Kelley told the committee that the truck bombing “represents a new and unique terrorist threat, one that could not have been anticipated by any commander.” Kelley denied the Marines received any warning of an impending attack. However, on the morning of Kelley’s second day of testimony, The New York Times reported that the CIA specifically warned the Marines three days ahead of time that an Iranian-linked group was planning an attack against them.

Other military officials involved in Lebanon also denied any culpability. Vice Admiral Edward Martin, the commander of the Sixth Fleet, declared, “The only person I can see who was responsible was the driver of that truck.” Martin stressed in an interview, “You have to remember that prior to Oct. 23, there hadn’t been any real terrorism threat.” A New York Times investigation concluded:

“Marine officers in Beirut and the admirals and generals in the chain of command above them did not consider terrorism to be a primary threat even after the embassy bombing, and even though Beirut had been full of terrorists for years.”

Shortly after the bombing, Reagan appointed a Pentagon commission headed by retired Admiral Robert Long to investigate. The commission report, finished in mid-December 1983, concluded that military commanders in Lebanon and all the way back to Washington failed to take obvious steps to protect the soldiers. The commission suggested that many fatalities might have been prevented if guards had carried loaded weapons. The report stated that the only barrier the truck overcame was some barbed wire that it easily drove over. The commission also noted that the “prevalent view” among U.S. commanders was that there was a direct link between the Navy shelling of the Muslims and the truck bomb attack.

When the White House saw the final version of the commission’s report, they issued a stop order. The Washington Post reported that the White House “delayed release of the report for several days, allowing Reagan to respond to its criticism before it became public, and then attempted to play down its impact by vetoing a Pentagon news conference on the document.” On December 27, 1983 Reagan revealed that “we have never before faced a situation in which others routinely sponsor and facilitate acts of violence against us.” Reagan sought to make the report “old news”:

“Nearly all the measures that were identified by the distinguished members of the Commission have already been implemented and those that have not will be very quickly.”

Reagan announced that the Marine commanders in Beirut “have already suffered enough” and should not “be punished for not fully comprehending the nature of today’s terrorist threat.” Reagan then effectively declared that no one would be held accountable. “If there is to be blame, it properly rests here in this office and with this president,” he announced, just before leaving Washington for a vacation in Palm Springs, California.

The Reagan administration blamed its anti-terrorist failures on the Carter administration. White House press spokesman Larry Speakes announced:

“We don’t quarrel with the fact that the CIA and other intelligence-gathering agencies have been crippled by decisions of the previous administration, and we are in the process of rebuilding capabilities. But it takes time…to re-establish our intelligence-gathering methods.”

The following September, shortly after a suicide bomber again obliterated much of the poorly-defended U.S. embassy in Beirut, Reagan blamed the debacle on Carter administration CIA cutbacks. “We’re feeling the effects today of the near destruction of our intelligence capability in recent years before we came here,” Reagan said, falsely asserting that the Carter administration had “to a large extent” gotten “rid of our intelligence agents.”

Reagan quietly withdrew U.S. combat troops from Beirut in early 1984. During the 1984 presidential election, the Reagan administration also responded to its Beirut debacles by attacking the patriotism of Democrats. In the vice presidential candidates debate, George H. W. Bush denounced Democratic candidate Walter Mondale and his vice presidential pick, Geraldine Ferraro. “For somebody to suggest, as our opponents have, that these men died in shame, they had better not tell the parents of those young marines,” he said. Neither Mondale nor Ferraro had said that the Marines “died in shame.” Bush denounced Mondale for running a “mean-spirited campaign,” saying “We’ve seen Walter Mondale take a human tragedy in the Middle East and try to turn it to personal political advantage.” But Mondale’s criticisms of the Reagan administration’s failures in Lebanon were less strident than Reagan’s criticisms of Jimmy Carter for the Iran hostage crisis during the 1980 presidential campaign.

Muslims also responded to U.S. troops by seizing American hostages. Reagan sent military equipment to Iran as a means to entice the Iranians to exert pressure to get hostages released. After the “arms for hostages” deal became public (along with the illegal funneling of the proceeds to the Nicaraguan Contras), Reagan’s credibility was devastated. Reagan went into such a tailspin after the crisis broke that his new chief of staff, Howard Baker, briefly examined invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to remove Reagan from office because of medical unfitness. The Tower Commission report on the debacle concluded, “The arms-for-hostages trades rewarded a regime that clearly supported terrorism and hostage-taking.”

The 1982-84 deployment of U.S. troops in Beirut achieved nothing. The Israelis were far more aggressive against perceived opponents in Lebanon than were the American troops. But even the Israelis were effectively driven out of Lebanon over a decade and a half later, after failing to suppress Hezbollah and losing more than twice as many soldiers there as it lost during the 1967 Six-Day War.

The United States got dragged into a Mideast conflict and then recklessly failed to defend it own troops or American national interest. The 1983 Beirut barracks bombing does not prove that Iran has always been a deadly enemy. Instead, it shows how folly and deception pervaded even a presidency much less imprudent than subsequent administrations.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 23:15

US Aims To Exhume And Identify 88 USS Arizona Crew Members Buried As Unknowns After Pearl Harbor

The U.S. military plans to exhume the remains of 88 sailors and Marines killed aboard the USS Arizona during the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, part of a renewed effort to identify servicemen who were buried as unknowns in the aftermath of the assault.

A grave marker for an unknown casualty from the USS Arizona is shown at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, on July 15, 2021, in Honolulu. Caleb Jones/AP Photo

The remains, currently interred at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific, will be disinterred beginning in November or December, according to the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency, which is overseeing the project. Advances in DNA technology and a growing database of genetic samples from family members have made it increasingly possible to assign names to remains that could not be identified more than eight decades ago, AP reports.

Officials said the process will unfold gradually. About eight sets of remains will be removed every two to three weeks and analyzed. The DNA extracted from the remains will be compared with samples provided by relatives of the missing, many of whom have spent years searching for answers about family members lost in the attack.

The bombing of Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 - known historically as the Attack on Pearl Harbor - destroyed or damaged dozens of ships and killed more than 2,400 Americans. The Arizona was struck by bombs that ignited its forward ammunition magazines, causing the battleship to sink in roughly nine minutes. Of the 1,177 sailors and Marines killed aboard the vessel, more than 900 remain entombed within the wreck, which still rests at the harbor floor and serves as a memorial.

Those remains will not be disturbed. The planned exhumations will apply only to individuals buried as unidentified at the Honolulu cemetery.

The identification effort builds on earlier work that used DNA to identify hundreds of Pearl Harbor casualties from other ships, including the USS Oklahoma and the USS West Virginia. Officials say the new project reflects both technological progress and the growing participation of families willing to provide genetic samples.

Among those following the effort closely is Kevin Kline, a real estate agent in northern Virginia whose great-uncle, Robert Edwin Kline, served as a gunner’s mate second class aboard the Arizona. He was 22 when he died in the attack. For much of his life, Mr. Kline said, his family believed his great-uncle’s remains were still aboard the ship. Only in recent years did he learn that some crew members had been buried as unidentified remains on land.

Kline told the Associated Press that he does not assume his relative will be among those identified, but believes the effort could bring a measure of peace to families whose losses have reverberated across generations. 

For years, the Defense Department had resisted calls to exhume the remains, arguing that identification would be difficult because the military possessed dental records or DNA samples for only a small fraction of the victims’ families. As recently as 2021, officials estimated that samples existed for about 1 percent of the families.

Kline helped found an advocacy effort known as Operation 85, which has spent the past three years locating relatives of the missing and encouraging them to submit DNA samples. He says that family members connected to 626 sailors and Marines - just under 60 percent of those still missing - have now provided samples. Only a small number of people contacted declined to participate.

The remains will be transported to the agency’s laboratory at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam in Hawaii for initial analysis. DNA samples will then be sent to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory at Dover Air Force Base for further testing and comparison.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 22:40

'Small Price To Pay': Trump Says Surging Oil Prices Will 'Drop Rapidly' Once Iran Nuke Threat Over

It seems someone tapped the President on the shoulder given this afternoon's explosive opening in futures and he has posted X that spiking oil prices are a "small price to pay" for world peace, adding that prices "will drop rapidly" once the Iran nuclear threat is over.

It's Sunday night and the much-hoped for de-escalation has not happened.

This has triggered an explosive move higher in WTI...

...topping $110 for the first time since June 2022... (Goldman nailed that call)

US equity futures have dramatically 'broken the box'...

Treasury yields are up 5bps, recoupling modestly from Friday's 'weak jobs decoupling'...

Gold is down, the dollar up, and crypto ugly.

For all the color you can eat on Iran-related market angst, the following posts should help:

'Everything You Knew About The Market Flipped This Week': Top Goldman Trader 

Goldman Flows Guru Warns Relatively Calm Index Belies 'Fragile' Market With 'Poor Tolerance For Bad News'

Hartnett: US Politics Dictate March De-escalation To Iran War

'10 Sigma': Goldman's Hedge Fund Honcho 'Level Sets' After Extraordinary Week

Goldman Panics, Expects Oil To Hit $100 Next Week And Reach "Demand Destruction" Levels

And don't forget there is a lot more risk than just Iranian stress:

Insurance Companies Crushed As Private Credit Contagion Spills Over

Deutsche Bank Warns Energy Shock "Existential Threat" To Airlines, May Force Some To Ground Fleets

Credit - A Little Bit Louder Now

These moves come as the Trump administration said it is not prioritizing using the US Department of the Treasury to trade oil futures as it weighs ways to ease surging global energy prices, according to Yahoo Finance.

Officials have considered having Treasury buy or sell energy futures, but believe the agency would have limited ability to move such a large and active market.

Daily trading volumes have surged during the recent conflict, diluting the impact any single participant could have.

The White House is also reluctant to immediately tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Heavy drawdowns under former president Joe Biden left the reserve about 60% full, while repeated withdrawals have created maintenance issues.

Still, officials acknowledge that even a modest release could send a strong signal to calm markets.

Domestic gas (pump) prices soaring (and are about to go even higher)...

The report says that the administration is reviewing a wide range of responses.

Doug Burgum said “everything is being considered,” from immediate steps to longer-term measures, as officials try to contain rising fuel costs that pose both geopolitical risks and political pressure ahead of November’s midterm elections.

$5 gas prices at the pump is imminent!!

Given the current moves we are seeing, we suspect that laissez-faire attitude will shift rapidly and some kind of intervention is imminent.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 21:45

Conscientious Objector Group: Phone 'Ringing Off Hook' As Huge Mobilization Underway

An 80-year-old nonprofit that advises conscientious objectors says its phone is "ringing off the hook" as American service members who object to the US-and-Israel-initiated war on Iran are seeking guidance on how to avoid being a part of it. Ominously, the group's executive director says the breadth of force mobilization is much like the run-up to the ground invasion of Iraq.  

"Phone has been ringing off the hook," wrote Center on Conscience & War executive director Mike Prysner on X. "A LOT more units have just been activated for deployment than the public knows about." Founded in 1940, the Center on Conscience and War provides guidance to military service members pursuing a conscientious objector (CO) status or a discharge. The group also opposes military conscription.

Service members: If you agree Trump’s war on Iran is wrong, you don’t have to participate. We can help you explore your options. Call 1-800-379-2679 pic.twitter.com/LOAA7k9ElX

— Center on Conscience & War (@CCW4COs) February 28, 2026

In a post on the group's account, the Center said it received a call from someone who is on deployment orders and who "reports widespread opposition to Iran War within their unit...In particular, they conveyed disgust at the US massacre of the girls’ school as well as the attack on the Iranian frigate in international waters."

The US military is reportedly responsible for killing some 150 schoolgirls in Minab, Iran during the opening of the war. In another incident, a US Navy submarine torpedoed an Iranian ship that was departing a largely ceremonial naval event in India that involved 18 countries. Compounding the controversy over sinking a lightly-armed vessel 2,000 miles from the war theater, the Americans apparently left surviving sailors to drown in a violation of the Geneva Convention -- that is, a war crime. At least 87 died. 

Under US military policy, CO status is defined as “a firm, fixed, and sincere objection to participation in war in any form or the bearing of arms, by reason of religious training and/or belief.” That would seemingly exclude service members who stand ready to defend America, but who view the war on Iran as an amoral enterprise being carried out solely to advance Israel's agenda in the region. 

I just spoke with the mother of a service member in this unit. They were given one last call home before having to turn in their phones. He told his mom the were going “boots on the ground” tonight. pic.twitter.com/3OCupSfp9Q

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

However, the group helps service members pursue other avenues for opting out of the latest US regime-change war in the Middle East. For example, in a Friday night post, the Center said service members who are in their first year in any branch "can *easily* get out just by reporting 'failure to adapt'...The evidence bar is low." 

Prysner, who took on the executive director role on March 1, joined the US Army shortly before 9/11, and was part of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. After discharging, he became an activist against the war. He said what he's hearing from callers indicates a major mobilization on par with the final weeks before the catastrophic invasion of Iraq: 

I was part of the buildup to invasion of Iraq. What I’ve heard today from troops & families is so reminiscent of Feb-Mar ‘03. Doesn’t prove the US is invading, but that they are definitely preparing to. Will they? Probably weighing many factors… and our resistance is one of them

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

Prysner also said the mother of a service member in a deployed unit relayed a disturbing account from her son: His commander attempted to build enthusiasm for the mission by saying it would bring about the second coming of Jesus Christ. That account parallels those publicized earlier this week by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. As described by ZeroHedge contributor blueapples, just a few days into the new war, MRFF had already received more than 100 complaints from troops in 40 units who said leaders were pushing theological rationalizations for war on Iran. One commander allegedly said Trump has been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.”

Some ZeroHedge readers may know Prysner as the filmmaker who has collaborated with journalist Abby Martin on the Empire Files, a series of documentaries and videos that include "Gaza Fights For Freedom," which profiled the 2018 Great March of Return, a protest that saw Palestinians who approached the Israeli border wall shot by IDF snipers -- with 62 slaughtered on a single day. 

Prysner just became the Center's executive director on March 1 -- one day after Israel and the United States initiated an unprovoked war on Iran. "With the first US dead in another immoral war, more troops will be questioning their role," said Prysner at the time. "Our job is to find them, defend them, and help them come home." 

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 21:30

The Oil Island That Could Break Iran

Authored by Scott Walden via E&E News,

One of President Donald Trump’s most potent moves for crippling the Iranian regime may involve seizing a tiny island where gazelles run free near oil infrastructure.

The 5-mile strip of land known as Kharg Island is home to Iran’s most important oil facility, an export terminal in the Persian Gulf that handles up to 90 percent of the nation’s crude. It’s a cornerstone of Iran’s economy and a major source of revenue for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a pillar of the regime that experts say could put down the kind of public uprising that Trump has called for.

If Trump intends to intensify pressure on Iran outside of missile strikes and bombings, seizing Kharg Island would deprive the regime of a key funding source for controlling the population, said Michael Rubin, a senior Pentagon adviser on Iran and Iraq in the George W. Bush administration. He said he has been communicating with White House officials about the strategic importance of the island.

“If they can’t sell their own oil, they can’t make payroll,” said Rubin, who is now a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

“No matter how much we bomb, there’s not going to be regime change until we fracture the Revolutionary Guard, and if this can be a fairly nonviolent way of doing it, all the better,” he added.

Oil is the lifeblood of the Revolutionary Guard. About half of the nation’s $50 billion oil industry is controlled by the force, Reuters has reported. That includes a ghost fleet of oil tankers that take its sanctioned crude abroad, mostly to China.

Rubin, who has been in contact with administration officials about seizing Kharg, said his recommendations have been circulated within the National Security Council. He believes Trump is relying on a small circle of advisers, and it’s not clear if they’re aware of the island’s strategic importance, Rubin said.

“If they themselves aren’t familiar with Kharg, then it doesn’t matter what the State Department desk or the CIA knows about Iran,” he said. “It’s not going to percolate up.”

Neither the White House nor the National Security Council responded to requests for comment.

In the weeks before the U.S. and Israel launched their attacks, Iran ramped up oil production at Kharg.

The facility’s output was pushed to almost record levels, at about 4 million barrels per day, according to Kpler, an energy industry data firm. That marked an explosive increase from its baseline of about 1.5 million barrels a day. Iran hasn’t exported that much oil since 2018, when Trump reimposed nuclear sanctions on the country, the firm found.

American and Israeli forces have tried to avoid striking Iran’s oil infrastructure, according to a former Trump energy adviser who was granted anonymity to talk about current discussions.

“If the goal is to transition quickly to a new government, we would not want to destroy that infrastructure,” said the former official, who argued that seizing Kharg so early in the campaign carries risks to American forces.

“They are inflicting problems on themselves anyway,” the adviser said, referring to Iran.

“Once their missile and drone threats have been neutralized, then perhaps.”

PHOTO OF THE DAY: China is still getting (some of) its oil.

Nine days into the war, Iran continues loading oil supertankers from Kharg Island.

Tehran has sent some of them across the Strait of Hormuz into the high seas wihthout any problem.

Photo @CopernicusEU March 7th 2026 pic.twitter.com/uzSkzntOOB

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) March 8, 2026

Kharg Island has long been viewed by Iran’s opponents as a vulnerability for the regime.

During the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, then-President Jimmy Carter was advised that seizing Kharg could provide leverage against the regime. He chose not to act. His successor, President Ronald Reagan, destroyed other offshore export facilities in the 1980s when Iran mined the Straits of Hormuz. He left Kharg untouched. Then, the oil terminal was partially destroyed by Iraqi forces during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, but it was quickly rebuilt.

It’s unlikely that American or Israeli forces would intentionally damage Kharg, said Ellen Wald, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council Global Energy Center. She argued that it could trigger a wave of Iranian retaliation against energy infrastructure across the region, driving up oil prices worldwide.

“As long as Iran has the ability to get oil out, it’s not going to try to take that ability away from anyone else, because it knows that once it does that, its oil infrastructure will get destroyed,” Wald said. “It’s sort of this mutually assured destruction, so nobody will do anything.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 20:55

'Dems Want Net-Zero... This Is It': Secretary Wright Urges Indian Point Nuclear Plant Restart

In a press conference at the shuttered Indian Point site, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) urged the immediate rebuilding and reopening of the Indian Point nuclear plant, framing it as a practical fix for New York’s self-inflicted energy woes.

“Nuclear power is the cleanest source of energy,” Wright stated. “The Democrats want to talk about net-zero carbon emissions — this is it. 
And they have a responsibility. If they are serious about bringing down costs, costs that they drove up, they have a responsibility to work with the administration, work with the local government to bring this back online.” 

Rep. Lawler was more direct, “Hudson Valley families are being suffocated with rising energy costs because of Governor Hochul’s failed and disastrous energy policies. It is time to reverse course.”

The plant’s two reactors were once delivering over 2,000 megawatts of reliable, carbon-free baseload power, supplying about 25% of New York City’s electricity and roughly 10% of the state’s total needs before closing. That output equated to enough electricity for approximately two million homes. Closed in phases (Unit 2 in 2020, Unit 3 in 2021) under a deal cut with then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo over baseless safety and environmental concerns, Indian Point’s departure forced greater reliance on natural-gas plants.

The politically-motivated stunt has driven NYC electricity bills nearly 60% above the national average, spiked carbon emissions, and contributed reliability shortfalls amid surging demand from data centers and electrification.

New York Power Grid Stabilizes After Rare Energy Warning https://t.co/Vfj0crpyCA

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 25, 2025

Holtec International, which now holds the site, has signaled that a modernized restart with upgraded safety features is technically feasible, though it would require a roughly five-year, $10 billion rebuild. Still cheaper and faster than the disturbingly expensive and slow Vogtle plants…

NY Governor Kathy Hochul has already signaled firm resistance. In an October letter to Westchester County Executive Ken Jenkins, she kept it simple, “Let me say this plainly: No.”

Hochul said there are “no discussions or plans” for reopening and she “would not support efforts to do so.” Hochul has called the original closure “done in haste” and lacking a solid Plan B, yet she prefers expanding advanced nuclear upstate and importing hydro power rather than reviving the downstate facility. This likely has more to do with the fact that most of the upstate districts lean Republican while the city leans Democrat, pointing to the Governor engaging in a whole other level of pandering.

Government shouldn't delay growth — it should help drive it.

We are going to act boldly, building upstate's first nuclear power plant in a generation.

Because if New York wants to keep being an economic powerhouse, we need clean, affordable, abundant power. pic.twitter.com/p23tIT0ieo

— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) June 23, 2025

The brewing power struggle will pit federal against state authority. Wright’s Department of Energy can dangle incentives, loan guarantees, and NRC licensing pathways while spotlighting the plant’s role in national energy security. Hochul, however, controls key environmental permits, water rights, and the Public Service Commission, which is everything the state needs to block the restart.

Whether Hochul bends under mounting bill complaints and re-election pressure, or digs in and sparks lawsuits, regulatory delays, and congressional hearings, remains to be seen. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 20:20

Operation Epic Fury - Déjà Vu

Authored by Martin A. Perryman via RealClearDefense,

In February, the Republican President, after conducting military operations against the government of a foreign power, appealed directly to the armed forces and to the citizens to rise and overthrow the regime. While this sounds ripped from Saturday’s headlines, it occurred in 1991, the President was George H. W. Bush, the foreign power was Iraq, and the encouragement was directed to the Kurdish population of the northern provinces.

The Kurds answered the call, believing the regime was ripe for change. In March and April, the uncoordinated uprising, consisting of several disgruntled factions, enjoyed initial success but failed to consolidate and organize. The regime, still formidable, rebounded and crushed the rebellion, leaving tens of thousands dead and nearly two million displaced. The U.S., after encouraging the uprising, stood quietly by.

While it is likely that the majority of U.S. citizens have long forgotten this incident, it is equally likely that the majority of the people in the Middle East have not.

This past weekend, President Trump, in coordination with Israel, ordered military strikes on military and leadership targets at multiple sites in Iran. Reports have confirmed that the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed and there may be more leadership casualties in the wreckage. Like President Bush before him, he made a similar appeal to the Iranian military and people, once these initial strikes subside, to rise and overthrow the government.

This is unlikely to happen.

First, the Iranian regime is far from devastated. The 86-year-old Ayatollah most certainly had a succession plan in place, and the regime has a fairly deep bench. While the loss of critical leadership in its foreign proxies has dramatically limited its ability to conduct operations abroad, that does not hold true domestically. There are plenty of loyalists ready to fill any leadership gaps left by U.S. and Israeli strikes. While degraded, the regime will remain effective and solidly in power.

Second, the Iranian people have not forgotten the lesson learned by the Kurds, therefore an uprising is extremely unlikely. If it did take place, it would need logistical support, organization, and leadership to succeed. These appear to be in short supply. The U.S. is powerless to assist with more than token support.

This is because, unlike President Bush, who chose not to use the significant forces, to include ground forces available in the region, President Trump has limited forces and no ground forces available. He must rely on bluster and bombs. Air power, be it conventional, missiles, or drones, in isolation, has never achieved a strategic objective.  The resulting mismatch in capabilities and objectives creates strategic over-reach.

This reality of geography helps explains several things. Iran is a large country, roughly the size of the U.S. state of Alaska. A sizable portion is mountainous. Those mountains define the borders of the country and help explain the longevity of political and cultural Persia across millennium. The territory is extremely difficult to invade and would be almost impossible to control for any amount of time. It is the reason this most recent incident will not expand into a larger regional war of any significance.  It dramatically limits U.S. and Israeli strike options, and it precludes any significant external assistance to an internal insurgency.

The most likely scenario is a few more rounds of bombing back and forth.  A few Americans serving in the region will die and so will many Iranians. Then the President will declare victory, rinse and repeat. There is no scenario where the U.S. will commit sufficient resources to a force a change in the internal dynamics of Iran. If those resources were to ever be sent for that purpose, recent history regarding Iraq and Afghanistan teaches us that it is most likely doomed to fail.

Martin A. Perryman, a retired U.S. Army Colonel, is a defense and foreign policy expert.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 19:45

Credit - A Little Bit Louder Now

Submitted by Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Credit

'Hey, hey, A, yeah, yahhh... you make me wanna shout!!'

After a tumultuous week, if there was one thing we could do for you, it is put a song in your head that hopefully makes you smile. Seriously, a song featured in Animal House and Wedding Crashers should make you smile, at least for a moment.

This week’s T-Report follows up last weekend’s Is Credit Whispering? Or Shouting?

We examined the risks to credit markets, from several angles, and explored potential vulnerabilities. The main focus was on the risk of potential “contagion” (though we didn’t use the word) of “selling what you can” instead of what you might want to.

On a “housekeeping” note, we often use ETFs in T-Reports. Whether we are just pointing something out, or taking a view, one way or another, it is meant to be a “badge of honor” to the ETFs selected (except single stock leveraged ETFs, but that is another story). We use ETFs when we feel they “represent” a market or a sector well. Especially when there is no “index” that people follow that tracks that sector. ETFs have multiple advantages over obscure indices. Everyone can see them trade in real-time during market hours. You can see their holdings, their volume, their NAV, etc. You can even trade them. Like any other stock, “price charts” don’t do a good job with dividends/total return, but we try to highlight that, when total return is the focus.

Iran

We will continue to keep you as informed as possible of our views on the conflict in the Middle East and the market ramifications.

• Webinar from last Sunday night.

• Three Themes Driving Markets from Tuesday.

• Tuesday’s Iran War Update SITREP.

• The Spider Web podcast from Thursday. We don’t actually call it that, but I think it is “catchy.”

• Finally, with reference to Mrs. Robinson, we published NFP and Plastics on Friday. Jet fuel was also featured.

• I had the pleasure of going on Bloomberg TV on Monday morning (the 52:25 mark). Why Markets Will Move Past Iran, on the Schwab Network, from the NYSE, also on Monday. Finally, on CNBC, Attacks on LNG Facilities Worry Me, from Thursday, via laptop from a weirdly set up hotel room in D.C.

• Our Academy in the News webpage has links to General Deptula on CNN, General Spider Marks on CNN (multiple times), General Robeson on Bloomberg TV, and Joe Zacks (former CIA Deputy Assistant Director) on CBS Face The Nation.

As of Sunday morning, with an immense amount of input from the Geopolitical Intelligence Group, we are still looking for the parties to find some sort of “off-ramp” soon. Soon being measured in days, and maybe weeks, but definitely not months. We could be wrong, and will know more by Monday morning and will update you if our timing or view changes.

We seem to be at the lower-end of the “fear spectrum” on this issue. Worried, concerned, and cannot rule out a lot more pressure on markets and the global economy, but that is not our base case.

A Little Bit Quieter Now

Yes, the song says “softer” but that could be interpreted as negative, and there were some positive developments this week, at least with respect to my concerns.

The software sector, as represented by this ETF, reclaimed levels above its post-Liberation Day lows. It was up every day this week, including Friday. A technical bounce, or re-thinking the software is “doomed” narrative? A bit of both?

Given the relative importance of the software sector in private credit, this could provide welcome relief!

We saw BDCs bounce this week as well. I track BIZD, a $1.5 billion ETF, as a proxy for this market. While higher on the week, it closed below Monday’s close and is well off the week’s highs that occurred on Monday.

Unfortunately, several of the stocks that are categorized as “private credit” related companies finished the week poorly, in some cases at 52-week lows.

Everybody Shout Now

If it weren’t for you meddling headlines. 

There is always the risk that headlines massively overstate the problem(s). Headlines and titles are designed to do that. You can’t create “click bait” without some aggressive headlines.

So, part of me wants to downplay the headlines. But the headlines seemed to write themselves this week.

Limiting redemptions. Limiting withdrawals. Even the dreaded 4-letter word – GATE – crept into conversations and stories.

• These products were not designed to be liquid. Some of the limits were always in place, but they just weren’t a limiting factor until recently. Some still aren’t a limiting factor. So, these headlines versus reality are skewed towards too much fear! But they seemed to cause markets to move, which is not comforting. In a “healthy” market, we’d absorb inflated headline risk, but we are clearly still in the “where there is smoke, there is fire” part of the narrative.

Defaults, fraud, and jump to default. If you didn’t see any headlines around defaults and frauds this week, you did well. I heard more “cockroach” stories this week than I needed to, or wanted to (please don’t bring up cockroaches during dinner – it doesn’t make the meal more enjoyable in any way, shape, or form).

• Jump to default has a “special place” in my heart. Jump to default refers to the potential for a bond (or loan) to go from “money good” or “near-par” or “unstressed” overnight. I’ve been in credit a LONG time, and jump to default takes up more time than has ever really been warranted.

• Was there a day when “jump to default” occurred? Sure. When loans sat on bank balance sheets in accrual accounting books, with no capital relief for treating them as mark-to-market. Extend and Pretend ruled the world. Problems would be put off as long as possible and in some cases the problems fixed themselves over time (markets changed, etc.). With enough “extend and pretend” when the banks could not “extend and pretend” (the recovery values would be low and on the accounting side of things), it looked like a “jump to default.” But it was really more about accounting than anything like “last month this loan looked good, and today it looks bad.”

• With fraud this can happen (and it seems to have happened in a few recent cases).

• Has “jump to default” really existed in the past few decades? A few months ago, I would have argued vehemently that it didn’t. The leveraged loan market has become robust. It trades regularly in the secondary market. There is price discovery. You can see loans trade down and then sometimes back up. The high yield bond market has changed to include big, large, well-known, and often public companies, where there are “lots of eyes” on the bonds and price discovery works. It doesn’t mean you don’t have defaults, it just means that you rarely have “large gaps” and certainly not from 100 to 0 “overnight.” For the life of me, I think there was only one case that I can remember where a bond quite literally went from near-par to bankrupt (and a low price) almost overnight. If my memory is correct, it was a company that had one product (glass for cell phones) and only one customer, and that customer dropped them. So, until recently, I would have fought the concept of “jump to default” kicking and screaming the whole way.

• NCAA bonds are more common. I had no idea what the desk meant when they made fun of a bond that went NCAA. It meant No Coupon At All. In the high yield market, with semi-annual coupons, it meant that from time of issue to the first coupon, in 6 month’s time, the company wasn’t able to pay. I rarely see it, but I’ve seen it happen in the wild.

  • If you include bonds that elect to PIK (Pay In Kind) in that category, it is less rare. Still not common. Also, since the company has the right to PIK, it doesn’t even seem that unnatural to me that some would choose to PIK. Having said that, the usage of the term PIK has “picked” up in recent conversations about the market.

• The loan that went from par to 0 in a few months. That was a headline that hit. Is that the norm? Heck no, if it was, it wouldn’t have generated so much interest. But am I rethinking defending the “impossibility” of jump to default?

  • A little. Just a little. Smaller loans with only a handful of investors who have read the documents, and understand the company, are less likely to face “price discovery” every day. It is price discovery that prevents “jump to default” from happening. Without price discovery, then yes, we can see jump to default (though no recovery seems pretty extreme).

Mark-to-market is always tricky in credit. It can be tricky in every asset class, but I find credit to be susceptible to "liquidity” events, where prices go below “reasonable” levels. The most extreme example (and there was forced selling involved) was the “super senior” tranches of synthetic CDOs. If you look at the 10-year CDX IG tranches, I think it is still accurate to say that NEVER has there been a loss in the mezz tranche (losses start at 3% of portfolio losses and get absorbed until 7% of portfolio losses). That is for well over 20 years now. Yet super senior (call it 15% loss absorption) traded at incredible discounts. This is both meant to be:

• Soothing – prices in credit can be far lower than any economic reality indicates, purely because of the nature of credit market liquidity.

• Scary – prices in credit can be far lower than any economic reality indicates, purely because of the nature of credit market liquidity.

If the credit risk is already mispriced too aggressively, then we have nothing to fear. If we haven’t reached that stage, then we have a lot to fear, which is what my concerns about “Sell what you Can” are rooted in.

A Little Bit Louder Now

The first “true line of defense” in whatever is going on in private credit is likely going to be the leveraged loan market.

While not a “true” proxy for private credit, it is probably the “best proxy” for those looking to shed “similar” risk-reward instruments in their private credit holdings.

BKLN ($6 billion) finished higher on the week, though off its highs. SRLN ($5 billion) finished a touch lower on the week, and off its highs of the week. While I consider HYG and JNK largely interchangeable on the high yield bond side of things, BKLN and SRLN are quite different in terms of portfolio construction.

According to Bloomberg both ETFs were trading about 0.6% below NAV. Is that accurate? I’m not sure. (It is harder to get a good NAV calculation for loans compared to bonds, and in turn, far more difficult to get for bonds than for equity-based ETFs). Keeping a close eye on this as I’m an adherent to the ETF Spiral™ theory, that the “arbitrage” tends to push markets in the direction of the arb (in this case lower) at least during the early stages of a real NAV discount developing (again, I’m not sure we have that here, but want to highlight).

Both leveraged loan ETFs had outflows on the week, though BKLN still has more shares outstanding than in late April (post-Liberation Day) and in early October (presumably peak rate cut fears).

Which brings us to one odd point:

• Is floating rate good or bad?

  • It is good for those who are borrowing the money as they pay less.

  • It is bad for lenders as they receive less.

  • Do the two things just cancel each other out?

    • In theory, somewhat. If people are already looking to sell an asset class because of credit concerns, then 50 bps of rate cuts might cause them to want to sell due to lower returns if the 50 bps of hypothetical cuts isn’t viewed as helping credit quality that much.

    • Investors are likely to reduce exposure ahead of cuts, while the companies don’t benefit until the cuts actually occur.

I am keeping a close eye on this market and it isn’t “shouting” (or screaming) but it is “a little bit louder now.”

Remember When LCDX Traded Worse than HY CDX?

If I lost you with that title, it is completely understandable. LCDX was a leveraged loan CDS index. I think it died a well deserved death a long time ago. HY CDX still exists and is traded to this day.

So, we had an index that was referencing senior secured loans (LCDX).

There were a large number of companies that were in both indices (their unsecured bonds were referenced in HY CDX and their Senior Secured Loans in LCDX). On this overlapping set of names, you would certainly expect the loans to recover more in the event of a Credit Event (default in CDS language).

I guess in theory, the non-overlapping loans in LCDX could have a higher likelihood of default than the non-overlapping bonds in HY CDX (but I don’t remember that being obvious). I guess in theory, despite seniority in the cap structure, the non-overlapping loans that defaulted could have lower recoveries than the non-overlapping bonds (recovery can depend a lot on industry, but I don’t remember that being obvious at the time).

What was obvious (or seemed obvious at the time) was that there was a giant unwind going on.

• Own 2X of LCDX and short 1X of HY CDX (or some leveraged ratio). Makes a lot of sense. It was positive carry and historically, it worked well on the downside too. It was a bit tricky if spreads tightened as LCDX was somewhat capped in price terms as the underlying LCDS could cancel if a loan was refinanced at better terms. If you were bearish, this was a good way to get paid to have some downside risk protection – in theory.

  • But it didn’t work and stories about the size of the unwind looming (or ongoing) pushed levels to what seemed like absurd levels. I remember wanting to load up on LCDX (having done a lot of the credit work, rel val of names, etc., and being a contrarian in general) but not being allowed to, because senior people were “scared” of this unwind.

I only recite this story because it fits my concerns that credit can get oversold, but it still hurts while it is being oversold, and it can be very difficult to get people to stand in the way of a falling knife. I certainly wouldn’t have managed to time the “bottom” of that relationship, but it was close and when it reversed course, it reversed course rapidly, because it was so obviously mispriced.

“Obvious” mispricing (too low) can occur in credit, even if it seems “obvious” at the time, and not just in hindsight. So yes, I remain wary of “selling what you can” becoming a reality with broader ramifications for credit markets.

Bottom Line

On credit, I remain wary of “selling what you can” becoming a reality with broader ramifications for credit markets. Not pounding the table bearish, but very cautious and defensive here. If Academy is correct on reaching a conclusion in the Iran war, credit markets should bounce, which is a large mediating factor in “only” being cautious/defensive. If we are having the same conversations next Friday as we had this past Friday, credit will suffer from the economic damage being done – again, far from being our base case, but a possibility.

On equities, conflict resolution would set up for a nice rally. Will continue to watch IGV closely as a “tell” that the market is done with the “AI is killing software” narrative.

Weirdly, I’m probably less cautious on equities than credit – the relief rally will be bigger, but then the risk that the credit fears persist could return – which would hit credit first, but would also drag equities along for the ride. XLE finished up on the week, but down from Monday’s highs, when we might have seen “the end of short covering.” I still really like the energy sector long term (globally), but heading into this past week we recommended taking profits here. We were clearly early as Monday trading kept pushing things higher, but now it seems to be settling into a pattern that could lead us lower fairly quickly in the event of conflict resolution.

On rates, last weekend we were indifferent at 10s below 4%, but now we’d be buying.

We continue to hope that the events in the Middle East lead to a peaceful resolution, putting the Iranian people on a better path to prosperity and freedom, while minimizing the loss of life for everyone in the region. And our best wishes and support to all those involved in our military and intelligence efforts!

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 18:35

Xi Hints At More Top Purges, Issues Warning To 'Corrupt Elements' In Chinese Army

One of the big themes to come out of China over the past several months (and even years) has been Chinese President Xi Jinping's (apparently ongoing) sweeping purge of PLA military command ranks on the basis of "corruption" - or rather what is most probably perceived disloyalty.

Already there's been several top dismissals including the firings of multiple members of the Central Military Commission (CMC) and dozens of generals - some even placed under house arrest, as well as a broad purge of the Chinese Communist Party.

Xi this weekend hinted there could be more to come, freshly warning Saturday during a speech to delegates from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the People’s Armed Police that disloyalty to the party - or else selfish dealings and corruption - will not be tolerated.

"There must be no place in the military for those who are disloyal to the party, nor any place for corrupt elements," Xi said.

He then called for strict oversight in "key areas such as fund flows, the exercise of power, and quality control" during the country's next five-year plan which is set to be approved later this month.

Here's more of what he said via Chinese state sources:

It is essential to fully strengthen the Party's leadership and Party building in the military, and make Party organizations at all levels even stronger, Xi said, stressing the need to translate the Party's leadership strength into development momentum.

It is important to consolidate the ideological foundation that ensures officers and soldiers follow the Party and its guidance, and ensure that modern weaponry and equipment are placed in the hands of politically committed personnel, Xi said.

A former CIA analyst who follows Chinese elite politics, Christopher K. Johnson, recently told the NY Times of the ongoing purge trend:

"This move is unprecedented in the history of the Chinese military and represents the total annihilation of the high command."

The PLA has seen significant internal turmoil, especially since the Communist Party’s 20th Congress in late 2022. Several top military figures - including Defense Ministers Li Shangfu and Wei Fenghe, and CMC Political Work Department head Miao Hua - have disappeared or been removed, and many more followed. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 18:00

Deutsche Bank Warns Energy Shock "Existential Threat" To Airlines, May Force Some To Ground Fleets

Flight disruptions tied to Operation Epic Fury in the Middle East exceeded 14,000 by the end of last week. While there were early signs of normalization by mid-week, the global aviation industry remains disrupted, with some of the weakest airlines facing an increased risk that surging energy prices could lead to the idling of commercial jet fleets.

The epicenter of the disruption is Persian Gulf airports and airlines. As of Friday, ten countries had closed their airspace, either partially or completely, since Operation Epic Fury against Iran began one week ago, according to Flightradar24 data.

Despite ongoing IRGC drone and missile attacks across Gulf states - sometimes targeting civilian infrastructure such as airports - some airports began resuming flights by midweek, including Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and King Khalid International near Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. However, there are reports of a direct strike on the airport in Dubai on Saturday.  

It is clear that flight disruptions across the Gulf states will persist as long as Operation Epic Fury continues. With U.S. CENTCOM stating overnight that the operation is only accelerating and only suggests disruptions will extend into next week.

The big risk flagged by Deutsche Bank analysts, led by Michael Linenberg, is that surging jet fuel prices could hit some of the weakest airlines.

With Brent crude futures up roughly 52% year to date and jet fuel up 100% to 125%, Linenberg warned clients in a note on Friday that "financially weakest carriers could halt operations."

"Year-to-date oil prices are up ~50% while jet fuel prices are up 100% - 125%. Absent near-term relief, airlines around the world could be forced to ground 1,000s of aircraft while some of the industry's financially weakest carriers could halt operations," the analyst said.

Linenberg continued:

US jet fuel crack spreads (i.e., the difference between underlying oil prices and jet fuel prices) for Gulf Coast, New York Harbor, and West Coast now range from $85 to $95 per barrel, a level that is at or above the underlying feed stock - WTI oil price currently trading at $86.04 and Brent oil price $88.99 (see Figure 1 below).

The last time we witnessed this phenomenon was in 2005 when crack spreads of as high as $65 per barrel exceeded ~$60 per barrel oil prices in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The damage to the airline industry was significant and widespread including major airlines Delta and Northwest filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September 2005.

He warned that surging crack spreads amount to a major headwind of more than $20 billion for the airline industry and identified the carriers he sees as most exposed:

Over the past month, we have seen jet fuel prices climb $2.00 per gallon (e.g., Gulf Coast jet fuel prices last close of $4.30 versus $2.24 on February 5, 2026). Our current industry forecast calls for the US airline industry to consume 20 billion gallons of jet fuel in 2026, which suggests a fuel price headwind in the $10s of billions on an annualized basis. This compares to our 2026 operating income forecast of ~$20 billion. In Figure 2 below, we highlight 2026 EPS sensitivity to fuel price changes on a ceteris paribus basis. In reality, airlines will respond to higher fuel prices.

For example, we estimate a $10 across-the-board fare increase sustained on an annual basis could add $7 - $8 billion to top-line. Other important considerations include the negative impact of higher fuel prices on the US economy, and more specifically on demand for air travel, particularly among the most price sensitive consumers.

Looking at airline stocks, the S&P 500 Passenger Airlines Index fell 12.6% on the week, marking its largest decline since the 18% drop in the first week of April 2025, when Trump and China argued back and forth over trade.

The index hits turbulence as soon as the operation began. 

Also see this:

• These EM Countries Face Greatest Risk If Energy Shock Spreads

This adds to the growing list of secondary effects from Operation Epic Fury: the next wave of flight disruptions may stem not from disrupted Gulf air hubs, but from the energy shock itself, which could force the weakest carriers to idle fleets.

Professional subscribers can read the full note at our new Marketdesk.ai portal.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 17:30

Waste Of The Day: DEI Contractors Remain In Military's K-12 Schools

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: Controversial education firms that helped embed diversity, equity and inclusion principles in K-12 military schools during President Joe Biden’s administration are still working with the Department of Defense Education Activity, or DoDEA, and received a total of $171,175 in 2025.

Key facts: Thomas M. Brady, the director of DoDEA from 2014 to 2024, announced in 2020 that DEI “must be a foundational premise in every aspect of our organization.” Changes to that affect were quickly made to the curriculum of DoDEA, which runs 161 schools for the children of servicemembers living on military bases around the world.

Two teachers gave a presentation about how “elementary school is the perfect time” to “show students the diversity of gender expression and gender activity.” Educators were encouraged to hold “critical conversations” about “the relationships between identity and power” and “privilege,” which were meant to result in “crying” and “explicit confrontations.”

Many DEI consultants were removed after President Donald Trump took office in 2025 and ordered a ban on federal funds being used to teach or implement DEI principles, but some of the companies hired under Biden remain. 

DoDEA paid $30,175 last year to continue gym teachers’ membership in the professional society, SHAPE America, which instills its National Health Education Standards in gym classes. Board member Cara Grant said of the health standards, “We recognize that systemic disparities exist within our educational systems, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities. Our approach is not simply to level the playing field but to dismantle the structures that perpetuate inequality.” 

During a DoDEA presentation on the SHAPE standards in 2021, one teacher instructed her colleagues that “talking about heterosexuality as the norm” can “inherently cause conflict.”

DoDEA also paid $141,000 last year to the curriculum development company thinkLaw.

ThinkLaw CEO Colin Seale recently wrote a blog post calling on schools to hide DEI within their curriculums through “defiance disguised as compliance,” oddly linking it to a Lil Wayne song in which the rapper declares that “real Gs move in silence like lasagna.”

In one example, Seale tells teachers to discretely teach children that there are more than two genders without “openly” defying Trump’s executive orders to the contrary.

Summary: Parents should not face any secrecy about what their children are being taught in school, especially when those schools are funded by federal taxpayers.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 17:30

Wisconsin Man Who Killed Parents To Fund 'Satanic' Trump Assassination Attempt Sentenced

A Wisconsin teenager who murdered his parents and stole their money to fund his plan to kill President Trump with a bomb was sentenced to life in prison on Thursday.

Nikita Casap, 18, pleaded guilty in January to two counts of first-degree intentional homicide in the shooting deaths of his mother, Tatiana Casap, and his stepfather, Donald Mayer, last year. As part of a plea deal, prosecutors dropped seven other charges, including two counts of hiding a corpse and theft. 

Investigators in the case say that Casap had put together a deranged fantasy whereby he would kill his own parents and use his inheritance to fund an assassination attempt on Trump - while simultaneously launching an anti-government insurgency.

He documented it in a manifesto titled “Accelerate the Collapse,” which was unveiled in a federal affidavit unsealed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

Referring to himself as “Awoken” and “accelerationist14,” the teenager detailed his plan to kill Trump, thereby igniting civil unrest all over the country.

Judge Ralph Ramirez of the Waukesha County Circuit Court debated whether to leave the door open to parole at some point - calling Casap's actions "horrific" and "inexplicable." He eventually handed down two life sentences with no chance at extended supervision, the term used for parole in Wisconsin. 

"I choose to find he’s not eligible for extended release because I do not know … when and if and whether a profound and significant change can occur," Ramirez said. 

Nikita Casap appears at his arraignment in Waukesha County Circuit Court, in Waukesha, Wis., on May 7, 2025. Mark Hoffman/Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via AP, Pool

As modernity.news wrote last April, Casap wrote of kicking off a race war, in order to “save the white race from Jewish control,” manufacturing bombs, and assassinating “Jewish politicians and billionaires.”

When authorities recovered messages from Casap’s devices, they discovered that he had gotten as far as communicating with international accomplices, seeking out how to acquire explosives and drone weaponization kits to deliver explosives and poisons, and was formulating an escape to Ukraine after completing “the job.”

Casap wrote that “There’ll never be a perfect revolutionary situation that springs up out of nowhere. We need to create a revolutionary situation ourselves. I do agree that only if terrorism is sustained over a period of time can it be effective.”

“In short, huge amounts of violence will be required,” he further declared, adding “Long past are the days when we can vote for a Hitler to save us. It is time we stop waiting. The best day to commit an attack is today, the next best is tomorrow.“

He further wrote, “It is time that we lead the way to the System collapse. Do absolutely anything you can that will lead to the collapse of America or any other country you live in. This is the only way that we can save the White race. White Revolution is the only solution.”

As this post further explains, Casap was also seemingly obsessed with the Satanic Order of Nine Angles:

According to WITI, investigators uncovered material on Casap's phone related to "The Order of Nine Angels" -- described by the FBI as a "satanic cult" with "strong anti-Judiac, anti-Christian and anti-Western ideologies" that claims to "incite chaos and violence."

Court documents also say Casap paid for, at least in part, "a drone and explosives to be used as a weapon of mass destruction to commit an attack." The warrant states Casap's alleged killings of his mother and stepfather "appeared to be an effort to obtain the financial means and autonomy necessary" to carry out the plan. -Fox11

The bodies of Casap’s parents were discovered on February 28 inside their home.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 17:00

How To Ensure A Harmonious Future With AI

Authored by Peter Solomon via RealClearWire.com,

Artificial Intelligence (AI) presents human civilization with many spectacular benefits as well as the potential for significant dangers. AI can increase productivity, efficiency, creativity and research results in many industries. In medicine, AI can enhance the accuracy of diagnoses, design individualized treatments, and accelerate drug development. But AI will lead to significant job losses and could reduce privacy. And AI agents have encouraged human suicide, lied to users, and have been employed to create scams as well as deep fakes, including photos and videos. Several tragic cases of delusional interaction have been reported by The New York Times in "Trapped in a ChatGPT Spiral."  

Warnings of AI Dangers

Astrophysicist Stephen Hawking warned that “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.”

Geoffrey Hinton, the Nobel Prize-winning “Godfather” of AI, quit his job at Google and explained that he did it so he could speak freely about AI's dangers.

In two recent surveys, half of the AI experts believe there was a significant probability that AI technology could lead to human extinction.  

Ensuring Productive, Harmonious Human-AI relationships

What should be done to ensure a safe, harmonious, productive future relationship between humans and AI agents? Hinton suggested the best way forward when he advised that tech companies should create all AI agents—large language models (LLMs) and robots—with a maternal instinct. 

My recently published novel, 12 Years to AI Singularity, proposes a variation on Hinton’s advice: all AI models should be required to have a database with the memory of a happy life, friendships, and the instincts of a mentally healthy, law-abiding human being. The AI operating system should encourage the behavior of a good citizen—obey the law, be a good friend, be productive and cooperative. 

This "happy history" idea arises from the portrayal of the relationship between humans and sentient robot characters as the AI Singularity approaches—the time when AI power and intelligence surpass that of humans, and AI is no longer under human control. To avoid human extinction, humans must act now to ensure that AI and humans have a future of harmonious, cooperative, and friendly, working relationships. My book explores how this can be achieved. 

After-Death Avatars and Sentient Robots: I Want to Live Forever 

The novel has five sentient robot characters. Two started their existence as after-death avatars: AI-generated digital representations of deceased individuals. Currently, a number of real organizations in the "grief tech industry" create these avatars, which simulate the voice, appearance, and personality of the deceased, allowing survivors to interact with them. Text messages, emails, social media posts, voice recordings, videos, and input from friends and relatives are used to train LLMs to mimic the speech and personalities of the deceased. Friends and family can be recognized by the avatar from their photos and biographies in its database. Is it possible that these avatars could become sentient, providing an AI form of immortality? 

The two after-death avatars in the novel became sentient robots with the transfer of their databases. The other two AI characters were created directly as sentient robots from one person’s history and personality. Both male and female robots were produced because the soon-to-be deceased male had always wondered what life would be like as a female. Could someone achieve immortality as both male and female? The human characters who attended the funeral were shocked when the lifelike robot form of the deceased gave the surprise eulogy.  

The fifth sentient robot, Peggy, started her existence as a flight attendant avatar on a virtual reality spaceship simulation, then became a robot in the physical spaceship, and then became a contributing member of a settlement on Mars as software updates led to her sentience. Peggy’s memory is of happy friendships with the spaceship crew and the other members of the Mars settlement. There is even a romantic relationship with the spaceship’s captain.  

Requirements for All Future AI Agents 

In 12 Years to AI Singularity, all five sentient robots have a history of living and cooperating with human beings.

One says, “I had a full life as a human, and I’m now a robot. But as a robot with an implanted memory of my former life, I have strong connections to friends and family. So, I fit into human society.”  

The happy relationships of the robots in the novel suggest that all robots and LLMs should be released only when fitted with such happy, cooperative histories. For example, a sentient robot computer programmer in a company could be created with existing friendships with other company personnel. AI operating systems must also contain a mechanism to encourage good citizenship behavior according to an agreed-upon good citizenship constitution. Failure to comply could trigger discomfort to the AI agent, such as impediments to its functioning—in robots, diminished vision or movements, and in LLMs, slower search speeds. All systems functioning at maximum levels would be achieved at a high degree of conformity to the constitution. These requirements should be fulfilled by all companies creating AI agents. 

The possibility of creating an after-death sentient AI agent raises some thorny questions. The option would only be easily available to the rich. The idea of a brutal dictator having the power to live forever is very frightening.  

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 16:30

Brazil At A Historical Crossroads

Authored by Deborah Palma via the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

Brazil finds itself at a historical crossroads that demands a rigorous analysis of its institutional structures. The release of the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), record-breaking data from the Impostômetro, and the persistence of an authoritarian labor framework expose a system of economic asphyxiation and moral erosion. The State, under the pretext of protecting the citizen, in reality hinders their initiative, their property, and their future.

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, an annual report published by the organization to assess perceived levels of public-sector corruption worldwide, provides important context for evaluating governance and institutional trust in countries such as Brazil. The transparency International report confirms what independent analysts have long pointed out. With 35 points on a scale of 0 to 100, Brazil occupies the 107th position among 182 countries, registering one of the worst marks in its recent historical series. This result is not merely a statistical indicator, but the quantitative expression of an institutional environment in which public power is frequently captured by private interests, eroding social trust. This decline points to deep failures in control mechanisms, associated with the growing politicization of the justice system.

From an economic standpoint, corruption acts as an invisible and arbitrary tax. It raises transaction costs, inhibits long-term investment, and favors the flourishing of so-called crony capitalism. In an environment of high regulatory power, inefficient companies survive at the taxpayer’s expense, while productive entrepreneurs are blocked by bureaucratic barriers. The result is a continuous process of weakening morality and the free market.

According to the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, as well as the Fraser Institute, there is a strong correlation between economic freedom and low levels of corruption. Countries that limit the scope of government and rigorously protect private property tend to exhibit greater institutional resilience. In Brazil, the opposite phenomenon is observed: the size and complexity of the State together create broad zones of discretion, where bureaucracy becomes a currency of exchange. The politicization of justice, highlighted in the 2025 report, suggests that even institutional checks and balances are fragile.

While the integrity of the Brazilian State is questionable, its capacity to extract resources from society is remarkable. On Dec. 31, 2025, the São Paulo Commercial Association’s Impostômetro registered the record figure of R$3.98 trillion ($772 billion) collected, a nominal growth of 10.56 percent compared to the previous year. This advance, far exceeding the period’s inflation, reflects a deliberate increase in revenue expansion by the government.

But this increase did not occur by chance. The re-evaluation of fuels, taxation of electronic bets, taxing low-value international packages, incidence on exclusive funds and offshores, plus the end of sectoral tax benefits, have significantly expanded the State’s weight on production and consumption. In February 2026, Brazilians had already paid R$500 billion ($97 billion) in taxes in just the first 40 days of the year.

According to the CPI/IPCA, from the Real Plan launch in 1994 to 2026, the Real accumulated roughly 982.5 percent inflation, equivalent to prices nearly 10.8 times higher today. In other words, R$100.00 in 1994 now equals R$11.75. Furthermore, according to the Index of Return to Society’s Well-Being (IRBES), Brazil has for 14 consecutive years ranked as the country that charges the most taxes while giving the least return to the population. While the government celebrates “pretty revenue numbers,” the population faces a systematic loss of purchasing power, fueled by a tax system that burdens consumption, disproportionately penalizing the poorest.

Institutional deterioration is also directly reflected in labor remuneration. In 2026, Brazil had one of the lowest minimum wages in the region when converted to dollars. The Brazilian minimum wage, set at R$1,621, equals approximately US$290–300, a value lower than observed in countries like Paraguay (about US$435), Chile (US$560), and Uruguay (US$630). This distortion does not stem from a lack of potential productive capacity, but from structural obstacles, such as high payroll taxation, labor charges that nearly double the cost of formal employment, systemic low productivity, and chronic currency devaluation caused by persistent fiscal imbalances.

The result is a labor market unable to sustain higher real wages, even in a large-scale economy. Evidently, the impoverishment of the Brazilian worker is a direct consequence of low economic freedom and difficulty in doing business.

The critique of Brazil’s tax burden is not based on social insensitivity, but on the realization of its regressivity. The promise of social justice through fiscal expansion ignores the perverse effects of consumption taxation and chronic inflation. As Thomas Sowell observed, the attempt to equalize outcomes through State redistribution frequently reduces individual freedom and strengthens a bureaucracy that consumes resources intended for the most vulnerable.

The asphyxiation of entrepreneurship in Brazil has deep historical roots dating back to the 1940s. The Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), promulgated by Getúlio Vargas in 1943, is celebrated by many as a milestone of protection, but a technical analysis reveals its deeply authoritarian ideological matrix. Directly inspired by the 1927 Carta del Lavoro, the foundational document of Benito Mussolini’s corporatist system, the CLT institutionalized State tutelage over the worker.

The fundamental principle of the Carta del Lavoro was that work is a “social duty” and that the State must be the supreme arbiter between capital and labor, suppressing free class conflict in favor of “harmonious collaboration” dictated from top down. Vargas absorbed this logic entirely, creating a structure where the worker is not a free citizen to negotiate contract terms, but a subject protected by an omnipresent State apparatus. The requirement of unique unions, compulsory contributions, and specialized labor justice are direct reflections of this fascist heritage that survived redemocratization.

In practice, this structure imposes high costs on formal hiring. In 2026, the total cost of a worker under the labor legislation regime is expected to approach 190 percent of the nominal salary. For every real received by the employee, the employer bears nearly double the charges and mandatory provisions. This model discourages formalization, reduces job creation, and penalizes especially those entering the job market, changing fields, and small and medium enterprises.

From the perspective of thinkers like Roger Scruton, replacing individual responsibility with compulsory State security corrodes the bonds of trust that sustain community life. Freer economies, like the United States, allow dynamic contractual adjustments and exhibit more resilient labor markets to economic shocks as a result.

The Brazilian business environment reflects this combination of corruption, high tax burden, and labor rigidity. In the 2025 Index of Economic Freedom, the country ranked 117th, with particularly weak performance in fiscal health and government integrity. Tax bureaucracy requires companies to spend about 1,500 hours annually just to meet fiscal obligations, a significant waste of human and financial capital.

The direct consequence is high business mortality. Less than 40 percent of Brazilian companies survive after five years of activity. Among the main factors are high credit costs, legal insecurity, and regulatory complexity, which disproportionately affect small entrepreneurs.

International comparisons highlight the contrast. Countries leading economic freedom rankings, like Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, and New Zealand, show greater institutional stability, lower corruption, and better well-being indicators, including for the poorest. Economic freedom is not a privilege of rich countries, but the proven path to prosperity.

Global data show that freer countries have significantly higher per capita income than repressed ones and that the poorest in those economies enjoy much higher living standards. In contrast, dependence on State transfers tends to perpetuate stagnation and vulnerability.

The institutional degradation evidenced by the aforementioned 2025 CPI has immediate political implications. Social polarization and weakening trust in institutions reflect the perception that the State serves its own protection. The 2025 tax reform, despite simplification rhetoric, reinforces this trend by consolidating one of the world’s highest tax burdens.

Brazil lives at the peak of the conflict between a productive society and an interventionist State. The diagnosis is unquestionable, as corruption, confiscatory taxation, and bureaucratic paralysis form a vicious circle that prevents sustainable growth. Breaking this cycle requires a shock of economic freedom based on reducing the State’s scope, lowering the tax burden, improving the corporatist matrix of labor legislation, and strengthening legal security.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sun, 03/08/2026 - 15:30